A recent SOH poll showed that 60% are unwilling to give their life for their country. How about this scenario: Are you willing to die for the USA if foreign troops were invading our soil?
Wouldn't you rather live to fight for your country another day?
Uh no. Still wouldn't do it. Sorry.
Even more willingly
My country and civil rights are two things I would gladly lay down my life for.
That's why we have our uniformed heroes, right?
They already have. They're called the UN.
Missed you cowboy how are you doing?
Thanks topsqueen! It took long enough to get this app updated. Still can't post a profile pic, but that's not important to me.
How's the daughter?
Hey welcome back! 51%... That's better than I expected :)
I wouldn't hide. I would fight and if that meant giving my life....I would.
I am definitely willing to die to protect our country from the government.
I think we sends troops overseas to let the citizens live. Or our goal of "sheet of glass" works but we are kind. Foreign troops would have to be born here to invaded our borders.because if they can get past our defense not much would be left of U.S
In a make believe invasion we wouldn't send troops to kill foreigners or to confiscate guns from U.S. gun owners. We in truth don't need anymore 18 to 25 yr olds. But we're not going to have them shot taking guns away. That is what drones are for.
That's where tax dollars save U.S.lives a drone for each of us that way our militia won't die or ever fight against another American.and all the gun owner who think there will a human to shoot at need to get over themselves.That's what drones are for
Yeah. Thanks for clearing that up.
I'm willing to defend to the death if necessary, but I'd much rather kill for my country than die for it. The other poor bastard on the invasion force can die for his country instead.
Lol. Patton? Is that you?
I like the way you think
I could act like a vacant minded old lady who cannot spell, and they come homemade cinnamon rolls and Eastrock on their conversations. I would be an ancient Mata Hari, Who seduces with food!
Joyce (Tops) FTW.
Sigh. Eye roll ease drop. Home sick boys will talk to a sweet old grandma.
Tilt - I got my caps back
I meant you can too. Give yourself a different name, then when you put your name back, caps work.
Or if DHS begins gun confiscation.
Yes to this scenario.
Defend my home from foreigners sure... I'm not dying overseas for this bum in office and our longstanding joke of a foreign policy. The only reason I give money to this government is so that I don't have to sit in jail.
That's called extortion in EVERY OTHER CONTEXT.
This is hard. It depends on how dire the situation is and what my life and family are like.
I would probably so my part (perhaps through science and technology or something like that) but I'd rather not fight if I don't have to.
A war needs science and tech. Do you know how to manufacture gunpowder? Or booby traps?
Or streamline communications or supply lines?
There's room for everyone when national sovereignty is on the line.
I don't yet, but I'm hoping this theoretical war won't hit before I graduate from college/grad school!
As in join the army and die? I don't know.
The idea would be to kill rather than die. The dying just might become unavoidable.
I voted yes to both... I would give it in a circumstance I support, like defending from foreign invasion. Not blindly in whatever the government determines is a good idea at the time.
Defend my home? Without batting an eye.
I voted no on the last poll for similar reasons as you listed below. I would be weary of putting my life on the line for some of the reasons we've been overseas. I feel that I would have to believe!
I'll only act in direct self defense of myself and my family.
Wouldn't you be defending yourself and your family by fighting-off invaders, or do you wait until they get to your house before lifting a finger?
I wait. There's not much worth defending here.
And I have "lifted a finger" for the past 6.5 years, thank you very much.
I have no respect at all for that position.
That's your opinion.
Yes. That was obviously a statement of opinion.
Where's @Earlybird? I need some popcorn.
Seems to be another weekend warrior on the fritz.
Yeah, I'm a reservist and I've deployed, what about you?
My point is I'm not so hippie punk kid from the suburbs. I've done my duty, enough to know that this govt is not worth giving up my life for. I'll defend myself but that's it.
Yep. But I didn't become a bitter ass about doing my job.
Then maybe you should look around a little more. The DoD is the epitome of waste, fraud, and abuse.
What does DOD waste have to do with whether you'd help repel an invading army on US soil?
As is/was every military entity since the dawn of time.
Hell, the DoD has been sticking money in my pocket since the 80s.
I begrudgingly voted "yes" on the last poll because I don't support most of our wars. They're selective and have nothing at all to do with our defense. An invasion of US soil, however, would invoke every effort that I have to give.
I'm sick of the endless wars and war mongering.
I voted no on the last poll for that same reason but I would fight if we were attacked.
Couldn't agree more. I would defend our country with every ounce of effort I could give. But the past 12 years (and more) have been a disaster wrt to military actions. So many lives lost and for what really?
The problem is less the reason (or lack thereof) that we're over there. The problem is that we've handcuffed our soldiers with ridiculous 'rules of engagement' before telling them to risk their lives on a battlefield.
If we're going to war, then let's have Congress declare war, and then give the generals and admirals and commanders the leeway that they need to fight the war in a winning manner.
Look at Gulf War 1. We stunned the rest of world with that win.
Why? Because we leveraged our fighting forces efficiently in a coordinated manner, and we fought to win, rather than for some 'hearts and minds' bullshit!
I disagree pinky. I don't think we should be in most of our wars even if the rules of engagement were completely and overwhelmingly in our favor.
That's why I said reason or lack thereof. ;) I'm not saying that the cause is just. But insofar as saving lives already on the battlefield, we could make a drastic improvement simply by leveraging our forces efficiently...
...and not concerning ourselves with collateral damage or 'hearts and minds.' An A-10 strike, J-DAM or artillery barrage is a much more efficient way of eliminating an enemy stronghold than sending in soldiers on foot.
Our fighting men have the means, resources and willpower to win nearly any small-scale engagement in short order with spectacular results.
They just don't have the permission to fight to win.