In some countries there's less of a taboo in showing graphic war imagery than the US, and I don't think it's made them wiser. The injustice is when one small segment of your population endures the horror while the rest glorifies and romanticizes it. The extreme solution is if every time we as a country decide to go to ANY war, we conscript across all socio-economic lines. You really can't show or read about the cost of war.

Contrary to the popular belief, it's the middle and upper classes which are overrepresented in the US military, not the poor: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-...

Your link is to a page on the Heritage Foundation's website. Heritage is a well-known, right-wing pro-corporate/pro-oil/pro-plutocratic propaganda think tank, funded in part by the Koch brother's oil tycoon family, and started by Coors. A quick trip to their Wikipedia page will give a taste of the sort of high quality human beings they are associated with (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation), such as the Kochs, Reagan, Novak, Kristol, Bennet, Cheney, Boehner, Gingrich, Scaife, and Pat Robertson. And they have partnered with organizations like AEI, the Hoover Institution and the Wall Street Journal. Because Heritage has such a public track record of on-going spin and disinformation I would not trust them for any objective, non-distorted arguments.

Furthermore, it's pretty well-known among historians that in wars it is primarily the poor and the working middle-class, who die or suffer predominately, either as soldiers or civilians on the homefront, or as prisoners. The rich and their sons are disproportionately able to avoid harm, and especially in the case of weapons contractors or supply companies, oil suppliers, or banks, are often able to profit handsomely from wars and militarization. This is not controversial and is a repeated pattern going back at least a thousand years or so.

Also I looked at their report and it's cherry picked and very carefully worded, with several sloppy arguments, often contradicting themselves in the matter of a few sentences. Typical stuff for them.

> Also I looked at their report and it's cherry picked and very carefully worded, with several sloppy arguments, often contradicting themselves in the matter of a few sentences. Typical stuff for them.

I don't see anything wrong with their methodology, could point those out for me?

Sorry I will not. It's hilariously bad. Riddled with it. I've seen dozens of flaws with just a few paragraphs. It's very very carefully worded and has gaping statistical flaws and false conclusions. Even starting with the piece's title and 1st paragraph you should be able to see the propaganda shell game start shuffling around. I made my comment more for the sake of other readers of HN. Instead I'll offer it as a geeky intellectual challenge for yourself to take a fresh look at their report with a critical eye. Once you can spot all the "fnords" in one piece of a propaganda you'll get better at seeing it elsewhere as well. :)

You keep repeating the ad hominem but there's not much to your critique. Actually, you didn't offer a single valid argument and seem much more biased than the report, I don't think HN is benefiting.

This report is base on the demographics of 2006-07 enlistees. Go back to the late 1960s (Vietnam era) when you have a draft, and people of means taking college deferments, and I wonder how the numbers would look.

I'm quickly desensitized by video footage or images from war, acts of terrorism and the like. It might just be me, but I find that reading about the atrocities of war is much more effectual. So maybe there is a case for more old-fashioned war reporting?

Indeed, and there is also a question of the dignity of the victims of these events. It might be very distressing indeed for the family of a dead soldier to see his strewn remains appear on television.

> There's a real question as to whether war ought to be shown in all its gory "It is almost impossible to produce antiwar films or documentaries that also present images of battle. It is like trying to condemn pornography while showing erotic love scenes. The prurient fascination with violent death always overpowers the message. War has become part of the modern industrial landscape. Indeed, its tools are often the cutting edge of technology." - from Chris Hedges' "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning"

Great speech here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2SaM8RJ30c

I would rather the journalist's simply described events with a view to the people involved. Describe what it feels like to walk past a bombed out car. Interview the family of the dead. Actual journalism.

Robert Fisk sprung to mind immediately when you said that. What ever anyone thinks of his politics, he does manage to convey things from a viewpoint at the scene of the event.