"American Empire" In Decline thanks to Bush?

[MilwaukeeMike]

"Empires eventually collapse as they become weakened by war or internal tyranny. The British Empire was weakened by the world wars, and imperialism lost popular support. The French tried to hang on to Indochina and Algeria, but gave up, as colonized people no longer tolerated being ruled by European foreigners. Meanwhile, the Soviet empire expanded beyond the USSR, which itself was an empire, into satellite states in Eastern Europe, Cuba, and Afghanistan. The world was dominated by the American and Soviet empires, which controlled and influenced many of the world's states.

The Soviet Empire depended on propaganda as well as force for its existence, and as the tyranny of Soviet rule became more exposed, totalitarian socialism lost its intellectual foundation. The Soviet empire collapsed, and the republics of the USSR became independent states. Russia is still an empire, having previously expanded into Islamic territory and other lands inhabited by non-Russians. The Chechen war is an attempt to maintain the lesser Russian empire.

After the collapse of the Soviet realm, the American empire expanded into middle and eastern Europe under the rubric of NATO. The last obstacle to American dominance in Europe was Serbia, and the Clinton administration fought the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo to crush this futile resistance to American might.

The current war in Iraq really started with the first Gulf War and continued under Clinton with bombings and trade barriers. The current stage of the war in Iraq can be seen as an expansion of the American empire into the heart of the Middle East, eliminating a tyrant who defied American dominance. Afghanistan too is now under American dominance. Israel, of course, has long been an American ally in the Middle East.

The states defying American dominance now include China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Burma. Cuba especially rankles the U.S. chiefs because it was part of the original U.S. 1898 expansion and got away. It's more than Cuban exiles that makes the U.S. chiefs of both political parties hostile to the elimination of trade and travel barriers. The chiefs want Cuba back into the American empirical fold, impossible so long as Castro rules.

The anti-American feelings around the world stem from an opposition to imperial American rule. People world-wide admire the American republic, with the liberty for which it stands. But they don't like the American empire that overthrows governments, wages wars, and props up dictatorships. Perhaps some of this could be excused during the Cold War, but after 1990 there would have been no intellectual rational for empire building if the Muslim supremacists had not provided one in 9/11/2001.

Empires thrive on conflict, and immediately after the Cold War ended, a new global conflict emerged with Muslim supremacists. Ultimately, the supremacists cannot win, because their terrorist ideology is as weak as that of the old totalitarian socialists. Their use of terror only strengthens the American empire. Their attack in 2001 enabled the U.S. government to obtain unprecedented internal power and an excuse to extend the American empire into the Middle East. Just as Israeli expansion and control over Palestinians thrives on the violence of the Palestinian 'resistance,' American dominance requires an enemy, and the Middle Eastern supremacists have handed the imperial American chiefs a new intellectual rationale for the empire.

The American empire is bipartisan. Both Democrats and Republicans have expanded the empire. Only the minor parties, such as the Greens and Libertarians, fundamentally oppose the American empire. Many Americans don't like the empire, but they maintain it by voting for the major party they think is the lesser evil. We now hear the mantra, 'anyone but Bush.' The chiefs of empire laugh, because the greatest expansion of the American empire was under 'progressive' Democrats such as Wilson and Truman. The U.S. Constitution was designed to limit empire building, but like the requirement for Congress to declare war, the safeguards of the Constitution are ignored by both parties.

Ultimately it is the American voter who maintains the empire by voting for the illusion of a lesser imperial evil. Unfortunately for America, just as other empires collapsed, so too will the American empire eventually fall to internal decay and external over-expansion unless Americans support a political party that will let go the empire. "
Fred E. Foldvary, Progress Report 2004

The question here is not will the American empire continue forever; it won't. The question here is; has the United States hit its apex of power and might? And are we now in decline because of irresponsible use of our military, and overwhelmingly strong anti-American sentiment raging across the world? Who is to blame for this? I believe that we are in the beginning of a period where American dominance will continually be tested and confronted; case in point, China shooting a satellite down. I believe we are entering a period where America breaths its final gasp of air and puffs its chest one last time before venturing down the path of so many other great empires of long ago. The biggest question of all is how are we (Americans) going to let this happen? Are we going to slowly bleed our country to death through large deficits, continued involvement in the Middle East, and increasing internal tensions that will slowly cause is to fade from the spot light? Or are we going to go out in a blaze of glory fighting China in World War 3? Of course back to my title where I reference Bush; I personally believe he has played a huge role in not only destroying our the fragile positive international opinion we had, but has so defiled what the founding fathers put into place to prevent people like Mr. Bush from obtaining the power he has had, that he has broken down the internal prevention measures that made America what it was. People around the world now view America as a country that threatens international peace instead of preserving it. As a patriotic American that is personally hurt every time I hear about it, I prey America can get through the next two years so we can start new on restoring what we once had. What does everyone think about this topic.

God Bless America!

The entire article that I quoted can be found at the following location.
http://www.progress.org/2004/fold360.htm

[WildCat]

Oh man, I hope we don't lose all our colonies!

[WildCat]

BTW Mike, your post violates Rule 4. You should have just quoted this partly, and linked to the source.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by WildCat

BTW Mike, your post violates Rule 4. You should have just quoted this partly, and linked to the source.

Under the actual article, the fine print states that it is alright to reproduce this article when full credit is given to "Fred Foldvary and The Progress Report." Which I gave credit too and posted his website. I do not see any other problems with this.

[rikzilla]

Quote:

I personally believe he has played a huge role in not only destroying our the fragile positive international opinion we had, but has so defiled what the founding fathers put into place to prevent people like Mr. Bush from obtaining the power he has had, that he has broken down the internal prevention measures that made America what it was. People around the world now view America as a country that threatens international peace instead of preserving it. As a patriotic American that is personally hurt every time I hear about it, I prey America can get through the next two years so we can start new on restoring what we once had. What does everyone think about this topic.

If this is true then Bush has circumvented the Constitution and should be impeached. Why then is there no serious move to impeach him? It might also help if you can cite the "internal prevention measures" that Bush has broken down.

-z

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by rikzilla

If this is true then Bush has circumvented the Constitution and should be impeached. Why then is there no serious move to impeach him? It might also help if you can cite the "internal prevention measures" that Bush has broken down.

-z

Well, when you talk of impeachment, I feel that what Bush has done is far worse than Bill Clinton getting a BJ in the oval office. Of course he did lie under oath, but didn't Bush lie to the entire country about Iraq. Secondly, here is your answer to the "internal prevention measures" question.

"There is a settled belief in Washington today that not only has the Bush administration bungled democracy in Iraq, it is shredding it at home as well. Not only did the administration destroy the interagency process inside the executive branch—especially in the first term, when Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ignored national-security adviser Condi Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell while the president stood by—it has rendered moot the legislative checks and balances intended by the Founding Fathers, as well—the kind that are supposed to prevent monumentally stupid blunders."
Michael Hirsh, Newsweek/MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16815916/site/newsweek/

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMike

Under the actual article, the fine print states that it is alright to reproduce this article when full credit is given to "Fred Foldvary and The Progress Report." Which I gave credit too and posted his website. I do not see any other problems with this.

[emily_litella]
Never mind.
[/emily_litella]

[Cylinder]

Are you claiming that the President's advisers were installed in an extra-constitutional manner? I seem to remember confirmation hearings.

[Darat]

America has an empire to lose? They've kept that bloody quiet. Bit of advice for any USA readers - they're not worth the hassle you never hear the end of it.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

Are you claiming that the President's advisers were installed in an extra-constitutional manner? I seem to remember confirmation hearings.

No, what I am saying that Bush has managed to decay our democracy and put us on a path that will eventually end our world dominance that we have enjoyed for years; just in the past 6 years, in my opinion. I am not saying that he or anyone else in the Whitehouse were unconstitutionally brought into office.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by Darat

America has an empire to lose? They've kept that bloody quiet. Bit of advice for any USA readers - they're not worth the hassle you never hear the end of it.

I think its hard not to argue that the United States doesn't have an Empire.

Overseas
As of 2003, the United States occupied military bases in 130 different countries.[8] Some of the largest contingents are:

Germany 69,395
Japan (United States Forces Japan) 35,307
South Korea (United States Forces Korea) 32,744
Italy 12,258
United Kingdom 11,093

As of mid- 2006, nearly 150,000 U.S. troops are currently deployed in the Middle East. Most of these forces are currently engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...onnel_deployed

If that isn't evidence of an Empire, what is.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Darat

America has an empire to lose? They've kept that bloody quiet.

You've never heard of American East Africa? Or American Equatorial Guinea? Or American Honduras?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMike

If that isn't evidence of an Empire, what is.

You might want to look up the definition.

[Grammatron]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMike

I think its hard not to argue that the United States doesn't have an Empire.

Overseas
As of 2003, the United States occupied military bases in 130 different countries.[8] Some of the largest contingents are:

Germany 69,395
Japan (United States Forces Japan) 35,307
South Korea (United States Forces Korea) 32,744
Italy 12,258
United Kingdom 11,093

As of mid- 2006, nearly 150,000 U.S. troops are currently deployed in the Middle East. Most of these forces are currently engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...onnel_deployed

If that isn't evidence of an Empire, what is.

Define an Empire as you understand it.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMike

I think its hard not to argue that the United States doesn't have an Empire.

Overseas
As of 2003, the United States occupied military bases in 130 different countries.[8] Some of the largest contingents are:

Germany 69,395
Japan (United States Forces Japan) 35,307
South Korea (United States Forces Korea) 32,744
Italy 12,258
United Kingdom 11,093

As of mid- 2006, nearly 150,000 U.S. troops are currently deployed in the Middle East. Most of these forces are currently engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...onnel_deployed

If that isn't evidence of an Empire, what is.

Well that isn't!

A sign of an empire is when it has control of many, many countries and/or territories and whilst the USA has immense influence it has control of only arguably a handful of countries (and the UK probably has more even though we no longer have an Empire) .

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by WildCat

You might want to look up the definition.

From your very definition that you thought I should know.

"b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control"

I would say that having military bases in over 130 countries and tens of thousands of troops in major European and Asian countries exerts the some level of political and military dominance. Just because the United States does not rule all these countries does not conclude it isn't an empire; we still have very strong political and military influence, which can constitute an empire. That brings me back to my point, is it in decline?

[cbish]

I thought empires declined because of orgies, homosexuals, and anal sex.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by Darat

Well that isn't!

A sign of an empire is when it has control of many, many countries and/or territories and whilst the USA has immense influence it has control of only arguably a handful of countries (and the UK probably has more even though we no longer have an Empire) .

I think you're absolutely wrong in your opinion of what an empire is. The fact is that empires of today do not follow the traditional school of thought that we saw with, say the Roman Empire. Countries just do not rule the immense amount of foreigners that old empires did. The combination of worldwide military bases, a military that currently cannot be matched, and an economy that leads the world; puts the United States in a position where I would say they have some form of an empire.

[Overman]

Originally Posted by cbish

I thought empires declined because of orgies, homosexuals, and anal sex.

Vomitoriums. Where are all the vomitoriums of this American Empire!

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMike

From your very definition that you thought I should know.

"b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control"

I would say that having military bases in over 130 countries and tens of thousands of troops in major European and Asian countries exerts the some level of political and military dominance. Just because the United States does not rule all these countries does not conclude it isn't an empire; we still have very strong political and military influence, which can constitute an empire. That brings me back to my point, is it in decline?

Did you miss the part where it was "under single domination or control? The US or its military does not control any of the countries it has bases in.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Overman

Vomitoriums. Where are all the vomitoriums of this American Empire!

You've never been to the restrooms in Wrigley Field?

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by Darat

Well that isn't!

A sign of an empire is when it has control of many, many countries and/or territories and whilst the USA has immense influence it has control of only arguably a handful of countries (and the UK probably has more even though we no longer have an Empire) .

Also what gives the United States the empire category, is not if we have control of any one country. But that we can take control of any one country if we see fit. Iraq!?! This brings me right back the my first post in which I think Bush did the wrong thing by using this power to go into Iraq. The U.S. has an empire because of it's ability to exert this power and influence any where in the world, and actually back it up. I do not think Britain or any other country, currently, can say that. I don't understand why I am getting such strong opposition on this.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMike

I think you're absolutely wrong in your opinion of what an empire is. The fact is that empires of today do not follow the traditional school of thought that we saw with, say the Roman Empire. Countries just do not rule the immense amount of foreigners that old empires did. The combination of worldwide military bases, a military that currently cannot be matched, and an economy that leads the world; puts the United States in a position where I would say they have some form of an empire.

You're just changing the definition to something it's not.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Did you miss the part where it was "under single domination or control? The US or its military does not control any of the countries it has bases in.

Why do you think multiple definitions are given. Words can be defined in many different ways, and you are trying to define one with an antiquated definition that has no fit in the current 21st century situation. I believe the definition I used better explains the current situation.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMike

Why do you think multiple definitions are given. Words can be defined in many different ways, and you are trying to define one with an antiquated definition that has no fit in the current 21st century situation. I believe the definition I used better explains the current situation.

The US doesn't have an empire by any dictionary definition, so you made up your own definition. It doesn't work that way...

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMike

After the collapse of the Soviet realm, the American empire expanded into middle and eastern Europe under the rubric of NATO. The last obstacle to American dominance in Europe was Serbia, and the Clinton administration fought the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo to crush this futile resistance to American might.

He ignores the pleas of the Germans, and other major European nations, for help in solving their "refugee problem" that began in about 1992 during the Yugoslavian War, and which UN tried, but failed, to resolve.

Quote:

The current war in Iraq really started with the first Gulf War and continued under Clinton with bombings and trade barriers.

I concur. A good discussion of this can be found in On Point.

Quote:

The current stage of the war in Iraq can be seen as an expansion of the American empire into the heart of the Middle East, eliminating a tyrant who defied American dominance.

Thje US expanded its influence in the PG/ME while the Cold War was still on, as a reaction to the 1973 oil embargo. This author plays a curious game with history.

Quote:

Afghanistan too is now under American dominance.

The average Pushtun would beg to differ.

Quote:

Israel, of course, has long been an American ally in the Middle East.

Nice platitude, it began as a client. The ally game seems to be rather one way, at least to the US taxpayer.

Quote:

The states defying American dominance now include China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Burma.

Burma, striking fear into the hearts of farmers of the corn belt.

Quote:

Cuba especially rankles the U.S. chiefs because it was part of the original U.S. 1898 expansion and got away.

OK, US gets Cuba from Spain, and it becomes independent in what year? 1902. Platt amendment considered, 1908 is probably a better start date. Leonard Wood and the Progressives for fifty, Alex. The Cuba issue was a subset of the Cold War game of Empire the Russians and Americans played.

Quote:

Perhaps some of this could be excused during the Cold War, but after 1990 there would have been no intellectual rational for empire building if the Muslim supremacists had not provided one in 9/11/2001.

???? He mentioned the reaching into the Stans and Eastern Europe in his opening. ?????

Quote:

The American empire is bipartisan. Both Democrats and Republicans have expanded the empire. Only the minor parties, such as the Greens and Libertarians, fundamentally oppose the American empire. Many Americans don't like the empire, but they maintain it by voting for the major party they think is the lesser evil. We now hear the mantra, 'anyone but Bush.' The chiefs of empire laugh, because the greatest expansion of the American empire was under 'progressive' Democrats such as Wilson and Truman. The U.S. Constitution was designed to limit empire building, but like the requirement for Congress to declare war, the safeguards of the Constitution are ignored by both parties.

OK, how soon is he going to mention NWO?

Quote:

. . .so too will the American empire eventually fall to internal decay and external over-expansion unless Americans support a political party that will let go the empire. "

Fred E. Foldvary, Progress Report 2004
His suggestion is who, the Greens or the Libertarians? Ross Perot?

Quote:

The question here is; has the United States hit its apex of power and might?

Yes, that was about 1991. Where has Fred Been?

Quote:

Who is to blame for this?

You, Fred, since you didn't get yourself elected President cum Emperor. You bloody slacker.

Quote:

The biggest question of all is how are we (Americans) going to let this happen?

Given the proclivity for the average American to be a sheep, easily.

Quote:

Or are we going to go out in a blaze of glory fighting China in World War 3?

That would make a better movie than the alternative.

Quote:

Of course back to my title where I reference Bush; I personally believe he has played a huge role in not only destroying our the fragile positive international opinion we had, but has so defiled what the founding fathers put into place to prevent people like Mr. Bush from obtaining the power he has had, that he has broken down the internal prevention measures that made America what it was.

Yep, the recent FISA ruling, and BushCo backing down, and the SCOTUS slap down over some of the Gitmo issues is a sure sign of erosion.

Quote:

People around the world now view America as a country that threatens international peace instead of preserving it.

I hear the Philippines hate it that we support their efforts against Islamists in their south. The Japs are screaming at our BMD for their home islands.

Quote:

As a patriotic American that is personally hurt every time I hear about it, I prey America can get through the next two years so we can start new on restoring what we once had.

Fred, you can't go back, but you can go forward. Cleaning out some of the pointless gun control nonsense of the past 10 years, the patriot act, and defending the border would be a nice start. So would an improved energy policy, whre for 34 years Ostrich has been the word of the day.

Oh, wait, Fred had no call for action beyond his platitude.

Windbag.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Overman

Vomitoriums. Where are all the vomitoriums of this American Empire!

Each McDonald's restaurant.

DR

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

He ignores the pleas of the Germans, and other major European nations, for help in solving their "refugee problem" that began in about 1992 during the Yugoslavian War, and which UN tried, but failed, to resolve.



I concur. A good discussion of this can be found in On Point.

Thje US expanded its influence in the PG/ME while the Cold War was still on, as a reaction to the 1973 oil embargo. This author plays a curious game with history.

The average Pushtun would beg to differ.
Nice platitude, it began as a client. The ally game seems to be rather one way, at least to the US taxpayer.

Burma, striking fear into the hearts of farmers of the corn belt.

OK, US gets Cuba from Spain, and it becomes independent in what year? 1902. Platt amendment considered, 1908 is probably a better start date. Leonard Wood and the Progressives for fifty, Alex. The Cuba issue was a subset of the Cold War game of Empire the Russians and Americans played.

???? He mentioned the reaching into the Stans and Eastern Europe in his opening. ?????

OK, how soon is he going to mention NWO?

Fred E. Foldvary, Progress Report 2004
His suggestion is who, the Greens or the Libertarians? Ross Perot?

Yes, that was about 1991. Where has Fred Been?

You, Fred, since you didn't get yourself elected President cum Emperor. You bloody slacker.

Given the proclivity for the average American to be a sheep, easily.

That would make a better movie than the alternative.

Yep, the recent FISA ruling, and BushCo backing down, and the SCOTUS slap down over some of the Gitmo issues is a sure sign of erosion.

I hear the Philippines hate it that we support their efforts against Islamists in their south. The Japs are screaming at our BMD for their home islands.

Fred, you can't go back, but you can go forward. Cleaning out some of the pointless gun control nonsense of the past 10 years, the patriot act, and defending the border would be a nice start. So would an improved energy policy, whre for 34 years Ostrich has been the word of the day.

Oh, wait, Fred had no call for action beyond his platitude.

Windbag.

DR

Fred wrote the article that I quoted. Just to clear that up.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by WildCat

The US doesn't have an empire by any dictionary definition, so you made up your own definition. It doesn't work that way...

I didn't make up a definition; I used one of the alternatives your link listed. How is that making up a definition. You are doing the exact same thing by saying the definition you used is god and mine isn't. Lets move beyond the argument about a single word. Whether Wildcat agrees or not, the United States has immense global influence and power (I prefer to call it an empire). Not to mention the large military base holdings (130 countries) and troop deployments. I feel it is in decline because of Bush and his actions at home and abroad.

[sackett]

All of you fellers piling on MilwaukeeMike that way, I've got just two words to say to you:

Puerto Rico

Hah! How do you like THEM muffins?

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by sackett

All of you fellers piling on MilwaukeeMike that way, I've got just two words to say to you:

Puerto Rico

Hah! How do you like THEM muffins?

Guam too.

[sackett]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMike

Guam too.

Well, there you are. 'S nuff empire fer ME.

[Patsy]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMike

Guam too.

The US Virgin Islands

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by sackett

All of you fellers piling on MilwaukeeMike that way, I've got just two words to say to you:

Puerto Rico

Hah! How do you like THEM muffins?

As soon as enough of those folks vote to get off of the dole, Puerto Rico has all the chance in the world to become yet another fine, failed Caribbean nation state. Funny thing is, the Puerto Rican nacionalistas have trouble getting the independence movement underway. I think a drive for statehood is a bit more likely, but that too has its hazards.

Roosevelt Roads, the Naval Base, was shut down. All our base (there) are belong to Puerto Rico.

DR

[Grammatron]

Originally Posted by sackett

All of you fellers piling on MilwaukeeMike that way, I've got just two words to say to you:

Puerto Rico

Hah! How do you like THEM muffins?

The citizen of Puerto Rico are ok with their status seeing as how they voted for it on multiple occasion. Hardly a trademark of a colony.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMike

And are we now in decline because of irresponsible use of our military, and overwhelmingly strong anti-American sentiment raging across the world?

Yes, we're in a death spiral. Foreigners are no longer trying to immigrate to the US, and recent immigrants are now trying to return to their countries of origin en masse. The border security fence, designed to keep Texans from fleeing south, will soon be overrun. Collapse is imminent, I tell you!

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMike

Fred wrote the article that I quoted. Just to clear that up.

Got it. I think Fred's a windbag, not you.

ETA: different Fred, sorry.

DR

[Giz]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMike

Also what gives the United States the empire category, is not if we have control of any one country. But that we can take control of any one country if we see fit. ... [snip]... The U.S. has an empire because of it's ability to exert this power and influence any where in the world, and actually back it up. I do not think Britain or any other country, currently, can say that. I don't understand why I am getting such strong opposition on this.

1) Having the power to - potentially - invade and colonise other countries doesn't make you an Empire. Just like a sports car isn't speeding while it's parked in the driveway.

2) So basically you're saying that just having a big economy, and a robust cultural influence (Hollywood, MTV etc - arguably a byproduct of a strong free economy) make you an oppressive colonial force? How can this evil be countered (other than by the US destroying it's economy until it is as prosperous as, say, Albania)?

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by Giz

1) Having the power to - potentially - invade and colonise other countries doesn't make you an Empire. Just like a sports car isn't speeding while it's parked in the driveway.

2) So basically you're saying that just having a big economy, and a robust cultural influence (Hollywood, MTV etc - arguably a byproduct of a strong free economy) make you an oppressive colonial force? How can this evil be countered (other than by the US destroying it's economy until it is as prosperous as, say, Albania)?

What I was trying to tell Wildcat and will explain again is that the traditional since of an empire isn't so anymore. Too many world factors will prevent any one country from having a Roman style empire, where they actually control each group of people. What the United States has now is what I think is a "new world empire."

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Giz

1) Having the power to - potentially - invade and colonise other countries doesn't make you an Empire. Just like a sports car isn't speeding while it's parked in the driveway.

2) So basically you're saying that just having a big economy, and a robust cultural influence (Hollywood, MTV etc - arguably a byproduct of a strong free economy) make you an oppressive colonial force? How can this evil be countered (other than by the US destroying it's economy until it is as prosperous as, say, Albania)?

For what it's worth, the meme on America as Empire has some variations. One of them is that the Empire began in 1865, and that occupied territories include Georgia, Virginia, the Carolinas, Texas, etc.

Another is the "Imperialist Running Dod" meme of the Communist rhetoric fame.

Another is the NWO model, with UN as an Empire proxy force, black helicopters, blah blah blah.

One should be curious regarding root and branch when it comes to commenters on America as Empire. My own spin, circa 1993, was that if you looked at the American CINCdoms as described in the Combatant Commands, if they were not a form of empire, or hegemonic influence, they were damned close.

Russel Mead's illustration of "American Hegemony" is probably the best neutral look at the case in point. I refer to his book Special Providence.

DR