Posted on 12/16/2008 8:16:22 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
In Hopewell Township, N.J., the veterans of American Legion Post 339 have put their building up for sale. "Today's vets don't come out," 82-year old Jim Hall told The Times of Trenton last month. The post is down from 425 paying members in the 1960s and '70s to 202 this year; only about a dozen regularly attend.
But it's America that has changed, not vets.
Since 1970, the population of the United States has grown by about 50 percent, from roughly 200 million to 300 million. Over the same period, the number of active-duty armed forces has fallen approximately 50 percent, from 3 million to 1.4 million. A far smaller percentage of the citizenry now serves in the military.
Whereas in 1969 13 percent of Americans were veterans, in 2007 only 8 percent of us were.
Even more important than these general demographic shifts is the change wrought by the end of the draft in 1973. Until then, military service was distributed pretty evenly across regions. But that is no longer true. The residential patterns for current veterans and the patterns of state-level contributions of new recruits to the all-volunteer military have a distinct geographic tilt. And tellingly, the map of military service since 1973 aligns closely with electoral maps distinguishing red from blue states.
In 1969, the 10 states with the highest percentage of veterans were, in order: Wyoming, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, California, Oregon, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Connecticut and Illinois.
In 2007, the 10 states with the highest percentage of post-Vietnam-era veterans were, in order: Alaska, Virginia, Hawaii, Washington, Wyoming, Maine, South Carolina, Montana, Maryland and Georgia.
Over the past four decades, which states have disappeared from the top 10? California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Illinois, all big_blue states that have voted Democratic in the past five_presidential elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
I'm not sure that I agree with that assessment. I would think that a force of draftees would be close to useless in a domestic insurrection. Witness the reluctance of Soviet Army units to put down local demonstrations during the final days of the Gorbachev regime. This was repeated over & over in Eastern Europe as communist governments attempted to quell public disturbances. IIRC, the Soviets were using their "Border Police" as fire brigades because they were more 'reliable'. And that stands to reason since you wouldn't put 'unreliable troops' close to the border where they would be likely to defect.
No fair studying history and using facts .
I would be quite interested on how Obama would deploy his anti-red turncoats.
My first thought would be in high schools, similar to a Harry Potter film, students would get credits for ferreting out those not supportive of gay agendas, mandatory volunteerism,not willing to adopt re-training that is counter to the US Constitution.
I would also suspect they would swoop down upon anti-Obama protests though only time will tell how far they may go as to bearing arms.
I do know they will start infiltrating the internet as they are doing now but actively seeking out individuals places of residence.
I can think of several derogatory terms of his “army” such as Bluebritches, Bluecoats,Islamoyouths,Muslim Marchers,Husseins Henchmen, Baracks Brigade.
look how they’re dividing us now!
Aside from the military, the best armed general population is in the “Red” states.
The best armed civilians in the “Blue” states are concentrated in the inner city street gangs. These would be the cadres for Obama’s “Civilian Defense Force,”
ONOZ! Also, the NBA should be 86% white!
"Crossing the Rubicon" is one analogy. Another, more recent one, would be the return to Spain by Francisco Franco & his conservative Army from (Spanish) Morocco. (If you can get past the Facist baggage that Franco carried, he did save Spain from Communist-Anarchist violence.)
That’s only if us old warmongers leave any of ‘em still standing for Petraeus and the BITS to face.
The reasons for that should be patently obvious, WW2 vets don't live forever.
“No fair studying history and using facts .”
What are the facts?
Actually, I envisioned Obama’s legions all wearing Che shirts made of the finest hemp. Same end result, though. Molon Labe, mutha*****s.
You definetly have a way of getting to the heart of the matter! Military service is not very much on the "radar screen" of Blue State Yoots. Their parents & teachers want it that way.
I'm not sure if this really means anything. I don't think it's also a coincidence that most (if not all) of these are all very EXPENSIVE places to live . . . which means: (1) young people in their immediate post-military careers simply can't afford to move there, and (2) retirees can't afford to stay there.
I would also point out that at least two of these four (Massachusetts and New Jersey) have been particularly hard-hit by base closings. These places will tend to have fewer military veterans simply because they now have fewer active military bases.
Sounds like a good time to secede again. This time the South and West make a go of it. Since those areas supply the manpower, we ought to have more say in how we are governed.
Well, duh. The states that are greying have a smaller percentage of military-age people.
Merry Christmas back atcha, and thanks for your intended compliment.
I have to tell you, though, "worldly" is generally not a compliment to a Christian... :)
And if you discount the Vietnam-era vets, it’s likely that far fewer than five percent of the age-eligble population ever served since 1973.
Good analogy. I guess we’d also have to get past the fact that Americans were volunteering on the wrong side in that one. LOL.
Conclusion: there has never been a better time to suceed from the Union.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.