• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


Why are so few Americans willing to defend their country?

Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
115,323
Well, the answers are manifold, here's three off the top of my head:

1 - A lot of Americans are not, millions are illegal invaders, petty grifters and other assorted wretched refuse that have no ties to "America" and what it is supposed to stand for, than they do the man in the moon.

2 - Generations of Marxist indoctrination has taught millions that everything about this nation is racist, imperialist, oppressive and evil. Why defend that?

3 - Family and tradition and home has more and more ceased to be. Today's "atomized man" simply cares where his next pleasure is coming from.

Great Uncle Smedley said there were only two things worth fighting and dying for: one was to defend your home, the other to defend the Bill of Rights.

It appears AmeriCunts are not interested in doing either one these days.



Why are so few Americans willing to defend their country?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-so-few-americans-willing-to-defend-their-country

19 March 2022

For many of us war voyeurs watching the news with a glass of sherry, admiration of the little-engine-that-could Ukrainian fighters is underwritten by unease. As families escape to safety, plenty of feisty Ukrainians are remaining behind to battle a far more powerful aggressor, and they’re not all men, either. The question nags, then: in the same circumstances, would we stick around to defend our homelands, or would we cut our losses and get out?

Earlier this month, that’s precisely what a Quinnipiac poll asked Americans. Some 7 per cent answered ‘Don’t know’. But an astonishing 52 per cent of Democrats predicted that they’d skedaddle. Among Republicans, a full quarter would carpool with the hightailing ‘to hell with this!’ Democrats, while 68 per cent would stand their ground – or think they would. Among all respondents, 55 per cent would stay and fight, while 38 per cent would flee. Scaled up, that would be 125 million Yanks storming from the Land of the No Longer Free and the Home of the Not Especially Brave all at once.

Quite a stampede.

As Matthew Hennessey observed in the Wall Street Journal, these answers are especially surprising because nothing compelled these folks to tell the truth. People often deceive pollsters, especially when an honest reply seems socially unacceptable. That’s why Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 caught pollsters so unawares: many Trump supporters kept their ostensibly odious voting intentions to themselves. Those Quinnipiac respondents confronted only a pencil-pushing pollster, not a Russian tank crashing through their living room. Surely they’d have been tempted to lie to please – or to show a shred of self-respect. Jesus, they might at least have lied to themselves – imagining that, under duress, they’d rise to the occasion, even if this assumption entailed unwarranted optimism about the extent of their physical courage.

Given the overtly unattractive nature of the admission, we’re therefore obliged to regard the substantial proportion of the American citizenry who say they would not fight to defend their country in the event of a military invasion by a foreign power as an expression of sincere self-knowledge. Ergo, under attack, 38 per cent of Americans would pile their SUVs high and join foreshortening tailbacks headed for Canada or Mexico, while wealthier families would clamber onto private jets and zoom off to bunkers well stocked with tinned paté in New Zealand.

With big-picture peace having prevailed for more than 70 years, most of us westerners have never been forced to decide whether to put our lives and bodily wellbeing on the line for our countries and compatriots. Recent immigrants are sometimes ardent converts to their adoptive lands, but the relationship to nation among the West’s native-born tends to be passive and transactional. (For many immigrants, the relationship is also more materially self-interested than emotional.) Most of us figure vaguely that where we live is OK; the country provides us with more or less what we need. Our primary contribution to the collective national interest is money, which we hardly donate out of niceness, and which even in quantity can’t compare to sacrificing a left leg. As for American Democrats, for years a goodly number have denounced their country as an irredeemable cesspit of ‘systemic racism’. Why would you risk a cut finger for such an awful place, much less a hole in the chest?

And we’re accustomed to our comforts. Watching Ukrainian snipers on TV – who a month ago might have been IT consultants or shoe repairmen – we think: Ugh, they look cold. Why don’t they wear gloves? Preferably with silk liners and those little air--activated hand warmers. The filling in those sandwiches they’re wolfing down is pale and fatty, and I far prefer whole-grain bread. No colourful dash of rocket! Not even mustard! And do these folks have a nice claret at the ready for the evening? How do they while away the long hours after dark without Amazon Prime? How can they sleep in a concrete sewer pipe? I can only nod off under a down duvet while listening to my whale-song CD.

In last autumn’s The Dying Citizen, Victor Davis Hanson proposed that the western concept of citizenship, with its balance of rights and obligations, had been steadily eroded. Globalisation, mass unassimilated immigration and the left’s cultivation of self-disgust have steadily turned us into mere residents, with no fervent commitment to a shared culture and past. For plain old residents, country is a matter of convenience or accident. Nationality may confer a greater or lesser advantage, but it hardly calls up a passionate attachment or sense of duty. Our jet-setting elites are dedicated not to nations but to ideologies, whose promotion is all talk. While Putin has been brainwashing Russians into a mindless patriotism, our disavowal of patriotism has been equally mindless. We’re demoting our countries to mere coordinates, mere patches on a map. We westerners’ dry, shrugging, uninvested relationships to our own countries may be the perceived weakness that most emboldens Putin.

(Putin is not the enemy here. China, and a 5000 year old homogeneous culture that knows who and what they are, is. - AF)

Truthfully, I’ve no idea how I’d respond as an American if the US were under attack, and if those poll respondents were honest with themselves the results would have been 98 per cent ‘don’t know’. Extreme circumstances are prone to reveal things about character that are impossible to access in calmer times. The invasion of your home is apt to stir the primitive, animal emotions conspicuously on display in Ukraine. There’s no more ferocious a motivator than hatred – and there is such a thing; it bears little resemblance to whatever feeling underlies the mild verbal faux pas that’s currently prosecuted as ‘hate speech’. Ukrainians repeatedly testify to journalists that they’re not frightened but angry. I’ve a temper like Mount Vesuvius, so maybe facing a vicious, unprovoked military usurpation I’d be out on the streets ragingly rat-a-tat-tatting with my M16 (alongside a bunch of Republicans, apparently – though some of those Democrats might surprise themselves). But I’m as soft and spoiled as anyone. So for all I know, I’d instead be throwing a case of wine into a waiting SUV.
 
There's a lot in how this question is framed.

Ask someone if they would fight to defend their home, their loved ones, or their freedoms, and the question may be one thing. Ask them if they would fight to defend the regime that rules over them with its boot on their necks, and the answer might be another.
 
"Our country"?

We are all Koreavietnampanamagrenadabosniairanafghanistanukranians now?
 
Last edited:
"Our country"?

We are all Koreavietnampanamagrenadabosniairanafghanistanukranians now?

FODoQdLWQAAbBM3
 
I would fight off a military invasion of the US. I can promise you that I personally would be sucessful at it too. I have zero intention of going overseas to fight Russians, not my problem.

I feel like the ones who would have to defend the country are the ones the liberal elites hate the most. Blue collar guys, probably 30 and up. Kids today for the most part are not capable of doing what would need to be done.
 
I think AF has valid points most especially ( percentage wise ) with no 2 and no 3 even though i dont doubt No 1 it is not yet the vast majority where the other two certainly are as far as i am concerned .
 
Because they lie massively about EVERY foreign war

Still surprised the Afghanistan Heroin KABOOM in business has not been documented clearly
 
Well, the answers are manifold, here's three off the top of my head:

1 - A lot of Americans are not, millions are illegal invaders, petty grifters and other assorted wretched refuse that have no ties to "America" and what it is supposed to stand for, than they do the man in the moon.

2 - Generations of Marxist indoctrination has taught millions that everything about this nation is racist, imperialist, oppressive and evil. Why defend that?

3 - Family and tradition and home has more and more ceased to be. Today's "atomized man" simply cares where his next pleasure is coming from.

Great Uncle Smedley said there were only two things worth fighting and dying for: one was to defend your home, the other to defend the Bill of Rights.

It appears AmeriCunts are not interested in doing either one these days.

If the question is a foreign invader landing on our soil and it would be too my advantage to join with others living here to protect our homes and businesses then of course I would fight to defend that.

However this fight for my country nonsense sounds like some sort of Stockholm Syndrome. What country? Since whatever this is now is unrecognizable. I have no desire to fight for my oppressors. Ukraine is not my country or some far flung place of people who have not attacked us and thus not my country or home. If people want to privately join groups overseas help other nations then they should be able to. Just don't force me to pay for it or force my children to fight for it like slaves.

The elites are not my family, do not hold any of the same values the common American man holds dear and are therefore are not my fellow Americans or whom I consider part of my country. I have nothing in common with them that I would risk my life and safety for whatever their perversion or special interest for their own profit is. Those people that want me to risk my life and safety have been proven to be the enemy and we should all be united fighting them rather than fighting to defend interests of people that effectively see us as their property and have no regard for our human rights.
 
Last edited:
After the Draft,, I Volunteered at 17 yrs. I Volunteered to Defend..

They turned me into an Offensive Weapon.

I find that offensive, and am defensive about it.
 
Why are so few Americans willing to defend their country?

[... M]ost of us westerners have never been forced to decide whether to put our lives and bodily wellbeing on the line for our countries and compatriots. [...]

So far as I know, there is not a single war in history in which most of the population of either side ("offense" or "defense") have participated as combatants. (If there have been any such wars, then they are so exceedingly rare as to be exceptional outliers.) The question is thus not whether most people would defend their country. The question is whether enough people would do so.

And the answer to that question, in turn, is contingent upon the answers to many other questions, such as:
- what are the issues at stake? (e.g., does the attacker seek occupation and subjugation, or merely a change of regime or policy?)
- what is the strength of the opposition?
- what are the conditions necessary for victory?
- what are the prospects for achieving those conditions?
- is the cost of the defense worth what would be preserved?
- and so on and so forth ...

The answers to those questions will depend critically on the particulars of any given set of circumstances. Without knowing those particulars, it is impossible to meaningfully answer (or evaluate any answers to) so broad and general a question as "Would you be willing to defend your country?" (or whatever such question was asked in the poll referenced in the OP article).

One could argue that the expression by most people of a generic willingness to defend one's country under vague, unspecified circumstances is in some way a desirable thing, but again (as I noted earlier), it is neither usual nor even necessary that most people participate as active defenders - so at best, this might merely indicate a greater likelihood that there would be enough people willing to do so, should it come to that.

And then, of course, there is the matter of just what "defending" one's country even means in the first place. America's involvement in the wars in Korea and Vietnam were claimed by many to be (at least preemptively) "defensive" - not to mention the Afghanistan debacle as an (at least retaliatory) "defense" against the attack on 9/11.

Or consider World War Two - America's most "popular" war (or at least the one the fewest people will dare to criticize). Even given Japan's preemptive strike on Pearl Harbor, can it meaningfully be said that most people - or even just enough people - were willing to "defend" America in that case, given that conscription was implemented? IOW: If people had to be drafted to fight WW2, does it really signify that much of a terrible shift or sea-change that "so few Americans [tell pollsters today that they are] willing to defend their country", when they face much less explicit threat now than then?
 
Last edited:
And the answer to that question, in turn, is contingent upon the answers to many other questions, such as:
- what are the issues at stake? (e.g., does the attacker seek occupation and subjugation, or merely a change of regime or policy?)
- what is the strength of the opposition?
- what are the conditions necessary for victory?
- what are the prospects for achieving those conditions?
- is the cost of the defense worth what would be preserved?
- and so on and so forth ...

- will foreign powers provide you infinite weaponry?


(just to add 1 to the list, as redundant as it may be)
 
And the answer to that question, in turn, is contingent upon the answers to many other questions, such as:
- what are the issues at stake? (e.g., does the attacker seek occupation and subjugation, or merely a change of regime or policy?)
- what is the strength of the opposition?
- what are the conditions necessary for victory?
- what are the prospects for achieving those conditions?
- is the cost of the defense worth what would be preserved?
- and so on and so forth ...

Sounds like a prototype of the [MENTION=849]jmdrake[/MENTION]; equation.
 
Would I fight to defend the USA absolutely not. I would fight for the county that my family has lived in since the 1850's. I would fight for my family's land.
Let all the woke individuals fight for the country that allows people to give children hormone blockers.
 
"Defend their country"?

Most Americans will/would fight to defend their country.

If only their country existed anymore.

There are breezes blowing on the dying embers of freedom and liberty.
 
"Defend their country"?

Most Americans will/would fight to defend their country.

If only their country existed anymore.

There are breezes blowing on the dying embers of freedom and liberty.

There really is nothing left to fight for. The Marxists have basically won.

The time to fight has long passed us by.

And there really is nowhere to run to. Marxism has taken over basically the entire world.

Russia is one of the few countries who is even pushing back on this global phenomenon.

I may start learning Russian, and make my Russian stooge status at some point official...
 
Innocent Blood Shed on Our Soil

I'm not defending this country during any war until it stops supporting and funding the slaughter of the unborn.
 
And the answer to that question, in turn, is contingent upon the answers to many other questions, such as:
- what are the issues at stake? (e.g., does the attacker seek occupation and subjugation, or merely a change of regime or policy?)
- what is the strength of the opposition?
- what are the conditions necessary for victory?
- what are the prospects for achieving those conditions?
- is the cost of the defense worth what would be preserved?
- and so on and so forth ...

The answers to those questions will depend critically on the particulars of any given set of circumstances. Without knowing those particulars, it is impossible to meaningfully answer (or evaluate any answers to) so broad and general a question as "Would you be willing to defend your country?" (or whatever such question was asked in the poll referenced in the OP article).

One could argue that the expression by most people of a generic willingness to defend one's country under vague, unspecified circumstances is in some way a desirable thing, but again (as I noted earlier), it is neither usual nor even necessary that most people participate as active defenders - so at best, this might merely indicate a greater likelihood that there would be enough people willing to do so, should it come to that.

And then, of course, there is the matter of just what "defending" one's country even means in the first place. America's involvement in the wars in Korea and Vietnam were claimed by many to be (at least preemptively) "defensive" - not to mention

Sounds like a prototype of the [MENTION=849]jmdrake[/MENTION]; equation.

LOL. I didn't know I had an equation. Is this like Maxwell's equations or more E=MC^2?

Great and varied and thoughtful responses...you guys always deliver.

i read it. Thought about it. Didn't respond thought I have a response that I thought about before I read this.

Anyhow.......ready for it? What would Jesus do? (Dodging tomatos, baseballs and crosses being thrown at me.) Seriously though, what would Jesus do? I know...I know. Nobel Prize winner Barack Obama spat on the sermon on the mount and the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 2 separate speeches. All that turn the other cheek, nonviolent stuff if for wimps! Putin must be violently stopped because he's EVIL. Hitler had to be violently stopped because he was EVIL. But.....wasn't the Roman empire evil? Weren't all the king Herods of Judea (there was more than one) evil? The first one we read about killed the baby boys because he was trying to kill Jesus as a baby. The next one beheaded John the Baptist because he literally had a hard on for his step-daughter / niece. I don't know if I'd call Caeser Augustus and Tiberius evil (maybe) but right after Jesus went to heaven we got Caligula (still have scars from that movie) and Nero.

And yet....Jesus was saying "turn the other cheek" and "if a Roman soldier makes you go one mile, go a second" and "Don't resist evil." Paul expounded on this by saying "Overcome evil with good." People try to apply Romans 13 to "Obey our wonderful God ordained federal United States Government." (I've seen atheists use this argument...quoting the Bible when it suits them). But Jesus and Paul weren't imaging some good wonderful Christian government in the future. They were witnessing the horrible, rotten, incestuous (again Caligula the movie), evil Roman empire that burned people alive and crucified and beheaded them (Saudi Arabia) and raped and pillaged and tortured and enslaved and made sport of people's misery.

And yet....this same Jesus told the disciples to go out and get swords if they didn't have them. But when Peter actually used his sword, Jesus rebuked Peter and healed the enemy. You think the GOP didn't like Ron Paul. Think of what they would have though of Jesus. "Crucify him! He healing Al Qaeda!" (Queue [MENTION=47542]enhanced_deficit[/MENTION] posting a story of Al Qaeda at Israeli hospitals. LOL. Yeah I know I'm rambling a bit).

So....Jesus endorsed self defense (get a sword), but He didn't endorse war. (He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom was of this world then would my servants fight to prevent my arrest). So....how do we apply this? Is it even applicable or is Barack Obama right about that point? Well...the Jews certainly didn't think it was applicable. They were ready more than once to crown Him king. Then....he talked all this peace stuff. Then....he predicted the destruction of Jerusalem. And why was Jerusalem destroyed? Was it because they chose the peaceful ways of Jesus? Nope. They chose the rebel leader Barabas. When the Romans came to Jerusalem and encircled the city, the Jews chose active resistance and were destroyed for their trouble. Even their nigh impregnable fort at Masada was ultimately overrun. And it wasn't just the Jewish soldiers that died. Women, children, old men were cut down indiscriminately. Jesus had given a pattern on how to survive...and dare I say subvert an ultimate evil empire with seemingly unlimited resources. After all...ultimately the pagan Roman empire succumbed to Christianity. And when the Germanic tribes sacked and took over Rome....why they ultimately became Christianized as well. It's like Christ is the ultimate virus.

Oh....but you want something more active. Okay. I give you the Netherlands in WW II. Their army sucked. There's no if, ands or buts about it. The collapsed in short order and the king and queen had to flee. But there was resistance. Some labor unions (literal communists) instituted strikes such as the railroad strike. (Hmmm...sounds like the trucker's convoy). Some people hid Jews and other Nazi targets. Some attacked ration card stations, stealing cards and distributing them to those banned from commerce by the Nazis. Some would rescue downed allied pilots and aid in their evasion and escape. And some...collaborated. (Many did actually). Then there was more violent but guerrilla tactics. That the sisters who would seduce Nazi soldiers and collaborators only to kill them. (A REAL group of black widows. I wonder why that hasn't been made a movie?) There were snipers who would take out high value targets. And yes there were reprisals to violent and non-violent resistance alike. And consequences. Many Dutch died from starvation resulting from the railway strike.

Anyhow, as [MENTION=40029]PAF[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5460]CCTelander[/MENTION] would attest, there are ways to resist our current government. Those could be expanded on to resist and occupier. And just I get the desire to fight for your home. And...sometimes that makes sense. Sometimes it doesn't. A friend of mine when we were talking about Urkraine and I was giving these thoughts said "What if some guys came and tried to take your home with you and your sons there?" My answer? What action will most likely lead to the life or death of my sons?

Sources about the Netherlands in WW 2.

https://alanmalcher.com/2021/11/10/the-dutch-resistance-girl-assassins-during-ww2/
https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/dutch-citizens-resist-nazi-occupation-1940-1945

 
Last edited:
I may start learning Russian, and make my Russian stooge status at some point official...

as I have been so accused several times.

I was watching LIVE in Canada when it went full Fascist,, to almost everyone's surprise...

and much was exposed

Now the push is on to arm and support the Murderous Nazis.

I would like to not be Nuked. by anyone.

 
Last edited:
Back
Top