• Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    Let's do this next week. We can 'thrash it out' - as to what actually constitutes an "EMPIRE" (and the 'standard definition applies....not an obscure/alternate definition.)

    • 2 years ago

      @mvineyard Dude, I told you multiple times I don't care about the word empire or what you call U.S. involvement around the world. I was quite clear on this. Happy to debate anything that actually has some relevance to the world though.

    • 2 years ago

      @cotter We never reached a proper resolution....I gave you the definition of 'empire' from the dictionary...and you either rejected the definition, or felt that America fits the definition. AND - you kept using the word 'empire' - so it is hard to say you don't care....unless it is a 'throw-away' term to smear, even if you can't justify using the word. Hence - the challenge. I will present the term 'empire' - you can show where the US actions merit/justify the term 'empire' to be used to describe the US.

    • 2 years ago

      @mvineyard I never rejected the definition. I asked you multiple times for a better word and you never gave one so I continued to use it with quotes in the absence of a better term. But I actually didn't use it in my last comment in relation to the U.S.

    • 2 years ago

      @cotter Your problem to find a correct word. The US is NOT an empire. In no way does the US have actions that fit the definition of empire.

      The US is something new and different in recorded history; we vanquished enemies (like Japan and Germany) - and did not humiliate them and did not take their resources and did not demand that they pay reparations for the war. A limited number of enemy personnel were tried for 'war crimes' - and some of those convicted were executed. BUT- we helped rebuild those nations....and turned them into allies. Where has that happened elsewhere? If it hasn't happened in the past, don't be too surprised that there is no readily convenient word to describe this.

      Recent wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) - were targeted at the ruling powers and there were attempts to avoid civilian casualties, and to liberate them. After the Rwanda massacres/genocide (over 1 million killed) - there was a bit of 'soul-searching' that wondered - how in modern world with a UN allegedly devoted to end war and prevent atrocities - why was nothing done? Plenty of people in oppressed countries Would LOVE to be liberated by Americans. (On a side note - have you ever read the book "The Mouse That Roared" ...or seen the Peter Sellers movie by the same name? The essence of this comedy was to 'wage war on the US, be defeated quickly, and then count on the US to rebuild the poor country.)

    • 2 years ago

      @mvineyard You ask why nothing was done to stop the Rwanda genocide, and then go to say that our war against Iraq was "targeted at the ruling powers and there were attempts to avoid civilian casualties, and to liberate them" and that many countries would "LOVE to be liberated by Americans". This would be laughable if the facts that made it so weren't damn depressing. The world has seen what U.S. "liberation" looks like and I can assure you that nobody wants that for their country.

      "these latest figures would suggest the death toll in Iraq now exceeds that of the Rwandan genocide in which about 800,000 died"


    • 2 years ago

      @cotter Look for other sources ....and you will find different numbers. I totally distrust those numbers AND I have seen them refuted plenty of times. Ultimately - the vast numbers of deaths are due to terrorists, Islamo-fascist dead-enders, etc. BUT - I will hardly waste my time arguing facts with someone who is committed to blaming America first. I recall you kept calling America an 'empire' - but when I point out that words actually mean something, you go 'whatever'....

      AND - how many people in Iraq wish that they still had Saddam in power? I am sure that there are plenty of thugs, plenty of people liking to step on the necks of other people that are upset that Saddam was taken out of power - but I bet a large number of people are happy he is gone. The big question for the Middle East is why those people are willing to sacrifice a chance for FREEDOM, rather than embrace the ideology of Sharia Law, supporting clan and tribe over individual rights, etc. [Of course - here in the US plenty of leftist would rather have a nanny state than freeedom, so the question is really a universal question.]

    • 2 years ago

      @mvineyard Well of course you disagree with the numbers. They contradict your narrative. Would you prefer the study that lists the deaths at 650,000? Or maybe the government documents that show that we killed nearly 3 times as many civilians as we did "enemies"?

      /*the vast numbers of deaths are due to terrorists*/

      I agree. If you define terrorists as those who terrorize a population through violence that that would describe us in Iraq pretty well during that time. Even those who are glad that Saddam is out of power do not describe us as "liberators".

      /*I will hardly waste my time arguing facts with someone who is committed to blaming America first*/

      You won't waste your time with facts at all because they get in the way of your rosy narrative. I'll blame who should be blamed. Usually, that's the aggressors, which was clearly us in the Iraq war.

      /*I recall you kept calling America an 'empire' */

      I recall you never denying that it is indeed the best word available in the English language to describe our vast involvement around the world. Perhaps the motion should be "Empire is the best English word for U.S. military involvement around the world.", or you could actually make it relevant to our discussion and it could be "U.S. involvement in the Middle East puts our military personnel at risk", but of course you won't do that because you aren't stupid enough to argue with something so obvious. At least not in public.

    • 2 years ago

      @cotter Look up the definition of empire. The Brits had one ....lots of 'colonies'....and there was a general effort to move wealth from the colony to the 'mother country.' Spain had an empire - even up to around 1898 - when the Spanish American War removed various colonies from Spain's influence. Vast resources were TAKEN from colonies to benefit Spain. The US has not set up colonies to be plundered. Liberation - yes. Plundering - hardly. BUT - why worry about the definition of empire when you make up your own.

    • 2 years ago

      @mvineyard Do you want to debate something that actually matters or do you want to debate semantics? Why are you wasting my time?

    • 2 years ago

      @cotter I am not sure what YOU would debate...and I am not sure you would debate using standard terms.....like "Empire". Hint - if I look at the definition of "empire" and it says one thing - but you claim the US is an empire even if it doesn't fit the 'book definition' - then I become unsure of things you say. Are you like the Humpty Dumpty in in Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland"------ “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” So - do I have to factor in that the Cotter definition of Empire means something different than the traditional definition?

      OTOH - if we can agree to use standard book definitions when debating - we can certainly discuss or debate a number of topics - if you want a friendly go around. I see on another thread you claim to be very much a 'anti-war' person. IT would be an interesting discussion to see how firm/how solid those beliefs/convictions are - and if they are rooted in common sense. (Possible Discussion topic: 'Is Cotter really 'anti-war' or is he sometimes anti-war, or is he confused.' ) HERE - the first question I would ask is to define your position in detail...what does it really mean, are there exceptions where you would support war, etc.

      If you are into science - we could debate or discuss the proposition "Global Warming is NOT settled" with me taking the affirmative.

      If you are up on political stuff...I would debate that "There is sufficient evidence that Hillary has committed crimes that she should be charged and tried for various crimes."

      Other items of interest?
      I have a nuclear engineering background....I can either discuss the pro's of nuclear power...or debate them.

    • 2 years ago

      @mvineyard If you don't know what I would debate then you haven't been paying much attention. I would argue that you are full of sh*t when you attack whistle blowers like Edward Snowden for "putting out military personnel at risk". That's what I would argue.