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.