Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 25, 2024, 9:40 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Which of these is more dispespectful to "the troops"?
#61
RE: Which of these is more dispespectful to "the troops"?
On another thread the issue of Hispanics came up and I said that the government always treated them as whites.  Others disagreed.  In WWII they were given far superior roles than blacks were.

For example =

"Among the Hispanics who played an instrumental role as a commander during the conflict was Brigadier General Elwood R. "Pete" Quesada, (1904–1993). Quesada, (who eventually would become a lieutenant general), was assigned as a brigadier general in October 1940 to intelligence in the Office of the Chief of Air Corps. He became commanding general of the 9th Fighter Command where he established advanced headquarters on the Normandy beachhead on D-Day plus one, and directed his planes in aerial cover and air support for the Allied invasion of the European continent. He was the foremost proponent of "the inherent flexibility of air power", a principle he helped prove during World War II.

In December 1942, Quesada took the First Air Defense Wing to North Africa. Shortly thereafter, he was given command of the XII Fighter Command and in this capacity would work out the mechanics of close air support and Army-Air Force cooperation.

First Lieutenant Oscar F. Perdomo, (1919–1976), the son of Mexican parents, was born in El Paso, Texas. When the war broke out, Perdomo joined the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) as an aviation cadet and was trained to pilot the P-47 Thunderbolt. After receiving his pilot training, he was assigned to the 464th Fighter Squadron, which was part of the 507th Fighter Group that was sent to the Pacific Island of Ie Shima off the west coast of Okinawa.

The atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan on August 9, 1945, but while the Allies awaited Japan's response to the demand to surrender, the war continued. On August 13, 1945, 1st Lt. Perdomo shot down four Nakajima Ki-43 "Oscar" fighters and one Yokosuka K5Y "Willow" Type 93 biplane trainer. This action took place near Keijo/Seoul, Korea when 38 Thunderbolts of the 507th Fighter Group encountered approximately 50 enemy aircraft. This action was Lt. Perdomo's tenth and final combat mission, and the five confirmed victories made him an "Ace in a Day" and earned him the distinction of being the last "Ace" of World War II. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for extraordinary heroism in action and the Air Medal with one oak leaf cluster.

Capt. Manuel John "Pete" Fernandez, was the third-leading American ace in the Korean War. Fernandez had 14.5 kills during his 9 months in Korea. Prior to this Capt Fernandez, who joined the Air Force's predecessor, the USAAF during WW II, was an advanced instructor at Nellis Air Force Base Gunnery School in Las Vegas, NV."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanics_..._Air_Force

Heck, they even let the Japanese fly WW2 combat missions.  But they had a real hard-on against black citizens.
Reply
#62
RE: Which of these is more dispespectful to "the troops"?
All you're telling us is that The Gov was never as hard on the messicans as you would have preferred. Pussy race traitors!
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#63
RE: Which of these is more dispespectful to "the troops"?
(July 6, 2018 at 3:49 am)Khemikal Wrote: All you're telling us is that The Gov was never as hard on the messicans as you would have preferred. Pussy race traitors!

What I've written is that the government has always treated Mexican as white people.  It's some of the other whites who don't recognize them as whites that is the problem.  

The earlier contention by another poster was that we were basically fighting WW2 for human rights.  I called BS on that claim and provided supporting evidence.  Hell, the Nazi and Confederate armies was more integrated with black people than the WW2 American military was.  It was Jim Crow to the bone.  The only reason it was integrated after WW2 was because the commies were going to make a big issue out of our hypocrisy. If we had been fighting for human rights the government would have had to kill 70% of the American population at that time (including almost all of the politicians as well as the military itself).
Reply
#64
RE: Which of these is more dispespectful to "the troops"?
America may not have been a shining example of racial non-discrimination at home, there is no doubt the plaurity if not majority of American opinion concerning events abroad during WWII and after sympathized more with the non-white subjects of European colonial empires than with their white overlords, particularly in areas over which American sought to expand its own influence.

Predominant opinion of American foreign policy establishment was while maintenance of white European rule in area of predominant non-white population could be helpful in the short run for suppressing native pro-Soviet movements, over the long run undermining white European rule and supporting native but pro-American rule provides the venue for American aggrandizement.    Furthermore American interests are believed better served by empowering such local rule rather than treating them as total puppets.   America achieved and maintained her own hegemonic status in the pacific in the post war period largely by undermining white European colonial influence in Asia pacific and supporting non-white local governments, knowing the weakened states of European colonial powers as a result of wwii, and the threat of communism and their need for American support on that front, would prevent the European colonial powers from being able to complain.

America has also got along reasonably well with most of the non-white regimes that rose to supplant white influences, and in many cases smoothed and facilitated their rise to the status of powers nearly equal or equal to predominantly white powers, including the US herself.  

So America more effectively advanced human rights of non-whites than any other power during WWII and after WWII. None of these things were done solely for high minded ideals.  But they were done and their results eventuated nonetheless.
Reply
#65
RE: Which of these is more dispespectful to "the troops"?
(July 6, 2018 at 9:07 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: America may not have been a shining example of racial non-discrimination at home, there is no doubt the plaurity if not majority of American opinion concerning events abroad during WWII and after sympathized more with the non-white subjects of European colonial empires than with their white overlords, particularly in areas over which American sought to expand its own influence.

Predominant opinion of American foreign policy establishment was while maintenance of white European rule in area of predominant non-white population could be helpful in the short run for suppressing native pro-Soviet movements, over the long run undermining white European rule and supporting native but pro-American rule provides the venue for American aggrandizement.    Furthermore American interests are believed better served by empowering such local rule rather than treating them as total puppets.   America achieved and maintained her own hegemonic status in the pacific in the post war period largely by undermining white European colonial influence in Asia pacific and supporting non-white local governments, knowing the weakened states of European colonial powers as a result of wwii, and the threat of communism and their need for American support on that front, would prevent the European colonial powers from being able to complain.

America has also got along reasonably well with most of the non-white regimes that rose to supplant white influences, and in many cases smoothed and facilitated their rise to the status of powers nearly equal or equal to predominantly white powers, including the US herself.  

So America more effectively advanced human rights of non-whites than any other power during WWII and after WWII.  None of these things were done solely for high minded ideals.  But they were done and their results eventuated nonetheless.

The record is spotty at best.  We might have done "good" in Japan & South Korea but Vietnam and the Phillipines were disasters.  And we are still pissed at Haiti because they kicked out the French in 1804 so we keep it as the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.  Some of our religious nutjobs think that they made a pact with the devil to stop being slaves.  Our troops invaded Haiti several times.
Reply
#66
RE: Which of these is more dispespectful to "the troops"?
(July 6, 2018 at 3:49 am)Khemikal Wrote: All you're telling us is that The Gov was never as hard on the messicans as you would have preferred. Pussy race traitors!

Not until the current cunt-in-chief came along that is.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Buy the new US military rifle before the troops get them onlinebiker 35 1949 April 25, 2022 at 4:21 pm
Last Post: onlinebiker
  I hate these kind of headlines. onlinebiker 50 2030 December 8, 2021 at 6:35 pm
Last Post: Ranjr
  And people wonder why.I kill these... onlinebiker 51 3257 October 15, 2021 at 3:21 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  US troops and Afghans killed in suicide attacks outside Kabul airport WinterHold 3 576 August 26, 2021 at 11:09 pm
Last Post: The Architect Of Fate
  Guess which party onlinebiker 20 1619 August 17, 2021 at 12:56 pm
Last Post: Rev. Rye
  Troops to leave Afghanistan by 9/11/21 Brian37 10 1906 April 16, 2021 at 12:21 am
Last Post: WinterHold
  Can Anyone Make Any Sense of These Trump Propaganda Brochures? Prof.Lunaphiles 2 342 April 21, 2020 at 7:13 pm
Last Post: brewer
  US and Taliban sign deal to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan WinterHold 50 3507 March 8, 2020 at 10:56 pm
Last Post: Fireball
  Which comes first? onlinebiker 31 2017 January 27, 2020 at 10:21 pm
Last Post: EgoDeath
  Oh yeah he loves the Troops Amarok 6 988 November 10, 2018 at 11:25 pm
Last Post: Minimalist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)