https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expansionism
"a policy or practice of expansion and especially of territorial expansion by a nation"
There's another one.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/expansionist
"A nation's practice or policy of territorial or economic expansion"
And another one.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/expansionist
and still nothing about whether said territory is in fact being claimed after first having been lost
"related to increasing the amount of land ruled by a country"
fascinating
you're really pretending that clause doesn't matter
The previous state does not matter <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>
yes, it really does
Expansionism is an act <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>
An act of increasing the nations land
LOL
Ones generally that have been agreed upon internationally
As shown through those definitions.
you keep saying that as if the definitions take the context into account
is english your first language?
They don't need to take the context into account
No, Norwegen
>definition don't need to take definitions into account A, yes, they kinda do, B, if they don't what the fuck's the point of saying "they all say the same thing"
"Expansionism" is an act. An act of expanding the land of a country.
If you practice expansionism, then you're an expansionist.
if that country already had that land and lost it, taking it back isn't a fucking expansion, jesus christ
Syria wanting to take the Golan Heights means doing that act.
Of expanding the land of their country.
That is expansionism
BY DEFINITION
LITERALLY BY DEFINITION
<:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>
You can't even disagree with it. It's literally the definition.
And I've shown you that
yes, I absolutely can, because none of your definitions are disproving my argument
you're just pretending my argument doesn't exist
Your argument is just straight false.
And I've shown that
Through those definitions
How can you argue against internationally agreed upon agreements?
