Is your flag cool?

no hope for me!1!

Attached: political.png (800x1200, 232K)

I don't know why it picked that for me but hey Germans like to work.

it's okay i think. not the colors i would have used.

Attached: download (1).png (800x1200, 213K)

my country is objectively better than your country even though I'm not really into the whole nationalism thing

Attached: politiscale.png (800x1200, 221K)

here; this guy gets it

Your flag is the only good one so far

My beliefs are very fringe and piss a lot of people off.

Attached: download.png (800x1200, 248K)

Minus the extra gay flag we can start a revolution together. Seriously just need a better flag.

Additional characteristics of this nation:

Anarchism: When the people are being hit with a stick, they are not happier if the stick is called "the stick of the people". The State is an oppression that must be abolished.

Pragmatism: politics objectively boil down to looking at where the problems are and trying to solve them according to the means available.

Monarchism: society should be organized around a king.

Monarcho-anarchism: the new hotness. Although it's not realistic to abolish the state in the current international status quo, so the Crown's job is to keep the people from going full Brexit and look out for the downtrodden, I guess. We'll figure it out as we go.

>veganism

oh look it's the mentally ill country lmao

good luck fighting any kind of wars with onions boy troops

oy vey shut me down

Attached: poltics.png (800x1200, 231K)

There won't be any wars

Oh good, you're ripe for pillage. Prepare the transports.

What part of not having a war makes you vulnerable? Last I checked ISIS has been attacking all the interventionist countries and not places like Switzerland. Nobody in Switzerland even died during WW2.

Switzerland has excellent natural defenses, few resources and little territory, a policy of non-intervention in conflicts, good relations with all of its neighbours, and a robust civilian defense program. It is an unattractive target because it could not be effectively or easily subdued and holds little material or strategic value.

This doesn't apply to a vegan republic which would be trivial to crush in a war of conquest.

You didn't answer my question. And you are listing things about the country with the highest number of Vegetarians in the west.

*rate of Vegetarians.
Its because when you don't subsidize meat everyone realizes how expensive it really is.

>u didn't anser my quesjin LAMO

I did. I explained to you why Switzerland is the exception, not the rule. Looks like plant-based protein doesn't nurture healthy brains either, so good luck tactically and strategically outwitting a race of comparative supermen who have been properly nourished.

Wait this was about me not my country right

Attached: Screenshot_20180806-183623.png (720x1280, 213K)

Imagine someone asking in a class.
>"Why does being neutral make you vulnerable?"
>"Switzerland is an exception."
Not an answer. Thanks for getting mad though, always like making meat eaters look irrational.

You're completely ignoring the way you held up Switzerland as an example of how neutrality, as a policy, guarantees national defense.

The United States had a policy of neutrality in both world wars, then the Zimmerman Telegram and unrestricted submarine warfare caused them to enter in World War I and the attack on Pearl Harbor caused them to enter World War II.

Belgium was neutral at the start of both world wars, we all know how that turned out.

Ireland was repeatedly bombed allegedly by mistake during World War II.

Finland and Estonia were neutral until the Russians invaded in '39.

Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands were neutral until the Germans invaded in '40.

Cambodia was neutral during Vietnam and we all know how that turned out.

Does this illustrate the point for you or do I need to go on?

I'm not religious, but I believe it's a neccessary evil to form a healthy society.

Attached: Screenshot_20180806-125841_Samsung Internet.jpg (1440x2960, 679K)

I'm a commie faggot. This was dope OP, thanks for sharing that website.

Attached: My flag.png (800x1200, 236K)

>You're completely ignoring the way you held up Switzerland as an example of how neutrality, as a policy, guarantees national defense.
United States has been world police since the 1900s. No true historian would ever call them neutral; Zimmerman Telegram could have been completely ignored and they'd never have to join the war. The attack on Pearl Harbor happened because they had been sanctioning and blockading Japan for ages.
And no, before you go off about how "dem gooks deserved et' we dun getter good", they didn't and its not relevant at all. N o t r e l e v a n t. Point is that America hasn't been neutral for a century.
>Belgium was neutral at the start of both world wars, we all know how that turned out.
Belgium had no militia and would have been destroyed either way thanks to the statist gun grabbers. Same way how France entering the war didn't magically make them not get destroyed.
>Ireland was repeatedly bombed allegedly by mistake during World War II.
100 people on wikipedia. How you think that constitutes vulnerable, when every other interventionist country got destroyed is baffling. Baffling.
>Finland and Estonia were neutral until the Russians invaded in '39.
>Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands were neutral until the Germans invaded in '40.
Neutral does not mean surrendering. You completely miss the point of neutrality and non-interventionism. Defending your own nation does not make you an interventionist.

The United States had a history of intervention in the Western Hemisphere as per the Monroe Doctrine, and in turn emphasized neutrality in terms of conflicts elsewhere in the world, because they viewed the Western Hemisphere as inside their sphere of influence, and this was essentially a quid-pro-quo with the imperial powers of Europe. "You stay in your backyard and we'll stay in ours."

The fact that you actually believe the US was interventionist from 1900 shows that you have zero grasp of history.

The rest of your post is sidestepping the issue or incomprehensible Jow Forums-esque nonsense. All of the countries I listed who were occupied by Germany or Russia after DECLARING THEMSELVES NEUTRAL didn't do so as a mechanism of surrender, they did it because they didn't want any part in the foreshadowed conflict. And then they were invaded anyways.

I think I'm done here.

nazbol GANG

[original comment]

Attached: Screenshot_2018-08-06-10-13-33-1.png (1309x1901, 441K)

Some basic reading for your vegetable-addled brain:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism

Man I should probably have harder stances on things, I'm too wishy-washy

Attached: SmartSelect_20180806-131313_Chrome.jpg (969x1447, 285K)

political compass, politicalscales, politicalsextant

Attached: rite5.png (974x1905, 328K)

>The United States had a history of intervention
>The fact that you actually believe the US was interventionist from 1900 shows that you have zero grasp of history.
Glaring contradiction.
>All of the countries I listed who were occupied by Germany or Russia after DECLARING THEMSELVES NEUTRAL didn't do so as a mechanism of surrender, they did it because they didn't want any part in the foreshadowed conflict. And then they were invaded anyways.
How is that relevant? You are just ignoring all of the interventionist countries that became occupied, such as Germany, Hungary, and Austria. Just tell me a simple reason why being neutral makes you vulnerable.

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States
Insults are not an argument and make you look mad.

Its such a simple question. "How does being neutral make you vulnerable?" yet nobody has answered it.

>117 questions
Fuck that shit.

Originallyioolallagc

No, its pretty shit actually

Attached: IMG_20180806_192424.jpg (720x1062, 133K)

Can't build a better future without building it.

anarcho-communist fag thanks to Jow Forums desu desu

Attached: politiscales.png (800x1200, 202K)

good man, user

origggg

(same user) My flag is the most badass too

>All this low ecology.

Kill yourselves, parasites.

politiscales.net/en_US/results/?j0=19&j1=29&c1=52&c0=5&femi=10&m0=14&m1=17&e1=24&e0=50&s0=40&s1=24&p0=21&p1=40&t1=60&t0=5&b0=5&b1=40&prag=100&mona=67

The fuck is this I don't wanna be a leftist

Attached: why.jpg (720x1083, 134K)

>ecology so high that he doesn't save a jpeg image to the Jow Forums archive

Didn't feel like it. Fite me.

you can be a leftist without being a faggot bitch

Forget to add my flag is fucking shit

You're literally cherrypicking what you want to respond to and ignoring the substance of my argument.

Neutrality DEPENDS on other countries respecting that status, which cannot be taken as a given.

>i don't wanna be a leftist
would you rather give up your worldview just so Jow Forumstards find you cool?

Attached: canvas.png (800x1200, 237K)

Ironic. You completely dance around my simple question every post. Just tell me how being neutral makes you vulnerable. Switzerland being an exception is not an answer, and is objectively wrong. See Ireland and every other nation with a militia and neutrality (hint: America isn't one of them).

not a fan of the color scheme

Attached: 8792C631-3B91-4114-844D-2684C22AE665.png (1242x2208, 1.23M)

>politiscales.net/
Based.
Why does my flag look so faggy?
Do I care too much about the environment?
Reeeeeeeeeeeeee I want my treeees.

Hmmm, I had that one some time ago.

Heheh, Brudi, SOZEN INS GAS STATT HEIKO MAAS!

>EU stars.
Dropped.

Wew.
I had that cog once too.

Heh.
Family is important to me too.

>Necessary evil
>For healthy society
I don't care for religion either, but I don't think it's evil, it's just a frame of observation.
And it's def. not necessary for a good society.

>Lemme throw molotovs!
>wtf, the workers don't like me!?

Didn't know something like that was possible.

Lel.
Tell me your story.

Attached: pretty.gay.flag.if.you.ask.me.m8.png (569x846, 139K)

Some fun and factual phrases you can automatically piss people off with:
>Taxation is theft
>Meat is murder
>Animals have rights
>All religions are cults
>Statism is a religion
>All dead soldiers died as pawns for nothing
>Nationalism is just as bad as racism
>Police are just thugs in a costume
Taxation is theft is my favorite.

Your reading comprehension needs work; I answered your question directly and easily so you could understand the substance of my fleshed-out argument in the post you replied to.

Mind quoting me that answer then?

Look at again.

>Neutrality DEPENDS on other countries respecting that status, which cannot be taken as a given.
That's not an answer, that's just the reason why militias need to exist. Being a good teacher depends on the respect of others too, doesn't mean teachers are vulnerable.

Honestly I haven't insulted anyone once but... based off all your insults I can only assume you are a looney bootlicking Iraq "vet" and factory farm worker having trouble coming to grips with reality.

colour scheme is shit

Attached: 86992A5C-7016-4324-8258-C1E9BBA4C6C8.jpg (640x916, 225K)

Why so essentialist, senpai?

You're completely and utterly missing the point.

Can't miss something that never existed.

Based senpai

Attached: Capture+_2018-08-06-11-30-32.png (720x1185, 252K)

This is the most based combination.

Attached: Perfection.png (800x1200, 232K)

Not even that guy, but you have done a terrible job defending yourself here. I don't even disagree with you, but you show zero effort in understanding someone else's perspective and completely disregard any viewpoint that is not your own. You've given no clear evidence of how things are supposed to work regards to your neutrality and magically assume it would work.

I don't care who you are and I don't care about your concern trolling.
>oh look it's the mentally ill country lmao
>good luck fighting any kind of wars with onions boy troops
>Looks like plant-based protein doesn't nurture healthy brains either
>Some basic reading for your vegetable-addled brain
I already said that neutral nations like Switzerland and ireland had almost no deaths in WW2, thanks to a militia and non-interventionism. That is a fact and can be looked up in two seconds. Meatoids, bootlickers and "vets" can learn to debate on facts if they don't want to be called what they are.

>if I repeat my side of the argument without acknowledging any contradictory evidence, I win! man, debating sure is easy!

veganism: the worldview

There is no contradictory evidence, strawman.

Or are you forgetting how you conveniently sidestepped most of the evidence with this post , handwaving it with bad history, misunderstanding his argument (that neutrality didn't protect any of those smaller european countries from belligerents), or blaming gun-grabbing boogeymen in fuckin belgium lol

The only point made there was that some neutral countries without a militia got destroyed. Completely irrelevant because so did every interventionist country, with or without a militia. The most withstanding countries were neutral. Fact.

>that neutrality didn't protect any of those smaller european countries from belligerents
Again you are being a ginormous strawman. I asked how being neutral made you vulnerable. Nobody said that being neutral will make everyone euphoric. No contradictory evidence.

Added my own flag because the one generated randomly was gay as fuck

Attached: canvas2.png (800x1200, 176K)

>The most withstanding countries were the ones not involved in the war.

Fascinating.

It's pretty alright

Attached: IMG_4679.jpg (354x1076, 88K)

Yeah, it's really that easy. Being right in the middle of it all, yet still completely avoiding the war. How did they do that?????

Attached: slide_52.jpg (800x600, 596K)

Switzerland and Ireland held no immediate strategic value in WW2 which is not the end all be all war to gain any understanding regarding neutrality from.

Nazi Germany invaded the border nations that it could grab quickly so as to then take strategic offense on countries that could (1) get them oil which was a huge deal (2) allow them to strike and take out quickly any potential enemies. Switzerland and Ireland had little to no strategic value in this specific war. You could say that it's because they were neutral that they were not taken, but it's disengenuous. They weren't taken because they weren't useful in that specific, relatively quick war.

It actually makes a lot of sense when you think about it critically. Germany's intial main target was France seeing as how it was the main target in WWI which it took quickly. Germany was also already allied with Italy, so there was no reason to secure any southern nations. As for the East, it was clear that they had to invade so as to then be able to invade Russia.

They weren't "useful" because all that would happen from invading a neutral country with a militia is getting utterly rekt. Can't say the same for Yugoslavia, Hungary or Greece which didn't happen to be on the outskirts of Europe. Notice how instead of trying to prove neutrality makes you vulnerable you're now trying to argue that interventionism doesn't. Kek.

My flag is alright.

Attached: Screenshot_20180806-122354_Chrome.jpg (1080x2220, 412K)

>They weren't "useful" because all that would happen from invading a neutral country with a militia is getting utterly rekt.

Switzerland's "militia" would have folded quickly had Germany put enough pressure on it. Their initial stage of invasion was called "blitzkrieg" for a reason. Hell, this was even how WWI was supposed to go with the Sclieffen plan. There was no time to waste on Switzerland. The German plans of invasion were designed to be quick; they knocked out France as quickly as possible and used it as a basis for invasion of Britain.

Your initial map is disingenuous as it shows all of France as red while in actuality the Nazis invaded only the northern part. Most of southern France, Switzerland, and of course Spain was left untouched because there was no use. They could have, but the Nazis were busy taking strategic spots and literally taking on France, Britain, Russia, and the US all on at once.

I agree with pretty much everything you said.
>Switzerland's "militia" would have folded quickly had Germany put enough pressure on it.
Which is the entire point of remaining neutral.

Think this is basically strasserism

Attached: Unbenannt.png (663x815, 148K)

It doesn't make any difference how Switzerland decided to act. Their ability to be neutral in the world wars was a lucky throw of the dice. In many ways their fates were much that of southern France, Spain, and Portugal.

We seem to be in a chicken or the egg sort of deal here. You seem to think that the choice of neutrality created the situation where they were able to be neutral whereas I think the situation created the ability to choice to be neutral.

And I suppose that also generalizes out. You seem to be suggesting that the choice to be neutral creates diplomatic situations where no one would have a strategic desire to invade. In some situations, I could see that as being true. However, I think that assumes that no other strategic desires show themselves like natural resources or strategic positioning which is a hard assumption to make. Most countries in the middle east cannot afford to do this, for instance.

I'm rockin' with my flag

Attached: Screenshot_20180806-154257.png (1080x1623, 512K)

Liberty, Work, Order

Attached: 다운로드.png (800x1200, 186K)