Why should I define it?

A couple of Brits came into a room in Skypeland and accused the US of being "imperialistic". A lady asked what was their evidence, particularly coming from people from the UK with their imperialistic history. She asked one Brit what he meant by imperialism. He refused to say what he meant, and began to argue. He became more and more belligerent and eventually asked "Why should I define it?" (Well, if someone wants to make accusations and arguments based on a term they refuse to define, then we know how much their statements are worth, don't we?).

Another Brit said that the US recognizes 135 countries and has military bases in 132 countries, so it looks like an empire (A little quick checking shows that the US has formal diplomatic relations with 180 countries and informal diplomatic relations with even more. For example, there US operates a Special Interests section in the Swiss Embassy in Havana to "facilitate consular relations and provide a venue for dialogue" with Cuba. Amazing how people just love to spew made-up nonsense with no basis in reality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_State
http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/fs/2001/2558.htm I also seem to remember many stories over the years of huge protests by foreign countries and diplomatic pressure being applied to the US to induce it to keep its foreign military bases active, even when the Base Closing Commission tried to recommend them for closure. Foreign governments do not want to lose the revenue that is associated with the presence of US military bases in their countries, and therefore there are many more US foreign military bases active than are really needed or wanted by the US.)
The Brit was asked which countries the US occupied without the approval of the host country. He replied that Iraq was one. This devolved into a discussion of international law and whether what the US and the UK did in deposing Sadam and invading Iraq was legal or not (This topic, which arises over and over in Skypeland, is usually carried out by those who have no knowledge of the fine points of international law, and is more a question for legal scholars and experts in international law, than for people who are barely literate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War )

The Brits were told that the Islamists had as a goal to establish Sharia law worldwide. They disagreed vehemently and asked for proof of this. They were directed to the statements of the politicians including Iranian President Ahmadinejad at Columbia University. One Brit said he was not aware that Ahmadinejad was in the US or ever gave a speech in the US (Amazing. Is this guy living under a rock ?)

The Brit claimed that all the statements of Ahmadinejad were mistranslated and incorrect. He said that Ahmadinejad had no interest in attacking Israel and this was purely a mistranslation. However, whenever he was cornered, he claimed he was not defending Iran or Ahmadinejad (Hmmm....sure sounds like it. ) He claimed that Juan Cole of the University of Michigan had translated the speech himself and it differed substantially from the official translation (However, the phrase "wiping Israel off the map" was the official wording released by Iran in English, and the Iranian regime has made numerous similar statements over the years, leaving no doubt as to their intent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_translation )
The Brit argued frantically that his opinion was more valid than anyone else's since other people did not have more information available to them than he did. He also stated repeatedly that he would not believe any statement out of the media, the government or a politician since they cannot be trusted and would lie, as Bush did about the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (So I guess he forgets about the UN Inspectors and all the WMD they found in Iraq for over 10 years, and Sadam's refusal to cooperate with them, and the vial of chemical weapons material in the desk drawer of one of the inspectors at the UN that caused the UN to be evacuated a few weeks ago, and Sadam's gassing of the Kurds, and Iranians, and at least 8 other instances of the use of chemical weapons, etc.)