[DTguitarist99]

But don´t forget empire and imperialism mean diferent things. Look at a dictionary and we can clarify this topic better.

Yeah they are actually different in the dictionary, imperialism seems to include expansionism and empire does not. Doesn't really make sense, since imperialism should just be a country which builds an empire.

Well, this don´t proves nothing, except the fact that Saddam used its dead babies for propaganda purposes (which, btw, isn´t evil in itself, I would have done the same thing if it was useful to influenec the world opinion in order to lift the sanctions).

Of course it doesn't prove anything, but its strong evidence that sanctions weren't as bad as they were portrayed as being. I didn't say this action was evil, only deceptive.

But the big truth here is that most of those deaths happened in impoverished areas. And the embargo made those areas even poorer, so it increased mortality.

True, but Saddam could have easily ordered the doctors to go out to the countryside and find babies really killed by the sanctions, if there were 500,000 of them.

On Saddam putting all money into the military, this seems ridiculous when we see how his army was in horrible shape in this war.

He probably put some in the military and his palaces, but I think he was withholding from his people the food and medicine he received from the oil-for-food program. This would be useful to him, since the more of his people he killed, the greater the outcry against sanctions, and if they were lifted it would increase his power.

around US$200,00 per capita to Iraqi people.

I read a UNICEF report which said it was $400 on average in the south, and $700 in the north.

Actually they grabbed more than what was given to them by UN. But you know very well that I was talking about the occupied territories.

They were given mostly worthless desert by the UN, that is why they took more. Still, the UN established them, so they have a right to exist.

It was one of the main instruments used by South Africa to keep its system. The only diference is that South Africa used racial criteria and Israel uses a religious criteria. If Israel had a civil code, then a large number of inter racial marriage would eventually turn the country in a multiethnic democracy, instead of a Jewish state.

It kept the apartheid in place, but it wasn't apartheid in itself. If you don't have apartheid to begin with, the barring of Muslim-Jewish marraiges does not make apartheid.

I know this version, but the extremely poor levels of alert of their AF (which wasn´t even flying CAP over their bases) and the fact that the Egyptian Army was caught by complete surprise suggests that Nasser wasn´t being serious about an attack. That´s thing I must study better

The Arabs were plainly the aggressors. Syria had been shelling Israeli farms and villages for two years before the war from the Golan Heights.
Nasser said before the war,

"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood." Then, "...the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."

Arabs then launched increasing numbers of terrorist attacks against israel. The Syrian defense minister said right after all the troops were massed along the Golan Heights,

"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

Egypt then created a blockade that prevented Israel from getting oil from Iran or getting anything from Asia.

After Jordan joined up with Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt, Nasser said,

"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."

250,000 Arab troops surrounded Israel.

Now how can you say Nasser was not serious about an attack?

On a side note... completely unrelated to this topic... Isildur, you are a dishonor to your namesake. Isildur fought against the great evil empire of Sauron, he did not support the great evil empire of Bush. Isildur only went to war when war was absolutely necessary to stop the spread of a great evil. He joined in a great alliance with elves and dwarves and all free men of middle-earth to combat Sauron's imperialistic dogma, he did not attempt to piss the hell out of his former allies. To sum it all up, Isildur was the man, and most likely had a huge cock. You are a dumb, imperialistic, warmongerer, and undoubtably have very limited equipment.

I don't know why I bother to respond to this but...

You could more accurately draw comparisons between Sauron and the radical Islamists. Sauron's Mordor was a dictatorship more similar to Arab states than the US's republic. It also was a huge threat that was constantly fighting with Gondor, a nation with a relatively small population, while Mordor had infinite population to draw on by recruiting in the south. This is like all the large Arab countries ganging up on Israel.

[Lt. Spoonman]

nay, my little yellow friend, you are gravely mistaken. For starters, Isildur was not even Gondorian, he was Numenorian. Gondor did not exist until Sauron was defeated and Numenor was drowned. And I hate to break it to you, but ALL of the governments of Middle-Earth were monarchies in which the ruler had dictatorial power. So as usual, your argument has no factual basis and is not grounded in fact. Your intellectual flanks are forever in the air.

But yeah, I reckon I will be disturbed when them thar A-rabs start breedin' themselves some orcs!!!

[Gothmog]

Of course it doesn't prove anything, but its strong evidence that sanctions weren't as bad as they were portrayed as being. I didn't say this action was evil, only deceptive.

Probably the effects were overestimated for political reasons, but an estimate of a few hundreds of thousands is probably accurate, given the amount of economical decline in a country heavily dependent on external trade.

True, but Saddam could have easily ordered the doctors to go out to the countryside and find babies really killed by the sanctions, if there were 500,000 of them.

-You keep ignoring that it is difficult to establish precisely WHO were the people killed by sanctions. Only what you see are worsening statistics.

He probably put some in the military and his palaces, but I think he was withholding from his people the food and medicine he received from the oil-for-food program. This would be useful to him, since the more of his people he killed, the greater the outcry against sanctions, and if they were lifted it would increase his power.

-It´s a possibility, but seems unproven to me. I think that what really happened is that he distributed selectively these scarce resources, giving more food and medicines to his supporters and less to the hostile groups. However, even if he distibuted evenly these resouces, the result still would be an increase in mortality.

I read a UNICEF report which said it was $400 on average in the south, and $700 in the north.

-Which could have explained the diferences between the performance in North and South. In a certain way, the UN was no better than Saddam, by distributing the aid so unevenly? Could you post your reference? I used that from Voices in the Wilderness. The discrepancy can be explained for the fluctuation of oil prices in the 1997-2002 period. US$400,00 could have been enough to avoid a disaster, depending onn the state of Iraqi infrastructure. However, don´t forget that the main source of children mortality is water, and access to clean water was not adressed under the sanctions, since Iraq couldn´t buy water cleaning equipment and chemicals.

They were given mostly worthless desert by the UN, that is why they took more. Still, the UN established them, so they have a right to exist.

I don´t deny its right to exist, however, it didn´t give them the right to occupy West Bank and Gaza strip. I also think Israel don´t have future as a Jewish state, since it is populated by a significant % of non Jews (almost 50% if you count the occupied territories). This means it can only survive as a racist state or by ethnic cleansing. There is no place for ethnic based states in the world.

It kept the apartheid in place, but it wasn't apartheid in itself. If you don't have apartheid to begin with, the barring of Muslim-Jewish marraiges does not make apartheid.

But you have an apartheid with three classes
1-Jewish citizens
2-Arab citizens (equivalent to asians and miscigenated people in the apartheid)
3-People living in occupied territory (whose status is similar to South African blacks in the aprtheid)

look at:
http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_p ... al-is.html

The Arabs were plainly the aggressors. Syria had been shelling Israeli farms and villages for two years before the war from the Golan Heights.
Nasser said before the war,

Thank you for information. In that previous site I quoted, it was argued that the Arabs thought that Israel was about to attack, based on wrong reports from Soviet inteligence (?). But the fact that Arab Forces were on a very low level of alert seems puzzling to me. Still it doesn´t justifies Israel treatment of people in occupied territories. Actaully if they had given Israeli citizenship to those people, maybe the troubles would be over, but also the Jewish character of Israel....

[DTguitarist99]

Which could have explained the diferences between the performance in North and South. In a certain way, the UN was no better than Saddam, by distributing the aid so unevenly? Could you post your reference? I used that from Voices in the Wilderness. The discrepancy can be explained for the fluctuation of oil prices in the 1997-2002 period. US$400,00 could have been enough to avoid a disaster, depending onn the state of Iraqi infrastructure. However, don´t forget that the main source of children mortality is water, and access to clean water was not adressed under the sanctions, since Iraq couldn´t buy water cleaning equipment and chemicals.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/jonesirq.htm

I tried to find that report that claimed $400 per person in south and $700 in the north, but I couldn't find it again. This site has some good commentary on one of the UNICEF reports. I think the reason for the difference in the amount of aid from north to south is that Saddam ordered less food and medicine than he could have. I'll have to look into it more.

I don´t deny its right to exist, however, it didn´t give them the right to occupy West Bank and Gaza strip. I also think Israel don´t have future as a Jewish state, since it is populated by a significant % of non Jews (almost 50% if you count the occupied territories). This means it can only survive as a racist state or by ethnic cleansing. There is no place for ethnic based states in the world.

All it is is a homeland for Jews, not the Jew's exclusive state. If the Arabs were more peaceful, Israel might allow a right of return for refugees, that would make Jews the minority. The threat to their security from terrorists is too great though.

But you have an apartheid with three classes
1-Jewish citizens
2-Arab citizens (equivalent to asians and miscigenated people in the apartheid)
3-People living in occupied territory (whose status is similar to South African blacks in the aprtheid)

So far I don't see any evidence that the Israeli-Arabs are second class citizens. Many of the Palestinians in the occupied territories are under the control of the PA, so many violations of their rights are the responisbility of that organization. Israel also offered to give them their own state in 2000, which the apartheid South Africa would not have done with the blacks in their country.

ank you for information. In that previous site I quoted, it was argued that the Arabs thought that Israel was about to attack, based on wrong reports from Soviet inteligence (?). But the fact that Arab Forces were on a very low level of alert seems puzzling to me. Still it doesn´t justifies Israel treatment of people in occupied territories. Actaully if they had given Israeli citizenship to those people, maybe the troubles would be over, but also the Jewish character of Israel....

yes, they did recieve wrong reports from Soviet intelliegence, but its not evident from their rhetoric that they actually thought Israel would attack first, so they must have known the Soviet report was wrong.

[LordofTheNipplerings]

According to Encarta Encyclopedia "the United States would control its own empire from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. The United States was founded as a land of liberty, where individuals had inherent rights and could participate in a democracy. Such rights, however, did not extend to all of the nation’s peoples, including Native Americans, who were not viewed by the U.S. government as citizens, and often not even as human beings".
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/ ... s=250#s250

However if the term empire seems so unappealing maybe the term conquering nation should replace the term empire in the article written in the encyclopedia. It seems you’ve decided to redefine the definition of empire. Below is a list of online dictionaries with the definition of empire and none of them seem to imply or suggest that empire requires “one that conquers foreign lands and treats them as second class citizens”. So according to you one that conquers foreign lands and evicts the native population. Then absorbing the land once occupied into its nation could not be an empire. Thus if Canada were to invade the United States evict many of its citizens and then add the 50 states as Canadian provinces. And then gives all Canadians and citizens living in the newly annexed provinces the same rights as Canadians in Canada they will be free from being accused of being an empire? According to the dictionaries below empire is “A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority”.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empire
http://www.askoxford.com/dictionary/empire

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... &dict=CALD



However even if we were to use the definition you prescribed. It could well be argued that indigenous populations living under the American Yoke were second class citizens if not less who had their fates ultimately decided by their conquerors and the Federal Government. The US code states that 'The Congress shall have Power * * * To regulate Commerce * * * with Indian tribes and, through this and other constitutional authority, Congress has plenary power over Indian affairs.”3


http://www.citizensalliance.org/CERA%20 ... tizens.htm

Indigenous populations through the laws enacted by congress evicted and forced the populations from the very land indigenous peoples had lived for thousands of years. The US also regulated the lives of Natives that were allowed to stay. The Natives were treated worst than second-class citizens during the era of US expansion for very few would actually even survive into the 20th century. The population of natives did not increase until the 20th century. Even if this is not a description of empire then one must recognize that being a second-class citizen in an empire certainly was better than the treatment received from US expansion and conquests during this era of US history.

http://www.expulsion.org/editions/editi ... nocide.cfm

[DTguitarist99]

?A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority?

Exactly, the empire must have a single supreme authority, which implies that it does not give any political power to the territories it conquers. Since the US "conquered" many states, and gave them full rights, including the right to vote, those states have political power. So they can't be an empire, since empires do not give political power to the states they conquer.

[Lt. Spoonman]

hey, IRA- your boys sold out! I have no respect for those pussies!!! Go suck some british dick - Tony Blair is GOD - SPOONMAN OUT

just to clarify things, i wasnt serious when i said the above... i am very pro-irish republican, and actually lived in ireland for a number of years. IRA-Moose is a buddy of mine and i was trying to piss him off... here's looking at you, scott.

and Tony Blair sucks cock.... to qoute a great mob movie: "The man has no MAAABLES"

[jaakko]

just to clarify things, i wasnt serious when i said the above... i am very pro-irish republican, and actually lived in ireland for a number of years. IRA-Moose is a buddy of mine and i was trying to piss him off...

Thanks for clarifying that! Heh, I thought you were just trying to provocate him. Now I'll forgive you for smoking marijuana.

[Lt. Spoonman]

thanks jaako... haha tho i dont think i need to be forgiven for my ganja habit... the day will come, jaako, when we toke up together.

[Gothmog]

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/jonesirq.htm

I read your report and it seems the Al Jazeera report placed the US representative against the war by mentioning that the UNICEF report provides no evidence of Iraqi government witholding food and medicine from the people. He also mentioned that the oil for food program is extremely bureaucratic and that the coodinator of the oil for food program itself resigned in protest against the effects of sanctions. No serious objection was placed by the US representative.

All it is is a homeland for Jews, not the Jew's exclusive state. If the Arabs were more peaceful, Israel might allow a right of return for refugees, that would make Jews the minority. The threat to their security from terrorists is too great though.

Please! No serious Israeli politician even considers (in his worse nightmares) the possibility of allowing Jews to be a minority inside Israel. If they considered this, they could simply have annexed the WB and GS and gave their inhabitants citizenship rigths. This would result in terrorism being simply eliminated (as you correctly points, Arab Israeli don´t are responsible by terrorist acts) but also the transformation of Isreal in a secular state, undermining him as a Jewish state. Anyway, I challenge you to quote ANY Israeli politician who accepted that the Jews could be a minority in their own state.

So far I don't see any evidence that the Israeli-Arabs are second class citizens.

In 1948, only about 150,000 Palestinian Arabs remained in the area that became the state of Israel. They were granted Israeli citizenship and the right to vote. But in many respects they were and remain second-class citizens, since Israel defines itself as the state of the Jewish people and Palestinians are non-Jews. Until 1966 most of them were subject to a military government that restricted their movement and other rights (to speech, association and so on). Arabs were not permitted to become full members of the Israeli trade union federation, the Histadrut, until 1965. About 40 percent of their lands were confiscated by the state and used for development projects that benefited Jews primarily or exclusively. All of Israel's governments have discriminated against the Arab population by allocating far fewer resources for education, health care, public works, municipal government and economic development to the Arab sector.

Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel have had a difficult struggle to maintain their cultural and political identity in a state that officially regards expression of Palestinian or Arab national sentiment as subversive. Until 1967, they were entirely isolated from the Arab world and were often regarded by other Arabs as traitors for living in Israel. Since 1967, many have become more aware of their identity as Palestinians. One important expression of this identity was the organization of a general strike on March 30, 1976, designated as Land Day, to protest the continuing confiscation of Arab lands. The Israeli security forces killed six Arab citizens on that day. All Palestinians now commemorate it as a national day.


From that website I placed before

the Palestinians in the occupied territories are under the control of the PA, so many violations of their rights are the responisbility of that organization.

-But the PA don´t demolishes houses, imposes curfews, places limits to travel rights. Actually they have very limited authority. The real power in the Palestine is Israel. Arafat´s was intended to be just a Israeli puppet (a thing he couldn´t afford to do for obvious reasons).

Israel also offered to give them their own state in 2000, which the apartheid South Africa would not have done with the blacks in their country.

The word bantustan means something to you?

[Gothmog]

-Some stuff on Israeli Arabs. I deliberately avoided Arab websites (except maybe #1) to get a less biased report

http://tv.oneworld.net/tapestry?link=886

http://www.ajds.org.au/df.htm

http://www.pass.to/newsletter/micah_d_halpern.htm

http://www.coexistence.org/html/pogrebin_web.htm
.....
While it's true that many Arab citizens, including (MKs), take issue with Israel as a Jewish state, their position is not hard to understand since by definition, a Jewish state disadvantages non-Jews. According to Adalah, an Arab rights organization, about 20 laws provide unequal rights and obligations based on "nationality," which in Israel means religion. Every Israeli must carry an identity card that identifies him or her as a Jew, Muslim, or Christian. As Arab MK Ahmed Tibi put it, "Israel is a democratic state for the Jews, and a Jewish state for the Arabs."
.....
Moreover, it must also be said that the current climate is ripe for Arab citizens to move from discontent and alienation to out- right solidarity with Palestinians and hostility toward Israel--since the government has done so little to equalize their conditions or inspire patriotism in its Arab minority. The facts speak for themselves: Infant mortality is twice as high among Arabs as Jews. Arab per capita income is half that of Jews. Twice as many Arabs live below the poverty line. Their municipalities have received one-third less government funding than Jewish areas, affecting the quality of Arab schools, infrastructure, and social services. The Education Ministry spends half as much per Arab child as per Jewish child. Half as many Arabs as Jews have 13 or more years of schooling. In his acceptance speech, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared, "We will turn over a new leaf in our relationships with our Arab citizens in order to achieve a genuine partnership and a feeling of equality among all the country's citizens." Yet when 150 Bedouin demonstrators marched in front of his ranch pleading for improved educational services (only 45 percent of Bedouins finish high school), he refused to see them
....
Israeli Arabs are under-represented in higher education and most industries. They make up less than 6 percent of the civil service. Their unemployment rate is estimated at 40 percent. Less than 1 percent of public construction has benefited the Arab population. Since 1975, the government has built one Arab housing unit for every 337 units built for Jews. Regarding the delivery of public services, Sikkuy, an Israeli non-profit organization dedicated to advancing Arab citizens of Israel, says in its 2000-2001 report: "Arab localities are often like isolated islands within the national and regional systems. In general, the various systems [i.e. electricity, telephone, and sewage] extend only as far as the entrance to Arab towns, and then continue on to neighboring Jewish towns where individual Jewish households are hooked up, in contrast to the Arab households which are not."
......
Land inequities are equally shocking: By law, 93 percent of Israeli land can be leased or owned only by Jews or Jewish agencies. Since 1948, the Arab population has grown from 150,000 to almost 1 million, yet 76 percent of their land has been confiscated and no Israeli government has created even one new Arab town. (In his campaign, Sharon pledged to build one; as of now, it hasn't happened. Arabs are still waiting for implementation of the government's four-year development plan.) To add insult to injury, dozens of Arab villages founded before 1948 are not even recognized by the state. No wonder every March 30, Arab-Israelis commemorate Land Day with vigils recalling their first demonstration against Israel's land confiscation policy in 1976 when six of their people were killed by Israeli security forces. It's important to note that in 2001, Land Day's 25th anniversary, the demonstration was peaceful.


http://www.opentent.org/essays/dahan.html

http://fletcher.tufts.edu/news/2002/10/troen.shtml

This “messiness” does not mean that Israel has failed to be either democratic or Jewish. “There is no one-way to shape a democratic society,” said Professor Troen. Israel’s democracy, unlike the U.S. model which is focused on the individual, is centered on the collective—that is the Jewish people. This idea of the collective is expressed in the Israeli Declaration of Independence which opens by asserting that Israel is a state to be created by the people. But as Professor Troen pointed out, this is problematic because this concept of the collective does not extend to Israel’s Arab minority. While Arab-Israelis are entitled to vote they are treated as second-class citizens.
(And this comes from a guy who defends Israel as a Jewish state)
Professor Troen ended his lecture with an unsettling conclusion. “There is no possibility of a bi-national state,” asserted Troen. “Israeli society will not bear the burden of two different cultures.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_repo ... 341587.stm

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030530/eb04.shtml

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk000616/sfaarabwoes.shtml

[LordofTheNipplerings]

Empires do give political rights to their conquered peoples. During Japan’s phase of imperialism in the quest to expand Japan’s empire the natives of Taiwan were given political rights and a Parliament. Taiwan received economic benefits as well as political ones that were never exercised during the Manching dynasty. But whatever political rights Japan gave to Taiwan; it never disguised the fact that Formosa was part of Japan’s empire.

http://tacpa.org/column/JapanInTaiwan.html
http://www.geocities.com/apapadimos/Tai ... tory_4.htm


The United States was an empire. Lets explore the definition of empire “A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority”. The US had acquired territories during the Louisiana Purchase, which was relatively equal to the size of the actual United States in 1803. The territories are the present day Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi River, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska Oklahoma, nearly all of Kansas, portions of Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado east of the Rocky Mountains, and Louisiana west of the Mississippi River but including the city of New Orleans. (Encarta)(sorry a little bit of plagiarism here)

The Supreme authority is the Federal government and the Federal Constitution. The original inhabitants on these lands had little or no rights and were under the whims of congress. Under US law “congress had plenary power over Indian affairs”, as described under the US code. Plenary is defined as 1 : complete in every respect : ABSOLUTE, UNQUALIFIED <plenary power>.
And as Justice Marshall points out, only the Federal government has the power to give the natives any rights if the government chooses to.

http://www.m-w.com/
In the US constitution the natives were hardly considered equal and didn’t enjoy the same rights as the settlers that took their land. In article one section 3.
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... l#articlei

Most of the territories with the exception of Louisiana and Missouri did not receive statehood until until 1830 and the successful implementation of the Indian removal act passed by congress. Natives in the new territories were forced into US territories known as Indian Territories west of the Mississippi. There the natives were still treated as subjected peoples and were ultimately pushed further west and more removed. When the natives resisted the resettlement plans by their “supreme authority” wars were used to force them out. Encarta encyclopedia describes “Although removal had been going on to some degree since the early 1800s …this act resulted in the uprooting of entire tribes from their homelands and their forced resettlement beyond the Mississippi. Several wars stemmed from the refusal of some Native Americans to accept resettlement”.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/ ... =761553925¶=14#p14
When the natives were finally removed or diminished as a population the US territories once inhabited by natives became living space for settlers and immigrants. These natives were then pushed onto reservations to give up more land. Failure to comply with the “supreme authority” resulted in more violence and wars. The last Indian Territory to receive statehood was in 1907. Encarta states: “As they sought to protect their lands and to ensure their survival, more than 1000 skirmishes and battles erupted throughout the West between 1861 and 1891 ”. The natives living under statehood didn’t receive any semblance of citizenship until 1924.

[Gothmog]

The United States was an empire. Lets explore the definition of empire “A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority”. The US had acquired territories during the Louisiana Purchase, which was relatively equal to the size of the actual United States in 1803. The territories are the present day Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi River, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska Oklahoma, nearly all of Kansas, portions of Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado east of the Rocky Mountains, and Louisiana west of the Mississippi River but including the city of New Orleans. (Encarta)(sorry a little bit of plagiarism here)

-Excellent information. But the US today, althought being an imperialist nation, could be considered an empire in the sense you are saying?

[Gothmog]

[quote="LordofTheNipplerings"]Empires do give political rights to their conquered peoples. During Japan’s phase of imperialism in the quest to expand Japan’s empire the natives of Taiwan were given political rights and a Parliament. Taiwan received economic benefits as well as political ones that were never exercised during the Manching dynasty. But whatever political rights Japan gave to Taiwan; it never disguised the fact that Formosa was part of Japan’s empire.

http://tacpa.org/column/JapanInTaiwan.html
http://www.geocities.com/apapadimos/Tai ... tory_4.htm

-The big question is. It seems the Japanese didn´t treat Taiwanese much worse them they treated theselves (this also can be said about the nations of USSR). A relatively benign rule compared, for instance, with India´s rule by the British. Still, it was an empire. However, if Japan was allowed to keep Taiwan for enough time until complete assimilation, the Taiwanese would become full Japanese citizens, and then we couldn´t talk anymore about empire?

[LordofTheNipplerings]

Thank you for your response, about your question, I sure hope we dont stop calling it an empire. If territories receive statehood after assimilation, acculturation, or just being decimated as a population I sure hope no one says, “Whew, we are no longer an empire”. That’s like bragging about having a low incarceration rate while having the highest rate for the death penalty. Of course you have very few prison inmates, that’s because most of them weren’t so lucky. Although under the dictionary you would probably escape the definition of empire if you did just that.

As for Japan I wouldn’t let them off so easily even after successfully assimilating the Chinese into Japanese citizens. But like the above they would probably be free from being accused of empire under the definition provided by the dictionary.

[Gothmog]

Thank you for your response, about your question, I sure hope we dont stop calling it an empire. If territories receive statehood after assimilation, acculturation, or just being decimated as a population I sure hope no one says, “Whew, we are no longer an empire”. That’s like bragging about having a low incarceration rate while having the highest rate for the death penalty. Of course you have very few prison inmates, that’s because most of them weren’t so lucky. Although under the dictionary you would probably escape the definition of empire if you did just that.

-I think you have a good point here, but in this case all nations would fit into definition of Empire, since almost all of them conquered, exterminated or assimilated people living inside their frontiers. So the definition of empire (but not that of imperialism) would become useless?
On the incarceration rate, are you thinking about some specific case, or is it only an abstract example?

As for Japan I wouldn’t let them off so easily even after successfully assimilating the Chinese into Japanese citizens. But like the above they would probably be free from being accused of empire under the definition provided by the dictionary.

-Agree

[DayTripper]

I think you guys killed it.

[paul30]

Theres a difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist...freedom fighters fight against an occupying military, and terrorists kill the occupying power's civilians. A lot of people do call terrorists freedom fighters, but that doesn't mean they're right.

So I guess this means the Iraqis killing US troops (which even the US government calls "an occupying military") are freedom fighters!

Didn't think I would ever agree with you, but I do.