November 08, 2005
The American Military Looks Like America
It ain’t what people don’t know that hurts; it is what they know that ain’t true. This is the case with the composition of the military. People say recruits are poor. Actually the richest quintile made up 22% of 2003 recruits. The poorest made up only 14%. People say new recruits are mostly minority. Whites make up 77.4% of the U.S. population of 18 year olds. They make up 78.5% of the recruits. People are right when they say that recruits are more rural and southern, but no surprise. In fact, the American military looks a lot like America. Let’s look at some of the numbers.
U.S. recruits by income: 22% from the richest 20%. 14% from the poorest.
Whites make up 77.4% of the applicable population. In 2003 they made up 78.5% of the recruits.
Montana, Alaska, Wyoming & Maine contribute the highest proportion of recruits relative to their populations. More recruits also come from the South and the Mountain West. Urban ghettos are not great places to get new solders, who need to have a high school education and a relatively clean record.
Such as you can see any pattern, the map looks a lot like the Bush reelection map.
Posted by Jack at November 8, 2005 06:33 PMThanks for the post, Jack. Interesting numbers.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at November 8, 2005 08:13 PMReed
I am waiting for Aldous to post. The usual comment won’t work here.
Posted by: Jack at November 8, 2005 08:20 PM$52,000 is considered rich? The rich cap stops at $200,000. Give me a brake. I think a better “rich” catagory would be $100,000 to 10 million. Middle class would be more like $36,000 to $99,000. What would those recruitment numbers look like?
Posted by: Matthew at November 8, 2005 09:12 PMWE are rich if you look at it like this.
I AM IN THE MARINE CORPS AND BY MY MIND I’AM RICH BECAUSE THE MARINE CORPS GIVES ME A 3 BEDROOM HOUSE ONLY 2 YEARS OLD,I PAY NO GAS NO ELECT. NO WATER BILLS AT ALL.
MY HEALTH IS ALL FREE AND THATS NOT ALL, MY WIFE AND 2 KIDS ARE FREE AS WELL MED. IS ALL FREE FOR US.
NOT TO INCLUDE GREAT RETIREMENT PLANE FOR MARINES THAT STAY IN FOR 20 YEARS.SINGLE MARINES HAVE A CHOW HALL CARD THAT THEY CAN EAT THAT COST JUST A FEW DOLLARS A DAY TO EAT.
SO YES WE ARE RICH IF YOU LOOK AT IT THE RIGHT WAY.
BUT WE PAY IT ALL BACK WHEN WE GO TO IRAQ FOR 7 MONTHS TO FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT TO BE FREE.
Matthew
America is a rich country. We all are rich. The quintile refers to the richest or poorest or middle 20%. I don’t know (and I don’t think it is known) how many of the top 1% are in the military. My guess is not many. I would be willing to bet that there are also very few from the bottom 1% or even 5%.
You can define the income classes as you wish, but you have the inconvenient fact that numbers come with them. The top 20% makes up … well 20% of the population. Call it what you want.
You are also left with the fact that the poorest 20% pay almost none of the taxes and don’t enlist in the military in any great numbers. Again, you can call it what you like, but the “exploitation of the poor” paradigm just doesn’t fly.
Posted by: Jack at November 8, 2005 09:36 PMIt comes as no suprise to me that there are more enlistments from rural areas than urban.
I cann’t speak of the urban people as such sense I’ve never lived in an urban area. But having visted places like Atlanta, Dallas, and Chicago I get the feeling that people in urban areas are hurried and more into themselves than anything else. They are busy looking after #1 and don’t have time for much else. Military service is viewed as an inconvenience. At least that’s the impression I get.
Rural people tend to be more laid back and have always had time to do for others. Military service isnot viewed as an inconvenience as rural people tend to look at it more as a honor as well as a duty for the priviledge of living in this great country of ours.
As a kid in rural Georgia I was taught that every male should serve in the military. And that it is a great honor to serve your country. Specially during time of war. Things haven’t changed that much around here sense then.
marinedomyanic
Thankyou for your service to our great country.
Posted by: Ron Brown at November 8, 2005 09:46 PMI got one for you all. Every think that the bottom percent of incomes that join military do so because they want to improve themselves? Folks, this is an ALL VOLUNTEER MILITARY. I came from a really good family, I could have had anything I wanted, but I was born with a warrior spirit. I was born with a love for duty, country and family. All the things that the liberal left reviles and despises.
Posted by: Pete at November 8, 2005 10:06 PMJack,
You can’t call families that make up to $200,000 “the richest quintile”. You’re not counting the many families that make more than $200,000. If you’re gonna call the catagory “the richest quintile”, shouldn’t THEY be represented too? For the richest quintile, you should, at least, count family incomes up to a million. I guess that part of it doesn’t really matter because you were making an argument about the poor. But you’re touting this 22% number like it’s ALL the rich kids.
I’m curious what you would consider “poor”. Because that does matter. If you were okay with the range that I listed above, the 2003 recruitment from poor families would be around 34%. That’s 1/3 of the military. That IS significant. It is probably less than what most people on the left perceive it to be. But it’s nothing to sneeze at.
Posted by: Matthew at November 8, 2005 10:12 PMMathew
I am not sure what we are talking about. The point of this post is the the military is broadly representative of America. If the poorest 33% of the population make up 34%, this falls within the margin of error. I don’t happen to know what percentage of the population makes more than 200K, but it is not 20%. The figures used in the study are from zip codes. That is why the numbers are homogeneous (and not as low or high as the income distribution).
As I wrote, I suspect the very poor and the very rich are not well represented. Most Americans are in the middle.
Just to repeat, the military is broadly representative of the U.S. It is not made up only of the poor or minorities, as critics say. It is a bit smarter than the average American in that 98% have HS diplomas, versus about 75% of the general population. It is a little more rural and a little more southern. But it is broadly like the U.S.
As for how to measure rich and poor, I go with the numbers proportions. The income doesn’t matter, only the distribution. Otherwise you cannot make any other analysis. The top 20% I would call rich. The bottom 20% I would call poor. The middle 60% is middle.
Pete, you are such a tough guy. You are not very smart though. There are liberals in the military and they are just as tough as you.
For your information, genius, the liberal left doesn’t revile or dispise duty, country and family. They love those values too. One thing they don’t do is love to hate. Save you black and white thinking for the battlefield.
Posted by: Ace at November 8, 2005 10:36 PMJack,
First of all, thanks for indulging me.
I see what you’re saying but 2 things.
Why does the richest quintile stop at $200,000? The poorest quintile starts at zero so why shouldn’t the richest stop much higher? If it did I believe that 22% would be much lower. See, if the study did that ALL the catagories would change.
That’s what i’m getting at. I’m not blaming you. I think the study is faulty. Stopping the cap at $200,000 makes the poorest 20% a smaller income range and also a smaller recruitement number as well. I think the Heritage Foundation did that on purpose to skew the results for the poorest 20%.
Do you see what I’m saying?
Posted by: Matthew at November 8, 2005 10:58 PMMatthew, I think you’re right the study is faulty b/c it doesn’t include ALL income levels since it stops just above what the President makes per year ($200000)…but I think the thing about the “quintiles” and everything…you could spin the numbers any way you want…you could change it to thirds…and the numbers would change. The top 10% in income make $92000 a year per household or more…is 92000 “rich”? not to me, but I make about half that anyway (actually less than half). Still, that could be a two-income household. Yet those 10% at 92000/yr and above pay nearly 50% of the total tax revenue in the US. Anyway, I still don’t think that it would still skew the numbers THAT much b/c if you added the recruits from the 200000 and up group, it would only add to the number in the highest “quintile”. B/c you can’t possibly make a quintile of “infinity” (aka Bill Gates). Just a thought. I’m not sure that the actual numbers would change THAT much. See my point? b/c I understand what you’re saying…and I think you’re right with the sample being incomplete.
Posted by: Robert at November 8, 2005 11:20 PMI could go through an economic and management mathematical application to go through the tax thing too.
Posted by: Robert at November 8, 2005 11:24 PMUrban vs. Rural Population(from Infoplease).
The Volunteer army has the consequence of making war-fighting a distinct job market, with distinct demographics that tend towards it. It also makes it “servant’s work” a specialized career. Also, today’s culture, liberal and conservatives are under the influence of a culture that does not like to face death. That simple.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2005 11:49 PMI acctually came from a very well off family (both parents CPA’s) and yet I joined the marine corps. My parents income (combined) was over $200,000, yet I still knew that it was a honor to serve my country. I served to let you liberals bash, cuss, and just degrade me.
I hope you appreciate what I and many others have done for you.
However I doubt any of you will ever understand!
It figures. The liberals don’t know mathmatics. They can’t understand percentages, just like they can’t count 17 UN resolutions.
Posted by: Al at November 9, 2005 12:03 AMNice post Jack; your facts were credible and very enlightening. It is fun watching the anti-Bush crowd just squirm for excuses to down play the military by using negative spin to describe the make up of the troops.
And, for all those who continue to lie about how the poor get recruited and the rich don’t, then why did Harvard not allow military recruiters in there for a while. Harvard is mostly upper class whites, why the heck would that school not allow recruitment there?! I mean, if the military is going after poor urban kids, why would they want to go to Harvard? Hmmmmm…
Posted by: rahdigly at November 9, 2005 12:23 AMAs I have said, Iraq is a Republican War. We should encourage more Republicans to join. There are 61,000,000 of them yet we have a 20,000 shortage of recruits.
Come Conservatives!!! Can you spare a few more children?
err… Due to lawyering by some… all volunteers must be qualified to join before giving their emails. Thank You.
Posted by: Aldous at November 9, 2005 12:48 AMI was born with a love for duty, country and family. All the things that the liberal left reviles and despises.
How dare you!
Hey Al, For your info Israel has twice as many UN resolutions against it. (Check it out Mr. mathmatician.) Should we envade them? They engage in terrorism. They have seized Palistine’s territory numerous times. Oh no, we couldn’t envade Israel, they’re our friends so their UN resolutions don’t count.
Your UN resolution argument is lame. It doesn’t hold up. Thanks for trying.
Jack,
Your map is somewhat deceptive because those Red States mostly have low populations. If you look at the actual numbers, Blue States contribute A LOT of the military recruits. Look at this link:
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=175&Itemid=61
California contributes about 11% of the recruits. NY, %5. PA, 3.5%. IL, 3.5%. WA, 2.5%. That’s 1/4 of the military from five Blue States.
Think of California as like Bill Gates. It may not be as “generous” as Montana, but it’s contribution is huge.
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 9, 2005 06:58 AMWoody
I didn’t want to make that much of the blue/red things (which I believe is mostly a red herring). All the states are mixed in their populations. More people in California voted for GW Bush than the entire population of Wyoming. I only included the map as kind of a wise ass thing (I admit). I don’t think it means much.
My point was that the military looks like America. It does not come only from the poor. It is not mostly minority. It is not uneducated. It is like America in broad terms.
I believe that universities such as Harvard should welcome ROTC. There is an anti-service culture some places like that. But that is another story.
Matthew
If you read the basis of the study, you see that the data available is aggregated. The top income is an artifact of this. The number of people with greater than 200,000 income is small in any case (if it is large, we are really doing a good job of making everyone rich). I know have numbers, but I suspect that the very rich and the very poor are underrepresented. It doesn’t make any difference to the general picture, which is that the military is broadly representative of America.
Aldous
These figures pretty much squash your argument. If you want to argue that only Republicans should be involved in the military, it is your business. Addressing that argment in not worth my time just now. Maybe later.
Stephen
A good point on different types of people being attracted to different careers. I live in an urban area, but own rural forest land. My forest land neighbors hunt anything that crawls of flies across my forest and I am really happy they do. Otherwise the varmints would get out of hand. The hunters run off people who would damage my property or dump garbage. Good people. My urban neighbors are appalled that I would allow hunting. When people find out I own a forest, they start telling me how great it is to preserve nature (which I do). But when I talk about using hunting as a tool, their mood darkens. It is harder for city kids to understand some things.
Wow woody…so by your argument…the “rich” actually contribute the VAST majority…sounds like our tax system yet you still claim that tax cuts are only for the rich.
Posted by: Robert at November 9, 2005 07:42 AMI joined the Navy 17 years ago and it was the best decision of my life. I have seen the world and met some of the best people I have ever known. I have been there when history was made. I have a career that will take care of my family for the rest of my life.
I don’t recall ever once thinking “why don’t we have more upper income people here?”. If they want to join I welcome them, but if they don’t, their absence in no way diminishes the quality of the U.S. military.
For those who say the decision to invade Iraq may not have happened if rich individuals were better represented, it still goes back to whether in your opinion the decision was correct. I know it was. So if having the children of influential individuals would have prevented us from making the right decision, I’m glad we did not.
I also think that we should always make decisions regarding how to deploy our military in defense of our nation on facts rather than our feelings and individual interests.
Posted by: Brian at November 9, 2005 08:19 AMJack, I started reading that article, and the first thing I saw was that the data is based on zip codes. You did this before on a different topic and I pointed out that you can’t say a person makes a specific income just because they live in a certain zip code.
From your Heritage Foundation report:
Much of the analysis in this paper (including this section) uses five-digit Census ZIP code tabulation areas (ZCTAs) as the unit of analyÂsis. …For example, Representative Rangel resides in the postal ZIP code 10037. The corresponding five-digit ZCTA 10037, shown in Figure 1, has a median household income of $26,561. In 1999, four recruits originated from the area, in 2003, the total was six recruits.
By your report’s method, Congressman Rangel makes 26k/year. That’s just not true, and to base their conclusion on really bad statistical methods is just the kind of wacky spin I’d expect from a right-wing think tank.
And, I’d have thought you’d be too smart to fall for it.
Posted by: American Pundit at November 9, 2005 08:37 AMWe are all rich, to live in a country that has the freedom that we have, where we can do whatever we want and grow as much as we are able. Yes we are rich.
NOW HOW TO STOP THE THIRD WORLD WAR.
STOPPING THE RADICAL MUSLIMS
DO YOU WANT TO? IF SO, GENERAL BLACKJACK PERSHING HAD THE SOLUTION, CHECK IT OUT.
DURING AN UPRISING IN THE PHILLIPENS HE CAPTURED 50 RADICALS, TIED 49 TO STAKES, MADE THE 50TH WATCH.
KILLED PIGS AND DIPPED THE BULLETS IN THE PIGS BLOOD, THEN SHOT THE 49 AND TURNED THE 50TH LOOSE TO TELL THE STORY. GUESS WHAT, THIS STOPPED THE UPRISING.
NOW, CALL ALL THE NEWS MEDIA TO CUBA, TRY THE WORSE ONE, EITHER HANG HIM OR SHOOT HIM. BEFORE YOU DO SOAK THE ROPE AND BULLETS IN PIGS BLOOD AND BURY HIM WITH THE PIG.
LET THE MUSLIM WORLD KNOW THAT ALL RADICALS WILL BE TREATED THE SAME WAY AND THAT ALL AMUNITATION WILL BE TREATED WITH PIGS BLOOD.
WHY WOULD THIS STOP THE RADICALS? THEY WOULD DIE UNCLEAN AN ALL THAT WAS KILLED WOULD GO TO HELL ACCORDING TO THEIR BELIEF.
THE WAR WOULD BE OVER IN 24 HOURS.
WALTER FLATT
PADUCAH, KENTUCKY
“I served to let you liberals bash, cuss, and just degrade me. I hope you appreciate what I and many others have done for you. However I doubt any of you will ever understand!”
This proud liberal veteran will. 8 years in the Army, and I very much welcome your apology for degrading MY values just as you claim I, by definition, degrade your service.
R^2
Posted by: arr-squared at November 9, 2005 09:57 AM“I was born with a love for duty, country and family. All the things that the liberal left reviles and despises.”
“I served to let you liberals bash, cuss, and just degrade me.”
You know why the left always has to listen to this kind of crap from people in the military?
Because they are fed a steady diet of bullsh*t liberal demonization on Armed Forces Radio — which is payed for by OUR TAX DOLLARS TOO. What more can we expect to hear from those who serve when all they are able to listen to is hour upon hour of Rush Limbaugh?
BUT WE CAN CHANGE THIS!
General Wesley Clark has a page on his website where you can send an email to your members in Congress to make them acknowledge this unfair bias. Until we do something about the situation, we will continue to have to listen to similarly ridiculous and unfounded statements like the two I quoted above, because they are doing their level best to make Dittoheads out of everyone who bravely serves our country.
Put Ed Schultz on Armed Forces Radio!Last year, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced a resolution that was unanimously passed by the Senate, urging Secretary Rumsfeld and Armed Forces Radio to ensure more political balance in programming.
It looked like progress was being made when the Pentagon agreed to air the first hour of Ed Schultz’s daily radio show live on Armed Forces Radio every day. Then, only hours before the first show would have been broadcast, the Pentagon suddenly reversed the decision and refused to air Ed’s program.
We must let our voices be heard and exercise leadership to help ensure that the spirit of Senator Harkin’s resolution — and the spirit of fairness — are at play on taxpayer financed programming.
Send an email to your Members of Congress now — urge them to enforce fair play on Armed Forces Radio!
Posted by: Adrienne at November 9, 2005 10:15 AM
andrew king
Thankyou for your service to our great country.
Maybe liberials don’t understand why you choose to serve, but this retired MSGT sure as hell does.
Brian, arr-squared
Thankyou for your service to our great country.
The left has gone from disparaging soldiers as baby killers in the Vietnam era to treating them as passive simpletons who are victimized by Bush’s lies in the Iraq era. I think neither representation is accurate, and your article does a good job of showing that our all volunteer force is a good cross section of America and not just a bunc of poor people trading their lives for vocational training.
That said, there is a notable underrepresentation of true elites in today’s military. I was in the USMC PLC program at the University of Chicago. There were about 4 of us in the pool. ROTC had another 20 or so. That was it in a class of 5,000. This is a far cry from the 1950s where a Yale or Harvard graduating class had 40% or more of its students enlisting, drafted, or enrolled in ROTC.
There used to be a deal of sorts with elites: you are rich, respected, and unmolested by the people, but you must respect a certain concept of noblesse oblige and do your duty, which includes fighting in our wars and thereby providing moral leadership to the community and earning your right to maintain an elite status of leadership.
Such a spirit is good for elites and good for the country. It lessens resentment of elite privilege and also teaches elites about different roles that elites must perform in life, not least on the battlefield. We are not a warrior aristocracy, nor should we be. But it’s not good to have a pampered, cowardly, and pacifisitic elite that is both unaware of and uninterested in the dirty work of keeping the country free. This is particularly true because much of what the military does is to execute the foreign policy goals elites are so fond of, such as nation-building and humanitarian intervention. It would be useful if elite college-educated people that go on to be senators, judges, congressman, and CEOs had a few years in the service. As it stands, the officer corps is in many respects cut from the same middle class cloth as the rankers, they just happen to have gone to college, most often large state schools. There is nothing wrong with that, but the Ivy-Leaguers are missing out on the benefits and lessons and sacrifices of service.
Posted by: roach at November 9, 2005 11:09 AMAP
The zip code method of market research works well. Politicians and marketers use it because it works. Besides,there is no evidence for the counter arguments. What do we know even without the zip code data? We know that 98% of the recruits have a HS diploma, compared to 75% of eighteen year olds generally. This is not the indication of an underclass military. We know that the military doesn’t get many recruits from the urban ghettos, despite the stereotype. We know that minorities made up about the same proportion of the military as they do of the general society. What we know is a very powerful argument to prove that the military a place where many Americans of all kinds work.
We don’t have and probably can’t get individual income figures for the families of recruits. It would not be useful in many ways anyway. Recruits are more rural and southern. What is characteristic or rural and southern? Low costs of living and people who have their wealth tied up in land. One of my cousins had a “net income” of less than $20,000 last year, but she owns more than a million dollars worth of land. She really has trouble coming up with $20 in cash, but she is not poor and does not want to do anything else than what she is doing.
What does the zip code data tell us? It tells us that recruits come from rich and poor areas. Even if we assume (with no basis) that we are recruiting the poorer part of the rich places, we are not recruiting the poorest people in the U.S.
Intuitively I think the military would be more attractive to an ambitious person who did not immediately plan to attend college. This is a particular demographic, but it is not necessarily and exploited one. The military can be a very good choice. It is probably more of a benefit to a poor kid. Just like the same scholarship is a greater benefit to a poor kid. This is true of almost any benefit. Do you want to take that away from them?
The bottom line in this study is that you can see general outlines and the American military looks a lot like America. I have heard a lot of criticism, but nobody has given me any reason to believe otherwise.
The left dislikes this information. They like to believe that Bush lied to cause a war and sent the underprivileged to fight it. Trouble is that the facts don’t support this interpretation.
Matthew wrote:
Israel has twice as many UN resolutions against it. Should we envade them? They engage in terrorism. They have seized Palistine’s territory numerous times. Oh no, we couldn’t envade Israel, they’re our friends so their UN resolutions don’t count.
___________________________
The problem is the UN is extremely anti-semitic, anti-American, and pro despot. Everybody knows that; even the most hateful people can’t even defend that.
Israel is in the middle of a desert, surrounded by hate. They defend themselves against terrorists and some of the territories that they “seized” came from when they kicked the terrorists butts! Look at the 6 day war, all those Islamic countries were ready to attack them and they launched “preemtive” strikes on those countries and, every battle they won, the more land they took. So, you darn right they seized territory, they’re defending themselves! Until those Islamofascist realize that Israel has a right to live on this planet just like everyone else, then Israel and the rest of the world (infidels) will put them in their place.
And, some of the UN sanctions were for that wall they built. That wall has reduced the number of suicide bombers and the UN thinks it’s wrong. Yet, they’re not mad about the suicide bombers “KILLING” Jews, just that the Israelis put up a wall that helped quell the problem (to a certain extent). That’s one of the many reasons we’re reforming the UN. We need to reform it to the point that they help countries and not terrorists and despots…
Posted by: rahdigly at November 9, 2005 12:13 PMJack,
Bush lied to get us in the war. There are those still in denial and argue semantics. But he intentionally misrepresented and ignored facts to get support for this war. The ‘underprivileged’ argument is simply a distraction and essentially irrelevent to the war itself.
rahdigly,
That is the one neocon element I agree with. I just don’t agree with the methods.
Other items in this thread are:
- The ‘elite’ who benefit from this war are not adequately represented by quintile or zip-code or other marketing tools. The elite are the top 0.001%. These are the top few thousand families with fortunes in the uncounted billions and incomes that don’t show up in any statistics. I would bet they have 0 in the service. The plutocrats want the lower and middle classes at each other to keep the pressure of them.
- As for ‘liberals hating freedom’ ad nauseaum, that’s just ignorant and stupid.
“You know why the left always has to listen to this kind of crap from people in the military?
Because they are fed a steady diet of bullsh*t liberal demonization on Armed Forces Radio — which is payed for by OUR TAX DOLLARS TOO. What more can we expect to hear from those who serve when all they are able to listen to is hour upon hour of Rush Limbaugh?”
Yes, that’s exactly why we’re conservative - because one hour a day (sandwiched in between hours of lefty NPR), AFR has Rush. Never mind that the vast majority of military personnel has absolutely no time to listen to AFR or even would care to listen to Rush, it’s why we’re all Republicans, right?
Never mind our military experience that teaches us above all, the government is rarely efficient and to be effective requires jumping through all sorts of bureaucratic hoops. I’ve stood in more lines than a Soviet housewife, and I’ve at times had less freedom than an American prisoner. I’ve served in places that make ordinary, middle class life look like that of a king. That’s what has made me Republican, not some guy on the radio.
You’re a perfect example of why so many of us left the Democratic Party - arrogant condescension, coupled with knowing absolutely nothing about what you’re talking about.
And Wes Clark got where he is because he was an arrogant toady who mistreated his subordinates, which is why so few of us supported him in ‘04.
Posted by: Brian at November 9, 2005 12:35 PMDave
Re Bush lied, I would refer you to factcheck.org and the variety of hearings held on the subject.
Re the military, check the links.
I know what you believe approaches religious faith among some sectors of the left, but nobody ever actually backs it us. When they try to, even factcheck.org jumps them.
Posted by: Jack at November 9, 2005 01:32 PMDave,
“Bush lied to get us in the war. There are those still in denial and argue semantics. But he intentionally misrepresented and ignored facts to get support for this war.”
I read and hear this a lot, but what is the specific evidence that he intentionally misrepresented facts? Were you inside his head at the time he supposedly did this? How about the people in congress that authorized the president to use force if necessary? Did they intentionally misrepresent or was it unintentional? How would you know?
i’ll beat the libs to it
“downing st memo”
MEOW
Posted by: david at November 9, 2005 01:42 PMFriday is Veterans Day. The day that this country has set aside to honor all the veterans of all the wars. However, I believe it should honor all veterans that has served, in war or peace.
I’d like thank ALL veterans from the begining of the great nation right down to the ones serving today for their service and sacrifice for our country.
I doesn’t matter which branch, Army, Air Froce, Marines, Navy, or Coast Gaurd, you’ve stood and delivered. You’ve helped preserve our rights and freedom.
THANKYOU VERY MUCH!
Also I would like to thank the military spouces out there. You’ve made a sacrifice also.
If you know veteran or someone that’s in service at present, and you appreciate their service let them know.
Specially our current military personnel.
“Bush lied to get us in the war. There are those still in denial and argue semantics. But he intentionally misrepresented and ignored facts to get support for this war.â€
Regime changes was official US policy since 1998, Democrat Senators had the exact same access to intelligence as the Bush Administration and voted to approve the war and the vast majority of the intelligence is still supported by European intelligence services.
This is getting like explaining why you can’t fly to a three-year old - you can do it all day, and the left still can’t accept reality. What they also won’t be able to accept is that we are winning this war and that Bush will ultimately be judged by history to be a very successful Presidency who overcame speed bumps like the fifth column left.
Posted by: Brian at November 9, 2005 02:11 PM“Never mind our military experience that teaches us above all, the government is rarely efficient and to be effective requires jumping through all sorts of bureaucratic hoops.”
Government is only as efficient as those controlling it.
Btw, we all know your leaders don’t believe in any sort of hoop-jumping these days. Now the new rules of military engagement under Republican-style “leadership” say its okay to use torture and WMD’s — for instance, the Napalm-like MK77 (white phosphorus).
Fallujah - The Hidden Massacre
Veteran admits: Bodies melted away before us.
Reuters UK:
U.S. forces dropped MK 77 firebombs
I’m sure you’re very proud such efficiency and effectiveness.
They hate us for our freedom, right?
“arrogant condescension,”
Likewise.
“coupled with knowing absolutely nothing about what you’re talking about.”
If that were true, I wouldn’t be so angry with America’s current leaders, or so disgusted with those who follow them like mindless sheep.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 9, 2005 02:15 PMThe CIA lied and mislead about the war. Bush didn’t “lie” he mislead. Rove made sure he didn’t “lie”. Everybody in his cabinet lied. Rumsfeild, Cheney, Powell and Wolfowitz all lied repeatedly on TV, to Congress and to the UN. But the neo-cons wanted this war and they were more than happy to repeat the lies that Tenent were giving them.
Bottom line for me, Why didn’t we let the UN WMD inspectors finish the work they were doing before Bush pulled them out to start his war? They were making progress. They were in palaces and checking bunkers. With our constant satallite survailence we would have caught them trying to move anything around (if they had anything to move). You know the answer.
This President and, more importantly, Cheney wanted the war. They lied and mislead the public to get it done. End of story.
2000 dead Americans - Billions of dollars spent and lost - Tens of thousands dead Iraqis - AND NO END IN SIGHT
Well done Prez
Posted by: Ace at November 9, 2005 02:23 PMAdrienne wrote:
Government is only as efficient as those controlling it.
_______________________________________
Yeah, kind of like the French gov’t, huh?!!! You should have paid a little more attention to Brian’s post (Brian at November 9, 2005 12:35 PM), it was very good and, as a veteran myself, he was dead on accurate.
Now, you said:
“They hate us for our freedom, right?”
Uhhhh, YES! They do! Terrorists hate us for who we are, not for what we do! Remember that!!
And it sounds as if you’re not from the US?! If not, where are you from?
Posted by: rahdigly at November 9, 2005 02:34 PMRegarding the fact that the Congress ok’d Bush to attack Iraq is not true. The Congress voted to give Bush war powers with the pledge that he would expend all avenues BEFORE going to war. Bush didn’t do that.
Second, It’s true that Congress could have looked up and gone thru all of the documents that the prez had. But don’t ever forget that the members of Congress are lazy. Unless they have to, they don’t read every bill that they vote on. Plus they were briefed in closed session by all of the Joint Cheifs and Colon Powell (who HAD impeckable creditcials back then). About the “evendence” of WMDs. Again, like the US public they were mislead. And they didn’t do their homework. Part of me can’t blame them. They are being told by the most trustworthy people in the govt that Saddam was a threat. Without doing their own research, why would they vote otherwise.
Oh yeah, Congress knew the ones that didn’t vote “yes” would be called “unpatriotic” by the usual crowd.
Posted by: Matthew at November 9, 2005 02:46 PMRahdigly,
If terrorists hate us for our freedom why haven’t they attacked Sweden? They’re a democracy. They have freedom.
You are part right though. I’m sure they don’t like Sweden either. But Sweden doesn’t try to control the middle east. So its MORE about what we do that what we are.
Posted by: Matthew at November 9, 2005 02:56 PM“it was very good and, as a veteran myself, he was dead on accurate.”
Yeah, about as accurate as Bush’s intelligence.
“Now, you said:
“They hate us for our freedom, right?â€
Uhhhh, YES! They do!”
IMO that is incorrect propaganda you’ve been sold. They hated us for our POLICIES, and now we’ve added to their hate, because we invaded and occupied Iraq for no reason, and because we used torture and chemical weapons indescriminantly upon civilians.
“Terrorists hate us for who we are, not for what we do! Remember that!!”
Wake up. Reality doesn’t mesh with that nonsense. The longer we’ve stayed in Iraq, the larger the insurgency has grown and the more fervently the civilian population wants us out of their country.
“And it sounds as if you’re not from the US?! If not, where are you from?”
I was born in the USA, I live in the USA, and I’m a liberal. My grandfather was a veteran, my dad is a veteran, my uncles are all veterans, and some of my cousins are veterans. All are liberal Democrats — and all of them would wholeheartedly disagree with you.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 9, 2005 02:57 PM“Government is only as efficient as those controlling it.”
Yes, what we need are more efficient layers of braindead bureaucrats led by corrupt and incompetent leftwing politicians. That will enable our failed 19th century industrial revolution idealogy to succeed!
National defense is known in economic theory as a pure public good and must be under the pervue of the government, but there are few other activities that qualify as pure public goods and these should not be under control of the government. That’s one thing you learn in the military, the Army/Navy/Air Force has to the way it is, to make sure everyone else does not have to live the way we live in the military.
“MK77 (white phosphorus).
Fallujah - The Hidden Massacre
Veteran admits: Bodies melted away before us.
Reuters UK:
U.S. forces dropped MK 77 firebombs”
I’m disappointed, where are the stories about the UFO abductions of anti-war protestors? I’d be careful of calling others mindless sheep while you cut and paste laughable fiction from wingnut websites and lying lunatics.
“They hated us for our POLICIES, and now we’ve added to their hate, because we invaded and occupied Iraq for no reason, and because we used torture and chemical weapons indescriminantly upon civilians.”
I guess then that they REALLY liked the policies of Saddam who filled mass graves with 300,000 Iraqis and who used chemical weapons againt his own people (and not in just some hallucinogenic dream like your fantasy regarding the US using chemical weapons).
“The longer we’ve stayed in Iraq, the larger the insurgency has grown and the more fervently the civilian population wants us out of their country.”
All reports indicate the “insurgency” is weakening and is largely made up of non-Iraqi extremists and Baathist deadenders. The Iraqi people voted for a Constitution last month in far larger percentages than voted in the 2004 elections in the US, and the Sunnis are increasingly becoming part of the democratic process.
“I was born in the USA, I live in the USA, and I’m a liberal. My grandfather was a veteran, my dad is a veteran, my uncles are all veterans, and some of my cousins are veterans. All are liberal Democrats — and all of them would wholeheartedly disagree with you.”
Congratulations on all of that - the beauty of this country is we are all entitled to our own opinion. We are not, however, entitled to our own facts, and your side has lost sight of reality, not to even mention the facts.
Posted by: Brian at November 9, 2005 03:11 PMOh, is Rueters now a wingnut website? Or is it that you haven’t heard that it is one of the largest newsgathering services in the entire world?
The video found on the other website was courtesy of the BBC — but if you don’t know what Rueters is, I doubt you’ll know who they are…
Pathetic.
Brian,
I’d be careful of calling others mindless sheep while you cut and paste laughable fiction from wingnut websites and lying lunatics.So you consider Reuters a wingnut website with lying lunatics? I need to get me some of that Koolaide!
Posted by: Charles Wager at November 9, 2005 03:14 PM
Come on Brian, like the Military is not a buracracy?? Well it is, except that there is no dissention in the military. You follow channels and orders or else. In our Govt there is give and take which can slow things down. So the mililtay is more like a corporation. And like all corporations it is highly subsidized by our tax dollars. It wouldn’t exist without it.
I don’t mind paying for the military but I do mind paying for corporations who claim to be all about “free enterprise” when the fact is that they wouldn’t survive one year without govt handouts.
Posted by: Matthew at November 9, 2005 03:19 PMThe Washington Post just had an article on this last week:
Many of today’s recruits are financially strapped, with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income. Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median.
That doesn’t seem to mesh with the figures from Heritage so I’m not sure if these are the new numbers and the Heritage ones Jack first linked are no longer valid or where the separation is.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528.html
“Come on Brian, like the Military is not a buracracy??”
The military is very much a bureaucracy, never said it wasn’t. Don’t understand how you missed that.
“Well it is, except that there is no dissention (sic) in the military.”
This proves you’ve never served in the US military.
“I don’t mind paying for the military but I do mind paying for corporations who claim to be all about “free enterprise†when the fact is that they wouldn’t survive one year without govt handouts.”
Corporations would be far better off without “handouts” as you call them and nonsensical government shakedowns, meanwhile, government wouldn’t survive a minute without taxation. We can afford a military and all your precious social programs only because there are productive people in this nation who do something more than useless phil
Posted by: Brian at November 9, 2005 03:37 PMThen there is this one that was also just released that describes the data and their results:
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=177&Itemid=107
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 9, 2005 03:40 PMSecond, It’s true that Congress could have looked up and gone thru all of the documents that the prez had. But don’t ever forget that the members of Congress are lazy. Unless they have to, they don’t read every bill that they vote on. Plus they were briefed in closed session by all of the Joint Cheifs and Colon Powell (who HAD impeckable creditcials back then). About the “evendence” of WMDs. Again, like the US public they were mislead. And they didn’t do their homework. Part of me can’t blame them. They are being told by the most trustworthy people in the govt that Saddam was a threat. Without doing their own research, why would they vote otherwise.
A few problems with this quoted block.
1) The congress gets reports from the intelligence community as well. Many of the members of congress were members before 2000 and had seen the same much of the same intelligence as afterwards. There was a serious problem in Iraq, one that no one had a good answer to resolve. The UN sanctions were effectively removed by 1999 and the intelligence communities were saying, before Bush was elected, that their WMD and nuclear programs had been reconstituted and they were within months of significant WMD and years of having a nuclear weapon. None of this was ‘invented’ by the Bush administration, just believed. As it was by most members of congress.
3) If they are lazy, vote them out. Don’t defend them for not doing their job.
4) Those voting on the resolution were asked last year if they would vote on the resolution now that they know what they know. The majority of them said that they would, including Kerry and Clinton.
5) They were doing their investigations, several members of congress, including Lott and Biden, were actively monitoring and gaining intelligence information from the same and sometimes different sources than the president was getting them from. And they voted for the resolution as well.
The simple fact is that we know now what we know, for sure, because we did invade and remove Saddam, who was playing very very dangerous games with the UN and inspection process. To say now that we should have known then what we know now is very fuzzy logic.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 9, 2005 03:44 PMHey Al, For your info Israel has twice as many UN resolutions against it. (Check it out Mr. mathmatician.) Should we envade them?
How many of them are Chapter Seven resolutions?
Do you even understand the difference?
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 9, 2005 03:46 PMI get tired of how the media continues to act as if the military were made up of mostly “poor blacks”. This has never been true and finally, the numbers prove it. Thanks.
Posted by: LL at November 9, 2005 03:48 PMI’m not a statistician, nor a mathematician, so I’m gonna stay out of the numbers debate (though I understand what “quintile” means, I suspect most of the bad reacton to those numbers stems from the fact that “richest” = “$50-some-thousand” doesn’t compte for most people).
What I am is a liberal. So I wanna clarify a little about the “liberal view” of the military. First off, I deeply respect anyone who forgoes the typical american dream of great wealth and/or noteriety, and instead dedicates him/herself to service, even at great bodily risk. Firefighters, police officers, soldiers — my hat (were I to wear one) is off to you. Seriously — your ability to set aside self-preservation in favor of protecting me and mine — I can’t describe my gratitude.
That said, the military is also a job, with many layers of management, including a CEO and his executive team who set policy and guide the “company.”
At my company, let’s call it “WeForgotTheLessonsOfTheDotComBubble, Inc,” the CEO and his team are currently steering us on what I believe is a path to destruction. Still, I take great pride in my work, and I come in every day and bust my ass for good design and consumer experience (not exactly sacrificing myself for freedom, but I haven’t the heart of a soldier). I’m good at my job and do good work, despite the fact I believe my big boss is on the wrong path. The guy next to me is equally good at what he does, but believes the big boss is a genius. I still repect him for his hard work and his talent, but I think that, given the same data as me, he has come to a different conclusion — one with which I strongly disagree. Neither my character nor my neighbor’s is a reflection of our big boss’s character. And if the company fails or succeeds, we both believe in designing the best consumer experience possible, and will both have done good work in which we can take pride.
Now, substitute “consumer experience” for “defending freedom.” I know — it’s a poor comparison, and I’m not comparing web design to fighting for my life against insurgents. I’m just trying to illustrate a point. You can separate people from their leadership without insulting or damaging those people.
You see, I don’t think the military, the men on the ground, are bad people. Or stupid people, being led easily around by a deceitful boss. These are strong (physically and mentally), courageous men and women who believe in something larger than themselves. Many of them feel the war is a mistake. Many more do not. All of them have chosen a life of sacrifice in order to keep their country safe, and have aduty to fulfill. Whether the counry is safer for their efforts is a moot point — it is their effort which makes them noble.
Are there bad soldiers out there? Undoubtedly. Any population of people had bad seeds. But I strongly believe most are doing their best to serve their country nobly, as they signed up to do.
Yes, some people disrespect soldiers. They might well be liberals. They might not be (I’d say sending someone off to die under false pretenses is the ultimate disrespect). But liberals like me *don’t* disrespect soldiers. So let’s stop making that blanket statement, shall we? Thanks.
—David
Posted by: David Nett at November 9, 2005 03:58 PMAdrienne wrote in response to “Terrorists hate us for who we are, not for what we do! Remember that!!â€:
The longer we’ve stayed in Iraq, the larger the insurgency has grown and the more fervently the civilian population wants us out of their country.
__________________________________
So, did they attack us on 9/11 b/c we were in Iraq? Did they bomb the USS Cole in 2000 b/c of Iraq? How about the “Iran hostage crisis” in 1979, was that b/c we were in Iraq? Huh!
Islamic Terrorists have been waring for thousands of years, way before we were ever an “evil, imperialistic” empire that we are today. They hate us b/c we are not muslims living the life of the prophet. That is completely intolerant religious view and they enforce their way of life on everybody else. They are FASCISTS, plain and simple.
And, as far as your family as veterans, that’s fantastic. I appreciate hearing that. However, I don’t have a problem with military personnel being liberal; I just can’t stand hearing people who don’t have the courage to (VOLUNTARILY) enlist themselves, but will talk about the military as if they had a clue. And, usually they don’t.
The military is there (in Iraq) now and they don’t have time to listen to this whining about “going to war with Iraq” that we’ve heard for the past 2 years. Because the reality is, more people voted in this past election than any other time in history and more people voted for this President than any other President in history. And, the military voted for this President (nearly 4 to 1), even after all the negative, hateful comments that we had to endure the past few years. That’s a fact.
Your problem, along with many others on this blog, is that you’re still trying to argue the same arguements that didn’t work in the election last year. It just didn’t work. So, keep up the resentment, it makes it easier to spot you out.
Posted by: rahdigly at November 9, 2005 04:05 PMdid they attack us on 9/11 b/c we were in Iraq? Did they bomb the USS Cole in 2000 b/c of Iraq?
Actually, yes.
The main beef that bin Laden had with the United States was our warships and troops on Holy Land. The land of Mecca. Saudi Arabia. And we had troops there because we needed them for the repel of Iraq from Kuwait and the ongoing no-fly zone operational support needs.
Had we resolved the Iraq issue, say, 5 or 7 years earlier, it is quite possible that bin Laden would have not gained as much sopport or been as powerful as he became because of the number of people who were upset about that very issue, one he manipulated into power.
But we couldn’t expect the United States to actually do anything like that until we were attacked first, which is what happened unfortunately. The history of the 1900s is full of such examples.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 9, 2005 04:10 PMAce
It is good to be certain; it helps to be right. Maybe you can fill us in on some of the details of N. Korea or Iran. And why didn’t you tell someone about the bomb the Pakistanis were developing. You must have been certain about that too.
Bush lied is an assertion with nothing to back it but your touching faith. End of story.
Matthew
What a low opinion of Congress. Did you vote for Kerry? You must have believed he paid no attention when he sat on the Intelligence Committee all those years. And then he just voted because he was lazy and it was convenient?
I am glad you are on the other side. I would not want you to defend me by saying it was okay if I screwed up because I was lazy, stupid, timid and had no mind of my own. That is what you think of your own Democratic members of congress.
Rhinehold explained some of the research responsibilites of congress.
The fact is that most people thought Saddam had WMD. Kerry thought it; Clinton thought it; the French thought it; the Russian thought it. We know Saddam had WMD in 1998. We still don’t know where they went. Do you?
And no, I don’t seriously believe that terrorism wouldn’t still be around and directed at the US had it not been for Iraq, but it is an intriguing thing to realize.
The fact is that we supported the creation of Isreal and that is never going to be forgotten to the Islamic facist block that is currently controlling much of the disenfranchised middle east muslims. That we are also not muslims is another check against us. Having troops in Mecca was just us waving a red flag at a pissed off bull.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 9, 2005 04:14 PMRhinehold, FYI:
From Iraq: A Report from the Inside
Q: Saddam is in breach of several UN Security Council resolutions.
A: Every time Iraq breached a UN Security Council resolution, the Council took action against it. To say that the Council was not tough enough in its responses, as British Prime Minister Tony Blair now does, is churlish. He and his US counterpart never mention the numerous times they succeeded in getting their way at the Council….
Q: As Iraq has broken the UN Security Council cease-fire Resolution 687 (April 1991), the US is entitled to resume hostilities against it, and does not require a separate Security Council resolution.
A: The UN Security Council, composed of five Permanent Members and 10 non-Permanent one, is a collective body. It is up to the Council to decide, by the prescribed procedures, whether or not Baghdad had breached its Resolution 687, how serious a breach is, and how to penalize Iraq for it. No single member has the unilateral right to draw its own conclusion - and simultaneously claim that it is acting under the Security Council aegis…. America can attack Iraq unilaterally by claiming that it acted in self-defense, which is allowed according to the UN Charter Article 51. But then it must prove that Iraq threatened it specifically. So far Baghdad has done no such thing. For the US, to invade a sovereign country on the assumption that it will threaten it some time in the future is illegal under international law.
Violating international law…it seems we all do it, but it’s apparently only okay if it supports our argument.
Posted by: Charles Wager at November 9, 2005 04:20 PM“So, did they attack us on 9/11 b/c we were in Iraq? Did they bomb the USS Cole in 2000 b/c of Iraq? How about the “Iran hostage crisis†in 1979, was that b/c we were in Iraq? Huh!”
You mean, duh! Policies include things other than the Iraq War.
“The military is there (in Iraq) now and they don’t have time to listen to this whining about “going to war with Iraq†that we’ve heard for the past 2 years. Because the reality is, more people voted in this past election than any other time in history and more people voted for this President than any other President in history. And, the military voted for this President (nearly 4 to 1), even after all the negative, hateful comments that we had to endure the past few years. That’s a fact.”
Yeah but then with all the revelations about them lying us into the war, as well as the indictments against Libby, and all the speculation surrounding Rove and Cheney, the majority of American’s now have a serious case of voters remorse.
Whats your point?
“Your problem, along with many others on this blog,” etc. etc.
While your problem is that you can’t accept the fact that our country has been lied to, so you just keep repeating the same old tired GOP talking points and empty hoo-rah rhetoric.
In the meantime,
Many American’s have died.
The majority of the country has woken up.
Bushco’s numbers are in the toilet.
And you’re still fast asleep.
So, what you are saying, Charles, is that it’s ok to bomb a country into the Stone Age without UN resolutions saying it’s ok to do so or that country to be threatened specifically, but invasion is wrong.
But then it must prove that Iraq threatened it specifically. So far Baghdad has done no such thing.
Someone’s Opinion. In this case, it depends upon if the individual who was responsible for deciding that nebulous term believed it. I believe that Bush did.
My opinion is that the US and UK and Italy and Australia did. I love the continued use of the term ‘unilaterally’ when it doesn’t apply to this case because it ‘sounds good’. But it just doesn’t mesh with reality.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 9, 2005 04:34 PMRhinehold,
So, what you are saying, Charles, is that it’s ok to bomb a country into the Stone Age without UN resolutions saying it’s ok to do so or that country to be threatened specifically, but invasion is wrong.Nope. All I’m saying is that you need to get a better argument. On one hand you’re basically suggesting that the UN is a legitimate body that sets International law and Iraq should follow it…but on the other hand you’re ignoring the fact that we defied the UN as well. Pot calling the kettle black…
Someone’s Opinion. In this case, it depends upon if the individual who was responsible for deciding that nebulous term believed it. I believe that Bush did.Yes, it’s someone’s opinion…and also the UN’s opinion. Wouldn’t you say that the best authority to interpret the UN charter, and whether it’s been violated, is the UN itself?
Posted by: Charles Wager at November 9, 2005 04:49 PM
re: the statistical “quintile”
I’m no statistical expert either, though the $200,000 cap seemed weird, so I went to check it out. The quintiles seem to be fifths of the bottom 95% of incomes- the $200,000+ bracket is representative of the “top 5%”. The census info I found was for 2004 (link below), so the numbers will be slightly different than that of the heritage research cited. The ‘04 data puts approx 22.6 million households in each quintile (20%) of the first 95%. The top 5% represents approx 5.7 million households. Take the data for what it’s worth- it is included here for whatever direction you wish to spin it.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/hhinc/new05_000.htm
Posted by: Paul at November 9, 2005 04:58 PMNope. All I’m saying is that you need to get a better argument. On one hand you’re basically suggesting that the UN is a legitimate body that sets International law and Iraq should follow it…but on the other hand you’re ignoring the fact that we defied the UN as well. Pot calling the kettle black…
Ok, it’s just I didn’t know you were going to be as upset with Clinton as Bush. But, it’s really besides the point.
Yes, it’s someone’s opinion…and also the UN’s opinion. Wouldn’t you say that the best authority to interpret the UN charter, and whether it’s been violated, is the UN itself?
The UN’s official stance, right? You mean, the US, UK, Italy and Australia (and many other countries) are about to be sanctioned and their leaders sent to the Hague?
Hmmm, that would be an interesting development.
But, putting all of that aside, you’re saying now is that the Chapter Seven resolutions are just something to be ignored, how does this support the need for the UN to be a viable world body when it can be ignored?
Oh, and can you explain what ‘Serious Consequences’ means in UN-Speak?
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 9, 2005 05:01 PMPaul
The top 5% begins at $157,176. If income is distributed normally, most of the people in this group are distributed closer to the 157K. I don’t know how many people actually make more than $200,000. It is less than 5% and doesn’t change the fundamental shape of the conclusions. Even if not one of these rich guys enlist in the military, you still have the recruits distributed more or less equally in the quintiles, with the lowest one the most underrepresented.
The military still looks like America. Much more than almost any other large institution.
ALL
I have noticed something in the comments. I am not going to question liberal patriotism, but I am going to question liberal perceptions. How do we you view a military career?
Why should anyone care IF the military provides opportunities for the poor? Isn’t that we liberals are trying to force private firms to do? I think the answer is that liberals assume that the military is a bad career choice. I don’t agree and neither do the people who enlist in the military. Let’s leave aside for a minute the (very important) aspect of service. Many people think it is a good choice. The military has traditionally provided career training and upward mobility. Read Colin Powell’s or Tommy Franks’ biography. How much more fulfilling a life could anyone expect. Think of your friends and relatives who served in the military. It was often the best part of their lives or the place where they turned their lives around. There is danger, sure. Should anyone be a soldier, a police officer, a fire fighter, or even a commercial fisherman or a forester? Some things are dangerous. These choices are not for everyone. But not everyone wants to work in a cubicle long enough to create a jungle of his houseplants either. I would like to hear whether at 50 years old career military have more or fewer regrets than their civilian counterparts.
The military is all volunteer. The people in it are intelligent and able. People who make the choice are doing it for good reasons. Get over the old episodes of M*A*S*H*.
Jack, I do have a low opinion of Congress. Some are good some are bad on both sides of the aisle.
Did I vote for Kerry? Yes. Was he my first choice of the dem. candidates? No he was not. But I still voted for him over Bush.
I never said Congress were stupid, timid or no mind of their own.
I am not a Democrat so don’t pretend you know what, if any, party I belong to.
—“We know Saddam had WMD in 1998. We still don’t know where they went. Do you?”—
What I do know is that the first UN inspectors were successful in the most detailed and exaustive WMD search and destroy mission in history which got rid of all of the post Desert Storm weapons. If you have a problem with that read up on SCOTT RITTER, who headed up those inspections. How Iraq could go from no WMDs to “huge stockpiles” in a matter of years with no infrastructure to make any is beyond me. Maybe you could enlighten me.
It was Cheney and Rumsfield that was SURE of the WMDs and Rummy even claimed to know where they were. As we both know they were wrong.
It’s all about who you listen to. Our people in govt were listening to CIA. (like you care what France and Germany think. You only mention them because they happen to agree with your opinion this time. Besides, they get their info from us.) Well the CIA was cherry-picking the intel. Like the fixed Heritage chart, if you start out with half deck of cards, you limit your chances for a winning hand.
Posted by: Matthew at November 9, 2005 05:57 PMOk, it’s just I didn’t know you were going to be as upset with Clinton as Bush. But, it’s really besides the point.I wouldn’t say as upset, but yes. And you’re right, it’s besides the point—because I’m not using it as an argument to justify a war, whereas you have been.
You mean, the US, UK, Italy and Australia (and many other countries) are about to be sanctioned and their leaders sent to the Hague?I don’t know what the UN is going to do, and I don’t see how your question is relevant.
But, putting all of that aside, you’re saying now is that the Chapter Seven resolutions are just something to be ignored, how does this support the need for the UN to be a viable world body when it can be ignored?Again, I’m not saying that it was okay for Iraq to violate UN resolutions. I’m also not saying it was okay for the US to violate the UN charter. What I’m saying is, leaving the moral judgement of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ out of it, that:
- Iraq violated a UN resolution
- In launching a preemptive strike, the US violated the UN charter
- It is the UN’s responsibility to determine how serious either violation is, and what the resulting punishment, if any, should be
- Neither the US, nor Rhinehold, can effectively use Iraq’s violation of the UN resolution as an argument for why it’s okay for the US to violate the UN charter
Oh, and can you explain what ‘Serious Consequences’ means in UN-Speak?No I can’t, and again it’s irrelevant. It’s the UN’s responsibility to enforce their own laws. If you don’t agree with the UN’s decision, that’s your opinion…but you can’t then expect to be taken seriously by quoting the UN’s laws to support our own violation of those laws.
Here’s an admittedly rough example to illustrate the point: Say a man was trespassing on your property and stole your car. The court tries him, but the evidence against him is shaky and as a result he is aquitted. Now, insisting upon ‘justice’, you go find the man and shoot him in cold blood. Now you’re trying to explain your actions to me, perhaps rehearsing for your own day in court. You argue “It was perfectly okay for me to kill that man, because what he did was against the law, even though the court could not see that!”
My response to you is the same: “You need to find a better argument.”
Posted by: Charles Wager at November 9, 2005 06:07 PMCharles
The UN is not sovereign. The UN can’t punish the U.S. unless we let them. You remember that we can veto anything we don’t like. Beyond that, the U.S. is responsible for between a quarter and half of all the UN resources.
You talk about the UN as if it is something it is not. It is a world body without any real power. It depends on the member states (and to a very large degree the U.S.) to support everything it does. It gives the same vote to unelected tyrants from little countries as it does to democratically elected leaders. If you don’t like the U.S. think of it this way, India, the world’s largest democracy has the same voice as several individuals who control counties. Let’s see: millions of Indians versus Robert Mugabe or Fidel Castro.
I don’t know if you like movies. Did you ever see “Tombstone” with Kirk Russell and Val Kilmer? It was on TV a couple days ago. After the shootout at the OK Corral, the corrupt sheriff comes out of hiding and tried to arrest the Earp brothers. Wyatt Earp (Kirk Russell) looks at him contemptuously and says, “I don’t think I am going to let you arrest us.” Saddam is the Clantons; the U.S. is the Earps. The UN is the corrupt and craven sheriff. Rent the movie and tell me if you don’t see it.
I’m not as supprised at the makeup of the military as I am that it’s able to attract and retain the quality of personnel it does.
This is really supprising when you concider that it hasn’t had a pay raise in over 20 years.
My son has been in service for 15 years now. He’s an E-6 and his base pay is $1932.60 per mounth. He does recieve a houseing allowence and allotments for his wife and 5 kids. Exactlly how much that adds to his pay I don’t know. I’d have to ask him. But I would guess by what I was getting when I was in service it would add around $850.00. This would bring his total pay to about $2,482.60 per mounth. He’s a helicopter mechanic. A civilian helicopter mechanic in South Georgia earns around $3,200 a mounth. In some parts of the U.S. they make more.
There has to be, and is, a sense of duty to country in order for someone to make the decission join the military. And a strong sense of duty to make a career in the military.
I would like to hear whether at 50 years old career military have more or fewer regrets than their civilian counterparts.
I cann’t speak for any of my civilian counter parts, but I have absolutely NO regrets for the 20 years I served in the Air Force. My only regret is my decision not to serve 30 years.
Not that things have been bad for me as a civilian. I feel I could’ve been of more service to my country for that 10 extra yaers.
Jack wrote: “The top 5% begins at $157,176. If income is distributed normally, most of the people in this group are distributed closer to the 157K.”
Income is most definitely NOT distributed normally, it’s the quintessesntial example of a right skew. Income has a hard limit at 0 and extends infintely to the right. Because income is not normally distributed, the median is a much better estimate of “average” income than the mean.
This is what makes the Heritage(? - too lazy to re-read) analysis disingenuous. It omits the top 5% and carves the remaining 95% into quintiles. If the top quintile encompassed those making $200,000 and above, the percentage of recruits from that bracket would go down _dramatically_, since that quintile would now include those who are least likely to serve. Instead, it is arbitrarily omitted - a pretty good example of massaging the data to suit one’s purposes. I’ll have to use this in my research methods class in the next couple of weeks.
And Ron Brown, we seem to disagree on most everything, but I appreciate your consistent and unwavering courtesy and respect to those who serve.
Posted by: Arr-squared at November 9, 2005 07:06 PMAdrienne wrote:
Yeah but then with all the revelations about them lying us into the war, as well as the indictments against Libby, and all the speculation surrounding Rove and Cheney, the majority of American’s now have a serious case of voters remorse.
Whats your point?
_______________________________
The point is the military (4 to 1) along with the majority (51%) of Americans knew this information and heard the same old mantra: “Bush lied kids died”, “went to war for oil”, “Bush is a tyrannt”, etc., for over 2 years and still he wins the election. And, Rove and Chenney were not indicted; you’re accusing them of a crime they didn’t commit.
You’re still saying the same crap and it’s not get through come election time. So, keep it up. Show us your hate for Bush and not for the terrorists. Keep it up.
Posted by: rahdigly at November 9, 2005 07:24 PMJack,
The UN is not sovereign. The UN can’t punish the U.S. unless we let them.I never claimed they could. If you’re referring to my example…well, I did say it was “rough”
You remember that we can veto anything we don’t like. Beyond that, the U.S. is responsible for between a quarter and half of all the UN resources.How is this relevant to my argument?
No I don’t. I am making no claim about what the UN can or can’t do. My only point in this discussion is that it gets you nowhere to argue that we were right to break the rules to invade Iraq…because Iraq broke the rules first. Why should Iraq be expected to obey the UN if the US—who has much more influence in the UN to get their way—won’t even follow the rules themselves? I don’t know how to make it any clearer. Pick any other pro-invasion argument if you must and run with that, but this one makes no sense because our credibility is shot.
You talk about the UN as if it is something it is not.
Posted by: Charles Wager at November 9, 2005 07:37 PM
JUST TO LET EVERY BODY KNOW 80% OF THE TROOPS ARE RIGHT FIELDERS.
Posted by: marinedomyanic at November 9, 2005 08:04 PMArr
I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The people above 200K don’t make up 5% of the population. If one out of every twenty Americans is making more than $200,000, it is a good thing, BTW. That would mean that we have about as many really rich as we do long term poor. Do you believe that? If so, three cheers for capitalism.
Individual family income for recruits is not available. The study used ZCTA. The median incomes even in the richest codes don’t exceed 200,000. That probably accounts for the number. I just don’t know, but it really doesn’t change the general picture.
Let me indulge you however. But let’s do the worst case possible scenario.
The Top Adjusted gross income for the top 5% was $130,080 in 2003. The cutoff for the top 1% was $295,000. I don’t know where $200,001 falls on this distribution, but it is more than 1% and less than 5%. Since income distributions tend to get thinner near the tails, I would think it would be at around 2%. Let’s assume that NONE of these guys enlist. And let’s just take that percentage away from the top bracket - ALL of it. You still are left with 20% in the top bracket. Let me be even more generous. Let’s subtract 5%. You still are left with 17%. No matter how you slice it, the shape is still basically the same.
The bottom line is that the military looks like America or at least more like America than most major institutions. I wonder how many ACLU members come from the lowest quintile.
The idea that Bush lied and sent the poor to fight his war is just not supported by the data.
Money has nothing to do with character nor does it have anything to do with class. Money is cheap paper manufactured by men. Gold is dirt from the ground. People who think that a person is smart or ignorant because of pieces of dirt and bark, are exhibing my point exactly. Now that American Capitalism is being destroyed forever, we can see just how useless our lives here have been. We have killed, stolen, and destroyed other countries under the disguise of democracy. We could care less about democracy at home. Now we steal and control other people’s lives and resources while stealing their money. We think that being a Republican is important because it supposedly represents the monied class. Pretty soon, a loaf of bread will truly buy a bag of gold in the U. S. Our money is becoming less and less important around the world. What will you do then?
Posted by: gwenbo at November 9, 2005 08:09 PMCharles
There was never a security council resolution condemning our invasion of Iraq. We never violated a resolution. That is why the U.S. veto matters.
Watch that movie. The more I think about it, the more that scene makes sense.
Posted by: Jack at November 9, 2005 08:10 PMThese statistics are probably true. Now the majority of persons dying in the war should be White then. But this is apparently not so, is it? If Whites are fighting the war it is because of the discrimination in the school systems that denied proper educations and diplomas to qualified Hispanic and Black students. If 50% are not able to fight it may be because 50% of Blacks and Hispanics “never” being able to get a high school diploma in this so called Democracy. But then again, it is being ruled by Republicans. Die then!
Posted by: chiq at November 9, 2005 08:15 PMIf America is not guilty, Saddaam is not guilty! They committed the same crime. Only, America killed more people and innocent persons and for the same reason that Saddaam is on trial.
Posted by: emall at November 9, 2005 08:26 PMJack,
There was never a security council resolution condemning our invasion of Iraq. We never violated a resolution.I never said we did; I said we broke the rules. What I literally said was that we violated the UN charter and violated International law. How is that any less serious than violating a resolution?
Posted by: Charles Wager at November 9, 2005 08:33 PM
Did you go and look up what a Chapter Seven resolution was yet?
As for violating the UN Charter, I don’t believe we did. You say we did, you say the UN says we did when what you mean to say is that Kofi Anan suggested we did. Those two things are not the same thing unless the UN has become a dictatorship. If we did violate the UN charter, where is the resolution stating so? Please show me the link to the relevant indication of such.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 9, 2005 08:45 PMChiq
If you have some statistics on race and income of combat fatalities, please provide it. People throw around such things without any reason. Of course it depends on the day you ask. With a small sample size, as we have in Iraq the figures might not mean much.
emall
If that is what you think, it is your business. You probably don’t get around much.
Rhinehold,
Did you go and look up what a Chapter Seven resolution was yet?No, because I already knew what a Chapter VII resolution was. It’s irrelevant what it says, however, because only the UN as a voting body has the authority to enforce its own resolutions, and if the UN had authorized the use of force against Iraq by issuing a new resolution we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.
As for violating the UN Charter, I don’t believe we did. You say we did, you say the UN says we did when what you mean to say is that Kofi Anan suggested we did. Those two things are not the same thing unless the UN has become a dictatorship.Interesting…exactly the same argument can be made about an invasion that was not sanctioned by the UN. How is the US not acting like a dictator to decide that it has the authority to interpret a UN Security Council resolution without the concensus of the Security Council?
If we did violate the UN charter, where is the resolution stating so? Please show me the link to the relevant indication of such.
What makes you think that there must be a resolution passed for the charter to have been violated? Please show me the link to the relevant indication of such.
Now, we could argue about the semantics of the UN charter and International law forever, but on the surface it all seem pretty straightforward to me:
Article 2 The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
…
Posted by: Charles Wager at November 9, 2005 10:16 PM
Charles
When you talk about semantics, you are talking about treaties etc. Semantics is all there is. The state of war with Saddam was never over. It was a cease fire and it Iraq was to follow the terms. You could argue that the original resolutions were still in force. Those are the sematics. They would probably stand up. In any case, the UN has never declared us in violation and never will.
Posted by: jack at November 9, 2005 10:37 PMJack,
The inarguable lie that Bush43 made was that WMD’s were the reason we went to war. I believe everything that followed was lies, although it is admittedly difficult to prove.
The unforgivable aspect is that he used 9/11 as the political capital to get the country to buy into it.
Jack,
In any case, the UN has never declared us in violation and never will.The UN has also never declared us in compliance and never will, for exactly the same reason. The semantics work both ways. All semantics aside, its obvious to me that we violated the principles. I would like to see a day when our leadership is willing to put the principle of the UN charter and International law first, and not have to depend on weak semantic loopholes to try to defend their irresponsible actions. Either that, or I would like to see a day when our leadership has the honesty and integrity to pull out of the UN altogether. I don’t, however, believe that either day will ever come.
Posted by: Charles Wager at November 9, 2005 11:36 PM
emall
Let me guess.
You attend the University of Colorado and attend one of Ward Churchill’s classes. Or it could be any other university with the same kind of professor.
tomh,
let me guess. You attended Oral Roberts University, attend speaches by Pat Robertson, and think Intelligent Design really is good science.
Posted by: Dave at November 10, 2005 10:38 AMDave
Bad guesses, except Intelligent Design. Evolution theory has been so debunked that I find it hard to believe anybody still follows a theory that so many people cannot even agree on any variety of segments of the theory. ORU and Pat Robertson have never been a part of my life. So take another shot.
tomh,
Evolution theory hasn’t been debunked at all, as far as I can find. In fact, the theory is stronger than ever. Feel free to provide sources if you think otherwise. On the other hand, the religious right’s new book of the bible, “Darwin’s Black Box”, has been debunked so thoroughly it didn’t even get out of the starting gate.
Two of Behe’s Reviewers Speak Out
Posted by: Charles Wager at November 10, 2005 01:24 PMCharles Wager
The theories of evolution have so many holes in them that there is no starting place to show it. The proponents of evolutionary thinking cannot agree on any time table they have. They use round numbers so large that the window of possibility is truly challenging. One of my biggest thorns concerning evolution is that beyond 6 thousand years there is absolutely no written documentation of history. Genesis is the first documentation of history, period. Everything else is guess work, speculation, imagination, and so on. There is absolutely no documentation beyond Genesis.
The preceeding comments are off topic and I will not respond any further on the subject.
Posted by: tomh at November 10, 2005 01:33 PMtomh,
There’s a post under the Independent column called “Unintelligent Design”. Perhaps you’d care to debate it there? I was looking forward to researching your sources.
Posted by: Charles Wager at November 10, 2005 01:40 PMWe don’t have and probably can’t get individual income figures for the families of recruits. It would not be useful in many ways anyway.
Jack, that’s like saying, “I don’t care about the facts, I’m just right!” But you’re not. That data is vital to making your point that the military has the same demographics as America. It doesn’t.
Thanks to Lisa Renee for posting a couple links that completely destroy Jack’s and the Heritage Foundatin’s spin on this subject. Here they are again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528.html
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=177&Itemid=107
Why should anyone care IF the military provides opportunities for the poor? Isn’t that we liberals are trying to force private firms to do? I think the answer is that liberals assume that the military is a bad career choice.
Ah, changing the subject. Good idea, Jack.
The military is absolutely an excellent opportunity. In fact, if they take 3-year olds, I’m signing up Pundit Jr. right now. He just dug a big hole in the lawn. Maybe the Army Corp of Engineers needs some help meeting their recruiting objectives. :/
Seriously, my family wouldn’t be as relatively well off as we are today without the military and the Democrat’s GI Bill — and the Democrat’s Social Security and Medicare and, of course, the incredible gains we made during the Golden Age of Clinton.
Democrats and the military have been very very good to my family, and I really resent the Republican leadership attacking the middle-class status I worked so hard to achieve. Especially when they use such obviously misleading spin as that Heritage Foundation report to do it.
Posted by: American Pundit at November 10, 2005 06:21 PMAP
The reason I say that the income of recruits is unavailable is because it IS unavailable. The studies you cite also use proxy data. That is what we have. Heritage is a little more precise in using zip codes instead of counties. That is a better source of data.
Looking at the data you provided.
We have a chart of army recruits. There are not sufficient details to get exact numbers, but look at that chart. It doesn’t prove what they imply.
It is very much shaped like a standard distribution, which is essentially what I repeated over and over. The military looks like America.
The oddly long tail on the upside is caused by graphic comparison of different sized groups.
The other variable that the article acknowledges (as does Heritage) but then ignores is that recruits come from rural area and the south. Cost of living is lower. A person who makes $65,000 in rural Alabama has to make about $125,000 to enjoy the same lifestyle in New York.
Specifically, the study mentions four jurisdictions in Virginia (not counties BTW), the state where I live. In rural Virginia, you can buy land for about $1000-1500 an acre and you can. A nice house will cost you about $100,000. In Northern Virginia, $1000 will buy you a handful of dirt and you can’t buy a trailer for 100K. Income figures just are not comparable.
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=179&Itemid=107
I don’t know where they got the figures on Hispanic recruits. It just is contrary to the data Heritage quotes from the military. I would be surprised if nearly one in five sailors was Hispanic.
Re why do we care if the poor join the military? The question remains. A steady job with good educational benefits is relatively more valuable to a poor person. It is just true and simple, not nefarious.
If the military provides opportunities for the poor, three cheers for the military. Why does that bother you?
Jack, even using the zip code data from the Pentagon, two-thirds of recruits are from areas where the median income is below the national median. That alone sinks the right-wing Heritage Foundation think tank’s claim that the military has the same demographics as America.
And from knowing a bunch of Navy guys, I’d say that 1 in 5 being Hispanic is just about right — but I live in San Diego when I’m not in Singapore, so that may skew my experience.
If the military provides opportunities for the poor, three cheers for the military. Why does that bother you?
Where’d that come from? I love the military. As I said, it’s a great opportunity for anybody and it’s certainly been great for my family.
Posted by: American Pundit at November 11, 2005 07:47 AMAP
It has similar demographics except it is more rural and more southern. The more rural and more southern part account for differences in median income.
As for the loving the military part, we would agree that the military is a good option for some kids. You are not like many other liberals, who actively try to keep recruiters out of HS and fight ROTC programs in colleges. That is great.
The Marine recruiter came to see my son. He told me that many parents won’t let him in the door, even when the kid had made an appointment. This is a little off the subject, I know, but it is a serious problem.
The military is a good option for many people. It is a relatively better option for a poorer kid, since he has fewer choices. We should be happy that we can provide this help.
“I would like to see a day when our leadership is willing to put the principle of the UN charter and International law first”
That’s a very scary thought. Unfortunately, we’re already one third of the way there with our Judiciary. The day Executive and Legislative go that adopt that thinking, will be the last day of the USA.
Posted by: Al Wilson at November 11, 2005 08:56 PMI just want to say Happy Veterans Day to all that are serving and served this great Nation. Thank you all for your courage and bravery. God Bless all my military brethren and God Bless America.
And Charles Wager, in an attempt to extend an olive branch to you on this day, I thank your family and friends that served…
Posted by: rahdigly at November 11, 2005 10:59 PMThe Marine recruiter came to see my son. He told me that many parents won’t let him in the door, even when the kid had made an appointment. This is a little off the subject, I know, but it is a serious problem.
Jack, as far as I’m concerned, that’s a private family matter. I’ll spread the good word about military benefits, but I’m not going to judge another family’s perception of a military career. It’s none of my business.
In fact, one of the reasons I’m a Democrat is because Republicans are a bunch of nosy busy-bodies who are always butting into private family matters.
It has similar demographics except it is more rural and more southern.
LOL! So the demographics are the same, but different? Thanks Jack. :)
Posted by: American Pundit at November 12, 2005 09:27 AMAP
This is probably the last post on this since we have moved on, but the rural southern thing is something I mentioned at the top and it was a big part of the Heritage study. It is the anomoly in the otherwise consistent pattern. Nothing wrong with that and no attempt at deception.
Posted by: Jack at November 12, 2005 05:10 PM