Why don't the rich send their kids to fight the war?

70% of Iraqis want US out of there within 12 months, notice they "Iraqis' didn't say tomorrow?

Training Iraqi troops.Which they gladly accept.

People like,Jimmie Mccain, Beau Biden,Track Palin ??

 

I said: "...the political "elite" and the Iraq/Afghan military."...
I'd also add Iraq/Afghan politicians.
As far as the general public is concerned:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_03_09_iraqpollfeb2009.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7942974.stm
http://asiafoundation.org/country/afghanistan/2008-poll.php
Like every where feelings are mixed.

To be honest, the question "who wants us there" isn't a major question anymore.
There are far more pressing questions that are asked.

http://www.sigir.mil/
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=iraq&Body1=inspect
http://unama.unmissions.org/default.aspx?/
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/F...actsheets/OperationsInIraqFactsandFigures.htm

Life today

Since the Taliban were overthrown in 2001, and because of the international community's support, 5 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan.
Additionally, 5.7 million more children are enrolled in school and tens of thousands of lives are being saved every year through improvements in basic healthcare.
And even while fighting continues in other parts of Helmand, roads are being built, schools are providing education, shuras are delivering proper justice and farmers are being persuaded to switch from poppy to wheat crops - all because of the security contributed to by our troops.

Although considerable progress has been made, major long-term challenges lie ahead.
The challenges facing Afghanistan are substantial and complex.
They require a multi-stranded approach, covering security, building more effective and accountable governance, and promoting development in an often insecure environment.
They also require a complementary approach, especially in relation to the border areas. The effort must be led by the Afghan government, with the international community's support.
We have taken on a great responsibility to our citizens, to Afghanistan and to future generations.
We will continue to play a leading role in this international effort and will not walk away from it.

http://www.army.mod.uk/operations-deployments/operations/908.aspx

No.
It's a stupid premise.
It's "rightly so" because there is no modern precedent for it...and really, why should they?
It's even more stupid than "guys" premise that if you support either war you should be out there fighting (awaits guy to chime in: "Say hello to Tel Aviv" - yawn).
I don't know about you, but who needs to go over that stupid premise any more?

Ho hum...build yourself a bridge, gardener.
Crickey.
Another stupid premise.
Like I've said every social and financial "class" of soldier can be found out there.
Although there are more "poor" people fighting, it is another flawed premise, based on your (and people like you) prejudices.
I know you think troops are out there to keep oil pipelines open for the rich elite in wall street, and Bush and Co (how his name seems like it is lost in history now) and that America owns and controls the oil pipelines blah blah blah.
But time after time people tell you it isn't so.
They show you an alternative POV/facts...the more plausible and reasonable POV/fact.
What do you do? Ignore it all.

Seriously, do some research for yourself about this...it isn't hard.

 

System Of A Down B.Y.O.B. rocks, but its incorrect.
Usually if a claim like that is made it should be backed up with data not opinion.


The Heritage Foundation Chart is the first one I stumbled across.

Regional Map

 

the war is fought by any american, englishman, or canadian man who chooses to be there.

it ranges from a man on the brink of debt, to prince henry.

 

It is a little old..and i'm sure if we looked newer data can be found...but:

Indeed, in many criteria, each year shows advancement, not decline, in measurable qualities of new enlistees. For example, it is commonly claimed that the military relies on recruits from poorer neighborhoods because the wealthy will not risk death in war. This claim has been advanced without any rigorous evidence. Our review of Pen­tagon enlistee data shows that the only group that is lowering its participation in the military is the poor. The percentage of recruits from the poorest American neighborhoods (with one-fifth of the U.S. population) declined from 18 percent in 1999 to 14.6 percent in 2003, 14.1 percent in 2004, and 13.7 percent in 2005.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm

Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11?

http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/cda05-08.cfm

 

Well, some of this data is very misleading. Just because you come from a wealthy neighbourhood, doesn't mean that you yourself and your family are wealthy, does it. But that's what this first chart suggests from your source:



2nd chart in your source. Um, who cares what the median family income of the neighbourhood is? You can live in the nicest family neighbourhoods with the highest incomes in the world, but if you're a single parent, you only have 1 income and it doesn't make a lick of a difference what the median average of the world around you makes as you enlist into the armed forces :




This is interesting however. It would seem as though racial minorities are under-represented in the military:

 

Good point if slightly wrong.

No. Prince Harry.




His brother is in the military too.

 

darn .~*-*~



Harry.

My bad.

 

Kinda like the Thread name?

Very misleading ? Apparently You didn't read how they came to these conclusions. Have any other data to compare it too?

The odds are higher for being rich than poor.
So, that automatically makes them poor, because they come from a rich neighborhood? Which makes more sense ?
By your logic all the ones that came from poor neighborhoods are in fact rich.

And this is why No One bothers with providing sources.You can't back up the OP claim, so attack my source.

 

Never mind.
I doubt the Royal family will place you in the Tower of London for this...

 

Not really. According to this 75% of Enlisted Recruits come from neighbourhoods that make less than $65,000 per household:



Only 25% of recruits come from these rich neighbourhoods that make above $65,000 per household.

I enjoy dissecting sources. This one is really interesting :

 

lol New England is unpatriotic.

Honestly for some people economics do come into play, but when you look at the amount of people from homes that are at least well off enough where there is no actual need for them to join the military tradition and culture probably play a larger part. I've only known 3 people I can think of who've joined the military and they were all from decent backrounds.

 

$65,000 is in relation to what?

No one really bothered to draw the line between rich an poor.

Median Household Income is closer to $49,000

It also show's that 49% come from neighborhoods with above avg. incomes.

The OP was claiming No rich kids are sent/go to war, not that there were more poor than rich.
25% So, the rich Do send their kids to war, thx.

And here's the 2 who's work you're pretending to 'dissect"

Shanea Watkins, Ph.D. I'll consider taking you serious when you come back with the same credentials.

James Sherk
Too bad you didn't have the same feelings toward providing some.

Dissect away, if that's what you want to call it.

 

$65,000 in relation to my own social class and status. My parents made about $72,000 each before they retired, a total income of $144,000 gross and they are nowhere near from rich. Still middle-class. I even helped make the mortgage payments.

The point is, if a family income is $65,000 gross, it's not that far from the poor category. In fact, it's closer to poor than it is to rich.

Why do I have to provide stats for you exactly? I don't understand why you are adamant on me producing stats right now out of Googling them. Like, what's wrong with your stats?

Yeah, the rich do send their kids to join the army, but not to war. The rich kids grow up to be educated officers and pencil pushers :

 

Uhm,ok.

My parents were/are filthy rich,I served 6 years 4 of them behind a .50 cal. not a desk.

We could go on forever on who's poor and who isn't.

The chart showing 40% of them getting ROTC comissions proves that^, what about the other 60% ?

 

Well, earning $33,000 a year is poor. That's why a combined income to a total of $65,000 gross isn't that far from poor. Because a single person making $33,000 doesn't make ya rich.

Hell, living in a neighbourhood where most people earn $49,000 DOES NOT MAKE YOU RICH. And that's why these stats are not relative. Because they're not actual income stats. They are neighbourhood stats relative to where an enlisted person came from - it doesn't clearly identify who is and isn't rich.

Ya get what I'm saying dude?

 

Poorer people can live in higher income neighborhoods and richer folks can live in lower income neighborhoods , but even if that doesn't average out all that will do is flatten the curve.

Even the dip at the lowest income neighborhood can be explained by kids from low income neighborhoods are less likely to meet the minimum requirements (HS diploma, criminal history) for enlistment.

The chart makes it clear that the distribution of pre-enlistment income of the military is pretty much the same as the civilian distiribution of income.