What real life nations would you defend?

[Pope Joan]

If another nation were attacked, or in danger of attack, would you support action by your nation to defend it?

Which nations would be on or off your must-defend list?

This question was posed in a recent survey by Rasmussen Reports.

Americans said they would support Canada, the UK, Mexico, Israel and Germany in that order. They all received over 50%. The nation scoring next highest was Japan, with 46%.

Not surprisingly, those over age 60 were least likely to support our old Axis enemies.

So, who would you fight to defend?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... y_speaking

[Tezdrian]

Finland.

[Neo-Erusea]

Nicaragua

[Pope Joan]

Finland.

Kiitos!

Are you Finnish?

[Allrule]

Canada.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would probably support other nations defending Canada (seeing as I live here, its comparatively harmless, and its sort of a globally liked nation compared to the US), though I prefer non-violent solutions to conflict and would support violent intervention in any situation only as a last resort.

Also Great Britain, France, America, Germany, probably most of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, maybe some of South America, perhaps South Korea (at least if it was NK attacking them), Afghanistan (since we've invested so much in stabilizing the place already). In fact, potentially just about any country.

Note, however, that my support is never unconditional (not even for Canada), but depends on the circumstances, what does the most good. Note also that one can support and defend a country's people without doing the same for its leaders-many leaders need to be removed for the good of their people.

And I would never fight myself, coward or not. I'd be a terrible soldier.

[P4tr10t]

Israel, Mexico, UK

[Brogavia]

Canada, and Australlia, NATO allies other than France, UK, and Italy.

[New Kereptica]

I wouldn't.

[Natapoc]

No nation is fit to defend but the people of all nations are fit to defend.

[Tunizcha]

The United Federation of Planets, sector 001: Terran System: Terra III.

[Brogavia]

No nation is fit to defend but the people of all nations are fit to defend.

Because none of them are nice to animals right?

[Khodoristan]

US

[Natapoc]

No nation is fit to defend but the people of all nations are fit to defend.

Because none of them are nice to animals right?

Huh? what are you talking about? I said no nation is fit to defend because nations are inherently authoritarian and oppressive.

I also said that the people of all nations are fit to defend. Meaning I would defend all people just not any nation. What does being nice to animals have anything to do with anything?

[Leviticus Isles]

AHHH! You forgot Russia in your Poll.

[The Future Kingdom]

US, UK, Germany, Canada, and Spain


nations i won't defend are number one of course Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran

[Brogavia]

No nation is fit to defend but the people of all nations are fit to defend.

Because none of them are nice to animals right?

Huh? what are you talking about? I said no nation is fit to defend because nations are inherently authoritarian and oppressive.

I also said that the people of all nations are fit to defend. Meaning I would defend all people just not any nation. What does being nice to animals have anything to do with anything?

The link in your sig suggests it.

Nations are not "inherently authoritarian and oppressive". Only some are.

[Natapoc]

No nation is fit to defend but the people of all nations are fit to defend.

Because none of them are nice to animals right?

Huh? what are you talking about? I said no nation is fit to defend because nations are inherently authoritarian and oppressive.

I also said that the people of all nations are fit to defend. Meaning I would defend all people just not any nation. What does being nice to animals have anything to do with anything?

The link in your sig suggests it.

Nations are not "inherently authoritarian and oppressive". Only some are.

Oh I've had that link there for a while. In general links in peoples sigs have nothing to do with the topic. I think the article in my sig is very interesting and by the way it talks about much more then "being nice to animals." but you probably did not read that far.

I've never seen a nation that was not founded on aggressive violence and support of hierarchy. Can you show me one? This topic is about what nation you would defend in real life. Not about what you don't like about other peoples sigs.

[Island sodor]

The D.R.I.S would be able to defeat North korea, Japan, Mexico, ALL of centrail and south america, basicly almost every country. Sodor is VERY powerful, even if it werea real country, but ofcourse it is not.

[Free United States]

No nation is fit to defend but the people of all nations are fit to defend.

Because none of them are nice to animals right?

Huh? what are you talking about? I said no nation is fit to defend because nations are inherently authoritarian and oppressive.

I also said that the people of all nations are fit to defend. Meaning I would defend all people just not any nation. What does being nice to animals have anything to do with anything?

The link in your sig suggests it.

Nations are not "inherently authoritarian and oppressive". Only some are.

I've never seen a nation that was not founded on aggressive violence and support of hierarchy. Can you show me one? This topic is about what nation you would defend in real life. Not about what you don't like about other peoples sigs.

The Check[sic] Republic and Slovakia. One day they just decided, "Let's be different country's." and it was so.

[Brogavia]

Oh I've had that link there for a while. In general links in peoples sigs have nothing to do with the topic. I think the article in my sig is very interesting and by the way it talks about much more then "being nice to animals." but you probably did not read that far.

I've never seen a nation that was not founded on aggressive violence and support of hierarchy. Can you show me one? This topic is about what nation you would defend in real life. Not about what you don't like about other peoples sigs.

So your saying that society is inherently authoritarian and oppressive?

You sound like a Randroid....

[Brachyuria]

My nation wouldn't be much help in most instances, if the nation in question was not able to defend itself from the attackers, chances are my much smaller nation would fare even worse.

But still, I would support helping the following nations, in order of most support-y-ness:

-Scotland (If it broke free of England in a violent coup)
-Poland (It's suffered enough)
-Ireland (Also has suffered enough)
-Denmark
-The rest of the UK
-Canada
-Norway
-Iceland
-Luxembourg (Because you probably haven't even heard of it, and someone needs to protect it)
-Nicaragua (I like the name)
-And maybe Australia (But they'd have to sign a "no more sheep jokes" agreement first)

Everyone else can go die in a hole for all I care.
Especially you, democratic republic of the Congo.
You know what you did.

[Natapoc]

Oh I've had that link there for a while. In general links in peoples sigs have nothing to do with the topic. I think the article in my sig is very interesting and by the way it talks about much more then "being nice to animals." but you probably did not read that far.

I've never seen a nation that was not founded on aggressive violence and support of hierarchy. Can you show me one? This topic is about what nation you would defend in real life. Not about what you don't like about other peoples sigs.

So your saying that society is inherently authoritarian and oppressive?

You sound like a Randroid....

What do you have against me? Seriously? All I'm really saying is that I would defend people but I would defend no nation. In other words I support human rights fully and I don't have allot of respect for artificial constructs like "nations." Especially if said nation starts going around and killing people.

[Conserative Morality]

Canada, the UK.

That's about it for me.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Andorra for the win!