Whether a country deserves to exist is dependent on their ability to defend themselves and not the ideological beliefs of others

>might makes right
i'm capable of beating the shit out of a child, does that make me right?

>>508082979
If nobody can stop or capture you, sure

>>508082979
Yes. If the parents can't protect the child, it's rightfully yours.

>>508083105
This but completely, 100%, unironically

>>508082849 (OP)
That's entirely wrong, Israel is protected by the ideology of the United States.

>>508083061
You also have to live with your own conscience unless you’re an evil psychopath.

>>508083347
And being an evil psychopath is bad because... ?

>>508082849 (OP)
>dependent on their ability to defend themselves
In an ideal world, there should be more to justify a country's existance than just power.
Does it benefit the world if European inventiveness exists, if beautiful Ukrainian women exist, if anime-creating nips exist?
Maybe a case-by-case analysis is more warrented than just deferring to self-sustained military might. After all, that forces every country to divert resources to defense, which isn't ideal in the least.

>>508082849 (OP)
This is the ultimate truth.

>>508083392
It increases the likelihood of failure

>>508082979
Might gives you the right to things.

It doesn't however make something that is false true, ever.

In terms of ethics might is everything, in terms of absolute invariable truth it's irrelevant.

Military force is the only thing that guarantees a country, or having an ally with a good military. Everything else is fake and gay. The UN shouldn't even exist because it's not backed by a real military. Sending a couple blue helmet "peacekeepers" does nothing.

duh obviously.
was this up for debate?