Kerry said same thing about troops in '72

[kaydee457 13]

In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'

"Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities," he wrote.

source

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Noticeable that the poor were recruited disproportionately (and had harder time getting exemptions) when there WAS a draft--because many of the rich could easily get exemptions through favours/bribery.

In full agreement with Charles here!

Edited November 2, 2006 by CherryXS

[CarolineM 0]

I don't get the big deal. He is right. The MAJORITY of our troops who fight are more uneducated. I see them recruit here at my impoverished HS where I work - they are ruthless - prmosing kids that can hardly read all these things...

And they ARE the ones who fight - anyone I know who has only a HS diplome - they are overseas in Iraq, etc....my officer friends...allll in the states or somewhere cushy.

So what gives?

[GaryC 7]

I don't get the big deal. He is right. The MAJORITY of our troops who fight are more uneducated. I see them recruit here at my impoverished HS where I work - they are ruthless - prmosing kids that can hardly read all these things...

And they ARE the ones who fight - anyone I know who has only a HS diplome - they are overseas in Iraq, etc....my officer friends...allll in the states or somewhere cushy.

So what gives?

In reality the US Armed Services as a demographic are more educated than the general population. Of the 5 Iraq veterans I know personally they all had at least some college.

In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equiv­alent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). We did find evidence of a "Southern military tradition" in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population.

The household income of recruits generally matches the income distribution of the American population. There are slightly higher proportions of recruits from the middle class and slightly lower proportions from low-income brackets. However, the proportion of high-income recruits rose to a disproportionately high level after the war on ter­rorism began, as did the proportion of highly edu­cated enlistees. All of the demographic evidence that we analyzed contradicts the pro-draft case.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalS...ty/cda05-08.cfm

Edited November 2, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I don't get the big deal. He is right. The MAJORITY of our troops who fight are more uneducated . I see them recruit here at my impoverished HS where I work - they are ruthless - prmosing kids that can hardly read all these things...

And they ARE the ones who fight - anyone I know who has only a HS diplome - they are overseas in Iraq, etc....my officer friends...allll in the states or somewhere cushy.

So what gives?

more uneducated than what?

[CarolineM 0]

All i know is, I've worked at two diametrically opposed schools. One very poor and black, one very wealthy and diverse.

The recruiters were at school nunber EVERY DAY. Recruiting SO HARD....taking any kid who got a GED. I never saw them ONCE at the other school. (Except on ASVAB day).

I don't support john kerry - I'm actually a republican, but...in my PErsonal experience, that's just what I've seen.

Glad to see some data from 1999 that disputes that, but we all know statistics can be maniuplated to say anything we want.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

All i know is, I've worked at two diametrically opposed schools. One very poor and black, one very wealthy and diverse.

The recruiters were at school nunber EVERY DAY. Recruiting SO HARD....taking any kid who got a GED. I never saw them ONCE at the other school. (Except on ASVAB day).

I don't support john kerry - I'm actually a republican, but...in my PErsonal experience, that's just what I've seen.

Glad to see some data from 1999 that disputes that, but we all know statistics can be maniuplated to say anything we want.

having been there and done that, i'm certain that percentage wise the us military beats the civilian population in both college degrees and in high school degrees.

[CarolineM 0]

having been there and done that, i'm certain that percentage wise the us military beats the civilian population in both college degrees and in high school degrees.

That's really interesting. i'd love to see a study done - maybe if I have time today I'll google it.

My experience

1. Dated a Coastie for 2 years - EVERY PERSON at his post - over 50 people I met (I know that's not THAT many) - none had college degrees. Some college, yeah, but not completed.

2. I know about 30 military people - ANY of them with college degrees are officers or here in cushy jobs...any without, all have been or are going to Iraq or the middle east...again JUST my experience

3. Again the recruitment strategies int he poor black school, vs the rich school...

4. Oh and I also live in a navy town! NEver met a college degreed person who had been to fight in the middle east...only the GED or no college people i've met.

It's an interesting argument.

Edited November 2, 2006 by CarolineM

[Alex+R 0]

Gary,

It would help me see your argument if your statistics did not come from conservative thinktanks heavily funded by special interests.

Thanks,

Alex

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

having been there and done that, i'm certain that percentage wise the us military beats the civilian population in both college degrees and in high school degrees.

That's really interesting. i'd love to see a study done - maybe if I have time today I'll google it.

My experience

1. Dated a Coastie for 2 years - EVERY PERSON at his post - over 50 people I met (I know that's not THAT many) - none had college degrees. Some college, yeah, but not completed.

2. I know about 30 military people - ANY of them with college degrees are officers or here in cushy jobs...any without, all have been or are going to Iraq or the middle east...again JUST my experience

3. Again the recruitment strategies int he poor black school, vs the rich school...

4. Oh and I also live in a navy town! NEver met a college degreed person who had been to fight in the middle east...only the GED or no college people i've met.

It's an interesting argument.

coast guard was in dot, not dod. don't they fall under homeland security now?

[GaryC 7]

Gary,

It would help me see your argument if your statistics did not come from conservative thinktanks heavily funded by special interests.

Thanks,

Alex

I also speak from personal experience. I was a part of the service after the draft ended and I have a college degree. So many people either had college before they joined or they took advantage of the free education while they were in. Both of my brothers were in gulf war 1 and one of them was in gulf war 2. They both have BS degrees and one of them has a MB. The forman that just started working at my plant just got back from Iraq and has two BS degrees. I can go on but you can believe what you want.

Edited November 2, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Alex+R 0]

Gary, if they are joining for the education benefits, it suggests that they probably had no other way to pay on their own, right? So we're still talking about the disadvantaged, right?

[GaryC 7]

Gary, if they are joining for the education benefits, it suggests that they probably had no other way to pay on their own, right? So we're still talking about the disadvantaged, right?

I didn't feel "disadvantaged" and neither did my brothers. We did it for love of country and a sense of duty.

[Jenn! 918]

These stats seem credible, although I'm not familiar with the differences between these various categories:

http://www.dod.mil/prhome/poprep2002/contents/contents.htm