CDZ Only 44% Americans Willing to Fight for USA

[Bleipriester]

[x] Depends

- I am not going to risk anything if it is only to save a bunch of crooks.
- I am not going to risk anything for an impotent government that did not prepare for defense and promotes slogans like "soldiers are murderers" or "patriotism is evil". Go to hell, crooks.
- As 1 and 2 stated, getting rid of the crooks could be even something good for my country.

 

[Katzndogz]

Those countries with a reduced number of people willing to fight for that country are all countries with high immigration. Immigrants don't have a sense of loyalty or patriotism. The families that they have are elsewhere, not here.

I would have fought for this country when it was a country worth fighting for. What have we become? We sell the dissected bodies of healthy babies. We celebrate adults grooming children into accepting homosexual acts. We have destroyed our own military. We destroy our brains with drugs and think legalizing that destruction is a good idea. We allow every kind of criminal here and then protect them and nurture them. We have no difference between right and wrong. We have no morals and no values. We are divided along race, culture and personal preference. We reserve special punishments for anyone with a personal moral compass. Education has been eliminated in favor of social engineering. Out of all that, we have a generation of young men and women that hide in safe spaces and feel their lives are threatened by any idea not their own. The ordinary lives of ordinary people is aggressive conduct so slight it has to be a micro aggression.

If this were not the United States, if it were some other country, would you fight for it? Would you even imagine that this country should exist?

No. I would not fight for what this nation has become.

 

[Bleipriester]

Those countries with a reduced number of people willing to fight for that country are all countries with high immigration. Immigrants don't have a sense of loyalty or patriotism. The families that they have are elsewhere, not here.

I would have fought for this country when it was a country worth fighting for. What have we become? We sell the dissected bodies of healthy babies. We celebrate adults grooming children into accepting homosexual acts. We have destroyed our own military. We destroy our brains with drugs and think legalizing that destruction is a good idea. We allow every kind of criminal here and then protect them and nurture them. We have no difference between right and wrong. We have no morals and no values. We are divided along race, culture and personal preference. We reserve special punishments for anyone with a personal moral compass. Education has been eliminated in favor of social engineering. Out of all that, we have a generation of young men and women that hide in safe spaces and feel their lives are threatened by any idea not their own. The ordinary lives of ordinary people is aggressive conduct so slight it has to be a micro aggression.

If this were not the United States, if it were some other country, would you fight for it? Would you even imagine that this country should exist?

No. I would not fight for what this nation has become.

All those need to serve one or two years.

 

[Katzndogz]

If this country were to go to war, real war, it would empty out. Everyone from somewhere else would go back, except for those like Edward Lin.

 

[320 Years of History]

But the question is not: "can you fight"

Question is: "are you willing to fight"

So, your vote should have been counted as "yes" imo...

According to you but that is rather irrelevant.

If those that are ageing see the question the way that Will did, they would have answered the way that he did. It makes you wonder how much influence the average age of the populous had in the question.

....

I have to agree with FA_Q2. WillHaftawaite is clearly not now willing to fight for the USA. At one time and for 20+ years, he was willing to fight for the USA. That willingness and time has passed. I think that's unequivocally clear from his comments.

Other members' answers may have been "I'm not able to" in nature, but WillHaftawaite's is not among them. Not at all.

Then you badly misread my post

I obviously don't see how, but okay. How did I misinterpret what you wrote? What did you mean then?

• I can see you once did serve in the military, so you were clearly fighting for the U.S. for a period -- presumably 20+ years -- in your life.
• I can see you chose "no," so your willingness to serve does not exist now.
• Why you are unwilling to serve now is irrelevant.

What did you write that should lead me/anyone to see your response differently than I've just described in the bullets above?

Why you are unwilling to serve now is irrelevant.

It's very relevant.

I can't serve now because of health reasons.

I would be a hazard to those around me.

YOU might want to reread my original message again, when I mentioned those health reasons.

I'm sure it's relevant to you. I understand why it's relevant to you. The reason you shared is surely informative.

In terms of the question the OP asks, the reasons aren't relevant because the OP asks if one is willing, not, "Is one willing? Why or why not?" Additionally, the OP does not ask if one used to be willing, or whether one will be willing.

From your answer, it's very clear that right now, you are not willing; your reason(s) are your own, and they drive you to give the answer you have given, and therein lies their relevance.

 

[Auld Phart]

According to you but that is rather irrelevant.

If those that are ageing see the question the way that Will did, they would have answered the way that he did. It makes you wonder how much influence the average age of the populous had in the question.

....

I have to agree with FA_Q2. WillHaftawaite is clearly not now willing to fight for the USA. At one time and for 20+ years, he was willing to fight for the USA. That willingness and time has passed. I think that's unequivocally clear from his comments.

Other members' answers may have been "I'm not able to" in nature, but WillHaftawaite's is not among them. Not at all.

Then you badly misread my post

I obviously don't see how, but okay. How did I misinterpret what you wrote? What did you mean then?

• I can see you once did serve in the military, so you were clearly fighting for the U.S. for a period -- presumably 20+ years -- in your life.
• I can see you chose "no," so your willingness to serve does not exist now.
• Why you are unwilling to serve now is irrelevant.

What did you write that should lead me/anyone to see your response differently than I've just described in the bullets above?

Why you are unwilling to serve now is irrelevant.

It's very relevant.

I can't serve now because of health reasons.

I would be a hazard to those around me.

YOU might want to reread my original message again, when I mentioned those health reasons.

I'm sure it's relevant to you. I understand why it's relevant to you. The reason you shared is surely informative.

In terms of the question the OP asks, the reasons aren't relevant because the OP asks if one is willing, not, "Is one willing? Why or why not?" Additionally, the OP does not ask if one used to be willing, or whether one will be willing.

From your answer, it's very clear that right now, you are not willing; your reason(s) are your own, and they drive you to give the answer you have given, and therein lies their relevance.

Still misreading my original post.

Go away

 

[pismoe]

sure , even if the country has many faults its still the best country on the face of the earth . I and my family , friends , neighbors have certainly prospered for my lifetime no matter the faults that the USA has . Sure , fix the faults but the USA is the best in my opinion . ------------------------------------- And just a comment , Sure , I would fight for the USA but if that's ever needed mrobama and his crew of supporting ilk would not be fighting with me .

 

[320 Years of History]

I have to agree with FA_Q2. WillHaftawaite is clearly not now willing to fight for the USA. At one time and for 20+ years, he was willing to fight for the USA. That willingness and time has passed. I think that's unequivocally clear from his comments.

Other members' answers may have been "I'm not able to" in nature, but WillHaftawaite's is not among them. Not at all.

Then you badly misread my post

I obviously don't see how, but okay. How did I misinterpret what you wrote? What did you mean then?

• I can see you once did serve in the military, so you were clearly fighting for the U.S. for a period -- presumably 20+ years -- in your life.
• I can see you chose "no," so your willingness to serve does not exist now.
• Why you are unwilling to serve now is irrelevant.

What did you write that should lead me/anyone to see your response differently than I've just described in the bullets above?

Why you are unwilling to serve now is irrelevant.

It's very relevant.

I can't serve now because of health reasons.

I would be a hazard to those around me.

YOU might want to reread my original message again, when I mentioned those health reasons.

I'm sure it's relevant to you. I understand why it's relevant to you. The reason you shared is surely informative.

In terms of the question the OP asks, the reasons aren't relevant because the OP asks if one is willing, not, "Is one willing? Why or why not?" Additionally, the OP does not ask if one used to be willing, or whether one will be willing.

From your answer, it's very clear that right now, you are not willing; your reason(s) are your own, and they drive you to give the answer you have given, and therein lies their relevance.

Still misreading my original post.

Go away

Red:
Oh, that's so much more enlightening than your earlier remarks.

 

[alpine]

Then you badly misread my post

I obviously don't see how, but okay. How did I misinterpret what you wrote? What did you mean then?

• I can see you once did serve in the military, so you were clearly fighting for the U.S. for a period -- presumably 20+ years -- in your life.
• I can see you chose "no," so your willingness to serve does not exist now.
• Why you are unwilling to serve now is irrelevant.

What did you write that should lead me/anyone to see your response differently than I've just described in the bullets above?

Why you are unwilling to serve now is irrelevant.

It's very relevant.

I can't serve now because of health reasons.

I would be a hazard to those around me.

YOU might want to reread my original message again, when I mentioned those health reasons.

I'm sure it's relevant to you. I understand why it's relevant to you. The reason you shared is surely informative.

In terms of the question the OP asks, the reasons aren't relevant because the OP asks if one is willing, not, "Is one willing? Why or why not?" Additionally, the OP does not ask if one used to be willing, or whether one will be willing.

From your answer, it's very clear that right now, you are not willing; your reason(s) are your own, and they drive you to give the answer you have given, and therein lies their relevance.

Still misreading my original post.

Go away

Red:
Oh, that's so much more enlightening than your earlier remarks.

Sometimes you "color code" and sometimes not.
Interesting...

To the subject; I was right... He would fight, for sure...

 

[GaryDog]

If the measure of a country is based on what percentage of people would fight for said country, I'm not sure that's a good measure. At least judging by the list.

Who would rather live in Morocco, Afghanistan, or Pakistan than the Netherlands, Japan or Germany?

 

[alpine]

If the measure of a country is based on what percentage of people would fight for said country, I'm not sure that's a good measure. At least judging by the list.

Who would rather live in Morocco, Afghanistan, or Pakistan than the Netherlands, Japan or Germany?

Exactly the point...

It is mind boggling when thinking the shittier the country gets, the more people want to fight for it...

Would either mean humanbeings are irrational creatures, or they realize it could get worse at that point...

 

[320 Years of History]

Sometimes you "color code" and sometimes not.
Interesting...

I tend to do when I know the remarks I'm referring to will be hidden because the forum's formatting collapses quotes. Of late, I've been trying to use the "multi-quote" feature -- having bothered to figure out how it works -- to see if it I prefer it over color-coding. There are, however, occasions when the remarks about which I have comments need to be kept whole, but I have differing things to say about specific and separate parts of the comment. On those occasions, I use color coding regardless of whether I've also "multi-quoted."

Right now, I think I prefer the color coding as I don't like breaking apart folks' posts. Often enough, theirs and my remarks need to be presented in their entirety for the conversation to make sense as a whole, particularly over time when I can easily forget what the central point was the other member was making, or that I as making, and thus loose sight of what the conversation was truly about. I guess, at the end of the day and going forward, which approach I use will depend on whether I'm commenting on a theme in a post or specific points in a post, along with how well the approach in question lends itself to one or the other objective.

 

[320 Years of History]

I obviously don't see how, but okay. How did I misinterpret what you wrote? What did you mean then?

• I can see you once did serve in the military, so you were clearly fighting for the U.S. for a period -- presumably 20+ years -- in your life.
• I can see you chose "no," so your willingness to serve does not exist now.
• Why you are unwilling to serve now is irrelevant.

What did you write that should lead me/anyone to see your response differently than I've just described in the bullets above?

Why you are unwilling to serve now is irrelevant.

It's very relevant.

I can't serve now because of health reasons.

I would be a hazard to those around me.

YOU might want to reread my original message again, when I mentioned those health reasons.

I'm sure it's relevant to you. I understand why it's relevant to you. The reason you shared is surely informative.

In terms of the question the OP asks, the reasons aren't relevant because the OP asks if one is willing, not, "Is one willing? Why or why not?" Additionally, the OP does not ask if one used to be willing, or whether one will be willing.

From your answer, it's very clear that right now, you are not willing; your reason(s) are your own, and they drive you to give the answer you have given, and therein lies their relevance.

Still misreading my original post.

Go away

Red:
Oh, that's so much more enlightening than your earlier remarks.

Sometimes you "color code" and sometimes not.
Interesting...

To the subject; I was right... He would fight, for sure...

Well, given the question asked in the OP, how is "I would, but I'm not able" anything other than, at its heart, a "yes" answer to "are you willing?" In light of that, why answer "no?" "Willing" is one thing and "able" is another. It's a subtle distinction, similar to that between "may" and "can," yet it nonetheless is a distinction that exists and is important if one is to accurately convey one's true meaning.

I'm willing to do a whole bunch of things I'm not able to do. I'm also unwilling to do many things I am able to do.

• I'm willing go to the Moon, but I'm not able to go there.
• I'm unwilling to live in California, but I am able to do so.

 

[alpine]

It's very relevant.

I can't serve now because of health reasons.

I would be a hazard to those around me.

YOU might want to reread my original message again, when I mentioned those health reasons.

I'm sure it's relevant to you. I understand why it's relevant to you. The reason you shared is surely informative.

In terms of the question the OP asks, the reasons aren't relevant because the OP asks if one is willing, not, "Is one willing? Why or why not?" Additionally, the OP does not ask if one used to be willing, or whether one will be willing.

From your answer, it's very clear that right now, you are not willing; your reason(s) are your own, and they drive you to give the answer you have given, and therein lies their relevance.

Still misreading my original post.

Go away

Red:
Oh, that's so much more enlightening than your earlier remarks.

Sometimes you "color code" and sometimes not.
Interesting...

To the subject; I was right... He would fight, for sure...

Well, given the question asked in the OP, how is "I would, but I'm not able" anything other than, at its heart, a "yes" answer to "are you willing?" In light of that, why answer "no?" "Willing" is one thing and "able" is another. It's a subtle distinction, similar to that between "may" and "can," yet it nonetheless is a distinction that exists and is important if one is to accurately convey one's true meaning.

I'm willing to do a whole bunch of things I'm not able to do. I'm also unwilling to do many things I am able to do.

• I'm willing go to the Moon, but I'm not able to go there.
• I'm unwilling to live in California, but I am able to do so.

"Do you want a name for this world? A solution for all of its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?— This world is the Will to Power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!”

Nietzsche said...

If a human being has the "will", then he "will"...

Not to mention the question doesn't allude any specific way of fighting....

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm sure it's relevant to you. I understand why it's relevant to you. The reason you shared is surely informative.

In terms of the question the OP asks, the reasons aren't relevant because the OP asks if one is willing, not, "Is one willing? Why or why not?" Additionally, the OP does not ask if one used to be willing, or whether one will be willing.

From your answer, it's very clear that right now, you are not willing; your reason(s) are your own, and they drive you to give the answer you have given, and therein lies their relevance.

Still misreading my original post.

Go away

Red:
Oh, that's so much more enlightening than your earlier remarks.

Sometimes you "color code" and sometimes not.
Interesting...

To the subject; I was right... He would fight, for sure...

Well, given the question asked in the OP, how is "I would, but I'm not able" anything other than, at its heart, a "yes" answer to "are you willing?" In light of that, why answer "no?" "Willing" is one thing and "able" is another. It's a subtle distinction, similar to that between "may" and "can," yet it nonetheless is a distinction that exists and is important if one is to accurately convey one's true meaning.

I'm willing to do a whole bunch of things I'm not able to do. I'm also unwilling to do many things I am able to do.

• I'm willing go to the Moon, but I'm not able to go there.
• I'm unwilling to live in California, but I am able to do so.

"Do you want a name for this world? A solution for all of its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?— This world is the Will to Power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!”

Nietzsche said...

If a human being has the "will", then he "will"...

Not to mention the question doesn't allude any specific way of fighting....

Red:
Neither did I.

 

[alpine]

Sometimes you "color code" and sometimes not.
Interesting...

I tend to do when I know the remarks I'm referring to will be hidden because the forum's formatting collapses quotes. Of late, I've been trying to use the "multi-quote" feature -- having bothered to figure out how it works -- to see if it I prefer it over color-coding. There are, however, occasions when the remarks about which I have comments need to be kept whole, but I have differing things to say about specific and separate parts of the comment. On those occasions, I use color coding regardless of whether I've also "multi-quoted."

Right now, I think I prefer the color coding as I don't like breaking apart folks' posts. Often enough, theirs and my remarks need to be presented in their entirety for the conversation to make sense as a whole, particularly over time when I can easily forget what the central point was the other member was making, or that I as making, and thus loose sight of what the conversation was truly about. I guess, at the end of the day and going forward, which approach I use will depend on whether I'm commenting on a theme in a post or specific points in a post, along with how well the approach in question lends itself to one or the other objective.

Haven't seen such color coding in watchuseek however...
Yet still interesting...

 

[320 Years of History]

Sometimes you "color code" and sometimes not.
Interesting...

I tend to do when I know the remarks I'm referring to will be hidden because the forum's formatting collapses quotes. Of late, I've been trying to use the "multi-quote" feature -- having bothered to figure out how it works -- to see if it I prefer it over color-coding. There are, however, occasions when the remarks about which I have comments need to be kept whole, but I have differing things to say about specific and separate parts of the comment. On those occasions, I use color coding regardless of whether I've also "multi-quoted."

Right now, I think I prefer the color coding as I don't like breaking apart folks' posts. Often enough, theirs and my remarks need to be presented in their entirety for the conversation to make sense as a whole, particularly over time when I can easily forget what the central point was the other member was making, or that I as making, and thus loose sight of what the conversation was truly about. I guess, at the end of the day and going forward, which approach I use will depend on whether I'm commenting on a theme in a post or specific points in a post, along with how well the approach in question lends itself to one or the other objective.

Haven't seen such color coding in watchuseek however...
Yet still interesting...

Okay....

 

[Syriusly]

A global survey from WIN/Gallup International, the world’s leading association in market research and polling shows that 61% of those polled across 64 countries would be willing to fight for their country, while 27% would not.

WIN/Gallup International’s global survey shows three in five willing to fight for their country


US only at 44% !

Well, at least better than UK, France Germany, Spain...

Would you fight for your country?

Would you be willing to 'fight for the United States'- if we invaded Canada?

The question is rather to simple- and more an indication of the citizens distrust that the government will be commit us to a war that is not justified.

A better question would be "Would you fight to defend your country if your country was attacked?"

I think the response would be far different. Most- by a large margin- of Americans would be willing to fight to defend the United States- I think our response to a Pearl Harbor type attack would be much the same now.

Look at American's attitude heading into WW1- especially after seeing how the European powers were literally throwing away the lives of their soldiers in stupid frontal attacks.

Would I be willing to fight to defend the United States- absolutely.

Would I be willing to blindly fight in any war our government commits us to? Not as willing.

 

[320 Years of History]

A global survey from WIN/Gallup International, the world’s leading association in market research and polling shows that 61% of those polled across 64 countries would be willing to fight for their country, while 27% would not.

WIN/Gallup International’s global survey shows three in five willing to fight for their country


US only at 44% !

Well, at least better than UK, France Germany, Spain...

Would you fight for your country?

Would you be willing to 'fight for the United States'- if we invaded Canada?

The question is rather to simple- and more an indication of the citizens distrust that the government will be commit us to a war that is not justified.

A better question would be "Would you fight to defend your country if your country was attacked?"

I think the response would be far different. Most- by a large margin- of Americans would be willing to fight to defend the United States- I think our response to a Pearl Harbor type attack would be much the same now.

Look at American's attitude heading into WW1- especially after seeing how the European powers were literally throwing away the lives of their soldiers in stupid frontal attacks.

Would I be willing to fight to defend the United States- absolutely.

Would I be willing to blindly fight in any war our government commits us to? Not as willing.

I get what you are saying and how different questions will produce different answers. At some point, however, one has to assume the questioner has enough sense to ask the question that, if answered directly and honestly provides the information they want to know. For example, ""Would you fight to defend your country if your country was attacked?", may be the question you want to ask, but it may not be the question "they" want answered.

All in all, I think Gallup is pretty good at asking the right questions given what they want to find out. Whether readers of the results of Gallup's surveys are any good at interpreting the information/answers is a wholly different matter.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A global survey from WIN/Gallup International, the world’s leading association in market research and polling shows that 61% of those polled across 64 countries would be willing to fight for their country, while 27% would not.

WIN/Gallup International’s global survey shows three in five willing to fight for their country


US only at 44% !

Well, at least better than UK, France Germany, Spain...

Would you fight for your country?

Looks like the power of nationalism to me.

Those places which manage to convince people that they are right are the places where people will fight. WAR makes people nationalistic. Look at India and Pakistan, they hate each other. Afghanistan has had war and people have experienced it for a long time, they're willing to fight.

China and Russia use Nationalism to keep their leaders in their positions. Peru, Ecuador and Columbia have had their fair share of fighting too.

I'd say only places like Sweden and Finland are the exception to this rule.