Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Annie, Oct 31, 2006.
Senator Kerry should read this just before he apoligizes to the active military personal in Iraq.
The demograph the US military lost were those who join during peacetime simply to have a job. When you add asking them to do what they were signed up to do ...risk their lives .... they'd rather work at MickeyD's.
Last 'reups' were over 66%. These are guys and girls that joined after 9/11 and decided to continue. In spite of too much, no exaggeration here, being asked of them, they still extended. Certainly not all are republican, but somehow they saw hope in what they are doing.
That "troops" are Republican or Democrat is a fallacy. Most feel they are obligated to serve something more than themselves ... the Nation. But then, I was spoiled in that sense. Nobody joins the Marines for a "job;" which, is not always the case with the other branches.
When I joined, we all figured we were going to war with Iran. We didn't give much thought to who was President, or what flavor he was. In hindsight, not real bright since Carter was President, but that's how it was nonetheless.
Troops are like everyone else. The really don't become politically aware until mid-late 20s - early-30s. And most, minus the 10%, are proud of what they do, and they do it more to not let their fellow Marines down than any other reason. Each Marine knows if he fails to carry his load, another Marine will have to carry two. As long as each Marine does his job, everyone has the best chance of coming home. The only notice will take of politics is if they actively get screwed by them.
If John Murtha thinks there are ANY Marines in Iraq who are proud of him, he needs to get more in touch with reality. Most Marines I know consider him a traitor to everything the Corps stands for.
I put it badly, but assumed such. I know my dad was the least political person that could have entered the service, with or against his will. Seriously, at the time of his draft board, he hadn' a clue to where Hawaii was, or why the hell it resulted in a Declaration of War. He can tell you why 9/11 should have resulted in such.
I'll give you an example of why the zip code analysis is terribly poor:
I went to high school in a standard suburban north jersey town.
Median household income: $79,500
Population under poverty line: 432 (1.8% of town's population)
Kids in my graduating class of 160ish that joined the military: 2 (1 marine, 1 coast guard)
I did not know either of the two guys well enough to say whether or not they were living uner the povery line, but if they were, this report has their household income at 79,500. There is a VAST difference between median and reality in that case. My town perfectly represents how deceptive the household median stat can be.
Interesting...that's a mighty big "if" to base your last assertion on...what you are really saying is "If frogs had wings, they could fly"...in other words, you have no idea of whether the stats are real. I am sure you have convinced yourself that they are not.
Its more like this:
They are asserting that if 65% of percipitation is rain...then the percipitation that arrives tomorrow will be rain.
Of course I just made that number up, but you can see that it is quite possible the percipitation tomorrow will not be rain.
So if the median income from a recruit's town is 75,000 then we will use that number to represent their income. Since the median income from towns is increasing then the recruits are obviously more wealthy, and to say we are feeding on poor kids is false!
Too many leaps of faith and assumptions are involved in their statistic to even draw reliable conclusions.
How about an area like Manhattan: median income is $50,000+, but 20% of the people there are below the poverty line. That is 318,640 people below the poverty line. And if a few of those people choose to join, their "zip code income" will be listed as over 50,000 (quite different then their acual income). If you look at the graph, 50,000 would be on the higher side. Most recruit's "zip code" median income is below 50,000.
Nope...your logic is flawed. Your assumption is that ONLY those below median income are recruits and NONE are above median. Perhaps the opposite is true and those few recruited come from a demographic ABOVE the median, therefore the statistics are skewed too low. I suspect, you, like Kerry, presume that members of the military are poverty stricken, uneducated and lazy. It does not cross your mind that the statistics are correct because they do not support your views.
Separate names with a comma.