CDZ Only 44% Americans Willing to Fight for USA

[MaryL]

Depends on who we are fighting................Not clarified now is it.

Deep. People that crash planes into buildings, or weirdos that shoot up school children. You tell me.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Maybe off topic but...at the top of this singular board, this VERY thread? An ad for Muslim singles. At the bottom? Stuff like a firearms quiz, and a blurb about Donald Trump. Wow. Exactly WHO are these people trying to connect with? Muslim Trump supporter Gun activists?

Wow. Exactly WHO are these people trying to connect with?

You. It's called personalized retargeting I believe. Spend any time on right wing web sites? That would explain it.

I browse around , and yes, I understand someone out there is watching. I just found it conflicting from my overall standpoint, and conflicting with the point of this thread. AND just ironic in a twilight zone way. Don't you? BTW, the adds I am now getting are about sleep loss clinics, learning a new language and the new I phone7 , none of which have I interested in nor browsed their web sites, so?

I just found it conflicting from my overall standpoint, and conflicting with the point of this thread. AND just ironic in a twilight zone way. Don't you?

No, but I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure what the point of this thread is.

See post #20.

How do you explain that? LOL.

 

[Desperado]

Would I fight for this country? That depends, If we were attacked and fighting off an invading force.
Yes by all means, Would I fight for this country in contrived political wars that we should not be involved in. Not a chance in hell and I would tell my kids it is not worth dying in Afghanastan or Iraq for Israel.

 

[MaryL]

The You are fighting for against bad advertising?

Maybe off topic but...at the top of this singular board, this VERY thread? An ad for Muslim singles. At the bottom? Stuff like a firearms quiz, and a blurb about Donald Trump. Wow. Exactly WHO are these people trying to connect with? Muslim Trump supporter Gun activists?

Funny.

I get a Tire Rack ad at the top and the bottom features Bi sexual celebrities. Celebrities without make up.
Gold diggers and an insane flashlight that might last a week.

My apologies to the OP. I would fight for my Country in the defense of this continent. Fight unecessary wars with our hands tied and questionable rules of engagement? No.

OK, I get it, Iraq, Vietnam. But fighting people that crash planes in Manhattan? This is a different type of conflict we are in, and WHO the enemy is, good question. The petroleum industry WE depend on ? Arabs?Islam? You tell me.

 

[eagle1462010]

Depends on who we are fighting................Not clarified now is it.

Deep. People that crash planes into buildings, or weirdos that shoot up school children. You tell me.

In that case.............the answer is yes...............just get the damned politicians out of the damned way so we can win it for once.

 

[MaryL]

Depends on who we are fighting................Not clarified now is it.

Deep. People that crash planes into buildings, or weirdos that shoot up school children. You tell me.

In that case.............the answer is yes...............just get the damned politicians out of the damned way so we can win it for once.

I hear ya. But my only power is one single solitary vote. That is the best I can do.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

The You are fighting for against bad advertising?

Maybe off topic but...at the top of this singular board, this VERY thread? An ad for Muslim singles. At the bottom? Stuff like a firearms quiz, and a blurb about Donald Trump. Wow. Exactly WHO are these people trying to connect with? Muslim Trump supporter Gun activists?

Funny.

I get a Tire Rack ad at the top and the bottom features Bi sexual celebrities. Celebrities without make up.
Gold diggers and an insane flashlight that might last a week.

My apologies to the OP. I would fight for my Country in the defense of this continent. Fight unecessary wars with our hands tied and questionable rules of engagement? No.

OK, I get it, Iraq, Vietnam. But fighting people that crash planes in Manhattan? This is a different type of conflict we are in, and WHO the enemy is, good question. The petroleum industry WE depend on ? Arabs?Islam? You tell me.

The advertising I mostly ignore. When I do notice it sometimes I'm amused.

Like you I'm not the one being targeted by the ads. As I said in my post the ads seem to be random and have no bearing on what sites I visit. I've blocked much of them.

Our enemies are mostly known. Keeping them from succeeding is going to be an ongoing conflict and we have expanded our capabilities on a number of fronts other than combat or boots on the ground.

 

[JakeStarkey]

For the next ten years, make the 18 to 28 year olds commit to military or national service.

The attitude will change quickly.

And the bonus is that the feds will not be sending off big armies to the ME.

 

[Desperado]

For the next ten years, make the 18 to 28 year olds commit to military or national service.

The attitude will change quickly.

And the bonus is that the feds will not be sending off big armies to the ME.

Wrong - You do not fight for freedom by forcing the youth of your country into the military,
Involuntary Servitude has never been a good thing for anyone

 

[320 Years of History]

If one is unwilling, and if the need arises to fight on behalf of one's country, and one will not, why remain a citizen of it? Immigrate to one for which one would fight. Even conscientious objectors need to at least be of a mind that they can say on this matter, "Well, crap. I don't want to fight due to "whatever" conscientious objection I have, but things are at the point whereby I must; therefore I will because I don't want to be part of any other nation."

I'm sure we all have things we like and dislike about the U.S. Even so, for it to be worth being an American, one must, on balance, be convinced that being an American is better than the 180+ other things (as goes citizenry) one could instead be. Even being thoroughly disgusted with the U.S. at any given point in time, if one feels it's better than the alternatives, then one will, assuming one is at all rational, fight to keep America as it is so one can continue to do one's part, after the fighting ends, to improve the country even more.

I'm sorry, but I truly believe if a U.S. citizen is just outright unwilling to fight for the U.S., they need to become a citizen of some other country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

For the next ten years, make the 18 to 28 year olds commit to military or national service.

The attitude will change quickly.

And the bonus is that the feds will not be sending off big armies to the ME.

Wrong - You do not fight for freedom by forcing the youth of your country into the military,
Involuntary Servitude has never been a good thing for anyone

According to you? Well, that and a $ will get you some coffee. Go to.

 

[Picaro]

The very nature of warfare as an extension of political gamesmanship changed radically with the deployment of nuclear weapons. There will be no more quick black and white wars like WW II ever again. Get used to it; the 'future' is these low intensity types and anti-guerrilla actions, and no big parades after some Armistice is signed any more. There will no conclusive pat-ourselves-on-the back wins of the likes of WW II. These 'small' wars are just as important, nonetheless, and need to be fought, whether or not a bunch of spoiled see-no-evil Burb Brats like it or not or personally approve. Isolationism is certain failure, always has been for the U.S.; letting small dictators become big ones isn't a strategy, it's a sign of idiocy and ignorance.

 

[G.T.]

I respect someone who serves and have toggled with the idea myself. At the end of the day someone would overtake my homefront over my dead body and I have no inner desire to prove my willingness to sacrifice for what I believe in, and so Ive ultimately made my choice.

When there is even such shit as differing levels of secrecy and everything - its a huge leap of faith for me to put my life on the line for something I may ultimately disagree with...morally. When you're agnostic, thisnis not an easy "oh, ok!" To make....

But I almost made it simply to do my part in helping protect the other kids that did, and in that its about the guys next to you and not your actual Government's plots, whatever they may be. Therein lays the redeeming value of our Military, Who I'll always respect.

 

[Asclepias]

Depends. If someone was attacking the US on the N. american continent I would fight. If we were attacking someone there would be no way in hell I would fight.

 

[Mr Natural]

I would not even remotely consider risking my life for any of the military escapades we've gotten ourselves involved in post WWII.

 

[FA_Q2]

I voted no, had to.


I've already served 20+ years in the military, and at the age 66, and suffering from COPD, I'd be more a hinderance than a help.

Up to 30 years ago, yes.

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.

The results do not really surprise me. I think there is a direct correlation with how well the citizens feel they are doing and their unwillingness to protect it. When you look around and life is good many people do not feel that they need to actually fight to keep it that way...

 

[320 Years of History]

I voted no, had to.


I've already served 20+ years in the military, and at the age 66, and suffering from COPD, I'd be more a hinderance than a help.

Up to 30 years ago, yes.

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.

 

[Auld Phart]

I voted no, had to.


I've already served 20+ years in the military, and at the age 66, and suffering from COPD, I'd be more a hinderance than a help.

Up to 30 years ago, yes.

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

 

[320 Years of History]

I voted no, had to.


I've already served 20+ years in the military, and at the age 66, and suffering from COPD, I'd be more a hinderance than a help.

Up to 30 years ago, yes.

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?

 

[Auld Phart]

I voted no, had to.


I've already served 20+ years in the military, and at the age 66, and suffering from COPD, I'd be more a hinderance than a help.

Up to 30 years ago, yes.

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.