Looks and smells of empire to me. But of course, if such stimulation hasn't been repeated over and again - it must be something else.http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Use_of_US_Armed_Forces_Abroad.pdf and of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases and then http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564

So what is your definition of an empire? Does the US have American governors in all these countries dictating to them what they must do? I think that would be news to the Brits, Germans, Japanese, etc. Do we take the natural resources like the British took tea, the Spanish took gold, etc? Or do we pay market price for the oil, etc? Do we take the men from these countries and ship them around the world to fight in our wars or do we do the fighting ourselves? Nope, not an empire at all.

So what is your definition of an empire? Does the US have American governors in all these countries dictating to them what they must do? I think that would be news to the Brits, Germans, Japanese, etc. Do we take the natural resources like the British took tea, the Spanish took gold, etc? Or do we pay market price for the oil, etc? Do we take the men from these countries and ship them around the world to fight in our wars or do we do the fighting ourselves? Nope, not an empire at all.

The "govenors" are the consuls and ambassadors that relay the instructions from DC.

Paying market prices is the way it's done these days; DC is content enough that the sellers sell to them.

I don't think a lack of some paralells with ancient empires actually refutes the empire claim.

So what is your definition of an empire? Does the US have American governors in all these countries dictating to them what they must do? I think that would be news to the Brits, Germans, Japanese, etc. Do we take the natural resources like the British took tea, the Spanish took gold, etc? Or do we pay market price for the oil, etc? Do we take the men from these countries and ship them around the world to fight in our wars or do we do the fighting ourselves? Nope, not an empire at all.

The "govenors" are the consuls and ambassadors that relay the instructions from DC.

Paying market prices is the way it's done these days; DC is content enough that the sellers sell to them.

I don't think a lack of some paralells with ancient empires actually refutes the empire claim.

How many ambassadors does New Zealand have around the world? You kiwis must be soooooo sinister. If everyone does what the USA commands them to do, why did so many countries not go along with the Iraq War? And of those 2-3 dozen who joined the coalition, only a handful did the dangerous fighting. Not trying to diminish their roles, but if the USA is the great puppet master - imperialist they would have had everyone else out front getting shot at. Sort of like how the English used to have the Scots, Irish & Canadians storm the beaches first. Why didn't the world fall behind the USA on that whole Kyoto Protocal fiasco? Why does so much of the world not obey orders and insist on going after Israel?

The British and other European robber-empires are not ancient. They were winding down around the same time as you were born.

"Paying market prices is the way it's done nowadays"? That's like saying the way robbers work nowadays, is they go to the cashier and pay for the goods before leaving the store. Not even close to being the same thing.

Like I said, it depends on what you definition of "empire" is.

imo a more modern day example of an empire would be indonesia under suharto, he had transmigration from jave to the outer regions where he positioned his people to manage the locals, control the voting, install his programs etc...

The big, bad US. All we do is protect the weak (NZ?) and pay for everything along the way.

Harcourt, I have a question for you.

If, say, China were to attack New Zealand, who do you think would come to the aid of NZ besides Australia?

Japan was coming there in 1942. Who stopped them at Guadalcanal?

Please spare us your bleeding heart liberalism.

The big, bad US. All we do is protect the weak (NZ?) and pay for everything along the way.

Harcourt, I have a question for you.

If, say, China were to attack New Zealand, who do you think would come to the aid of NZ besides Australia?

Japan was coming there in 1942. Who stopped them at Guadalcanal?

Please spare us your bleeding heart liberalism.

Man for man, NZ had more persons in combat than any other nation in both world wars.

NZ thumbed its nose at the US over nuclear powered vessels, still does

NZ punches well above it weight in most arenas.

NZ kow tows to no country

WE do our bit, share, small country that we are.

The big, bad US. All we do is protect the weak (NZ?) and pay for everything along the way.

Harcourt, I have a question for you.

If, say, China were to attack New Zealand, who do you think would come to the aid of NZ besides Australia?

Japan was coming there in 1942. Who stopped them at Guadalcanal?

Please spare us your bleeding heart liberalism.

Man for man, NZ had more persons in combat than any other nation in both world wars.

NZ thumbed its nose at the US over nuclear powered vessels, still does

NZ punches well above it weight in most arenas.

NZ kow tows to no country

WE do our bit, share, small country that we are.

And you should be commended for pulling your weight.

Now answer my question. Who will come to your defense, besides Australia, if you are attacked by China?

The US will be there in spite of NZ's refusal to permit nuclear powered ships into their waters and in spite of NZ's violation of the ANZUS Treaty.

Now answer my question. Who will come to your defense, besides Australia, if you are attacked by China?

The US will be there in spite of NZ's refusal to permit nuclear powered ships into their waters and in spite of NZ's violation of the ANZUS Treaty.

NZ relies soley on the USA to protect them from China. Australia, as tough as they are, would amount to no more than a speed bump. This whole "fighting above their weight" is meaningless.. War isn't fought based on per capita. If so, we easily won the Vietnam War. Hands down. Nothing to debate about there - if per capita counted for shit.

Probably more than half the planet relies on the USA for its security. Any country under the NATO umbrella (re: the EU) knows it's the USA that is the deterent, not the UK, Germany or Netherlands. Even non-NATO EU countries know that it's the USA that will come to their aid if Russia, Iran or anyone else attacks. So why bother joining NATO in that case? They like to appear independent but know they aren't if something ever happens - and someday it will.

On one hand people tell the USA to mind its own business but when something goes wrong, they turn to the USA first. Who else has the power or capabilities to do anything on a grand scale? In any corner of the planet, when one country invades another, it's usually the USA people look to to make the situation right. The Balkans in Europe's own backyard comes to mind. When there is a major natural disaster it's the US Military in there dropping supplies - food, water, medicine, tents while the NZ gov't donates "above it's weight". Sure, it looks good on an excel spreadsheet but when the people need massive amount of supplies - or massive military help - "per capita" and "above their weight" count for squat.

The USA would be there to defend whoever China attacked, not from compassion for the victim, but because the US just does not want China to get an advantage.....which is the only reason China would invade another country. China has the US's measure, and will take over when the time is riipe.

The US is very very nervous about China.

Zpete is right; NZ does punch above it's weight in many things......and that is surely admirable, not something to scoff at and to spin that into "it counts for squat.... brute force is the measure of success". While it may be a valid claim from a practical global POV, it says alot about the real and sincere humanitarian tendencies of those with your view.

The USA would be there to defend whoever China attacked, not from compassion for the victim, but because the US just does not want China to get an advantage.....which is the only reason China would invade another country. China has the US's measure, and will take over when the time is riipe.

The US is very very nervous about China.

Zpete is right; NZ does punch above it's weight in many things......and that is surely admirable, not something to scoff at and to spin that into "it counts for squat.... brute force is the measure of success". While it may be a valid claim from a practical global POV, it says alot about the real and sincere humanitarian tendencies of those with your view.

:cheesy:

So what is your definition of an empire? Does the US have American governors in all these countries dictating to them what they must do? I think that would be news to the Brits, Germans, Japanese, etc. Do we take the natural resources like the British took tea, the Spanish took gold, etc? Or do we pay market price for the oil, etc? Do we take the men from these countries and ship them around the world to fight in our wars or do we do the fighting ourselves? Nope, not an empire at all.

You come across as a blind and unlearned apologist and nationalist. It's unfortunate that most are ignorant of history and current events.

So what is your definition of an empire? Does the US have American governors in all these countries dictating to them what they must do? I think that would be news to the Brits, Germans, Japanese, etc. Do we take the natural resources like the British took tea, the Spanish took gold, etc? Or do we pay market price for the oil, etc? Do we take the men from these countries and ship them around the world to fight in our wars or do we do the fighting ourselves? Nope, not an empire at all.

You come across as a blind and unlearned apologist and nationalist. It's unfortunate that most are ignorant of history and current events.

Because I disagree with you? Because I use a more common definition of "empire" and you use a different one? I'm not blind, an apologist or a nationalist but I certainly have a more realistic grasp of history and how the world works than you do, that's clear enough.

Are you aware that all nations act in their best interest? Are you aware that if any country had the power that the USA has, there is a good chance they would be much worse than the USA is perceived to be? European nations had the power and enslaved the world. Japan tried and they did more of the same. The Soviets did the same in their region. You have it pretty good with the USA being on top. Sure, there have been mistakes, everyone makes them. But on whole, you don't have much to whine about. Or perhaps you'd rather have China on top? Or the United Nations? Hmmm, I think I might choose China between the two.

I would be interested in hearing how you believe NZ would behave around the world if they had any real power? In history there are examples of tiny countries having power, it could happen again. It would probably require some world-wide cataclysmic event that kills off most other people. But that's not too far-fetched.

Vietnam 4000 Kiwis

60,000 Aussies

Vietnam 4000 Kiwis

60,000 Aussies

Yeah, I was in Bali a couple years ago. Met this nice couple from Darwin, about my age. The husband wouldn't stop complaining how he hated Americans because the US dragged Oz into Vietnam. It got to the point that when his wife apologised and told him to stop, because it's not like I did it or was even old enough to be there. I told her in a real no-big-deal kind of way that as an American abroad, I'm used to people I don't know just coming up to me and behaving so rudely. I felt bad about it after I realised what I said. Like I said, she was really nice, and so was he when he wasn't telling me how much he hated Americans.

Where's Boon Mee?

Retired?

Yes I think America is an Empire.

I think it replaced the British Empire.

I think the members of the former British Empire are jealous.

I imagine I would be jealous of the country that replaces the American empire.

Yes I think America is an Empire.

I think it replaced the British Empire.

I think the members of the former British Empire are jealous.

I imagine I would be jealous of the country that replaces the American empire.

HA! HA! It's nearly in transition - just look to that 'new cycle' of empire up north. The middle empire rises again....

Yes I think America is an Empire.

I think it replaced the British Empire.

I think the members of the former British Empire are jealous.

I imagine I would be jealous of the country that replaces the American empire.

HA! HA! It's nearly in transition - just look to that 'new cycle' of empire up north. The middle empire rises again....

If you were really old would have posted negatives about the British Empire? With all the predictions of doom and gloom?

With all the faults of the British Empire I hardly think India and Africa are better off now. I used to live part time in Nassau and I can tell you it was 1000% better when the Brits were running things.

Yes I think America is an Empire.

I think it replaced the British Empire.

I think the members of the former British Empire are jealous.

I imagine I would be jealous of the country that replaces the American empire.

Yes you certainly rule in Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Not quite on a par with India etc yet old boy.

I think the Brits still run the show. The powers that be there have just advanced to a point where they realize it's better to let someone else stand in from of the fan (that would be the USA) while they (the UK) still gets everything they want. Blair wasn't Bush's lapdog, on the contrary, the Brits have been America's puppetmaster. Is it a coincidence what America sees as their national interest also seems to line up with the UKs? If I'm wrong, can anyone name the last time where the Brits did't get their way in foreign policy?

I think the Brits still run the show. The powers that be there have just advanced to a point where they realize it's better to let someone else stand in from of the fan (that would be the USA) while they (the UK) still gets everything they want. Blair wasn't Bush's lapdog, on the contrary, the Brits have been America's puppetmaster. Is it a coincidence what America sees as their national interest also seems to line up with the UKs? If I'm wrong, can anyone name the last time where the Brits did't get their way in foreign policy?

Well there was a little matter of the Falklands when you guys played both ends against the middle. leaving your Marine Training Teams with the Argies and then trying to surrender on Tumbledown Mountain after taking part in the conflict was a little naughty.

I think the Brits still run the show. The powers that be there have just advanced to a point where they realize it's better to let someone else stand in from of the fan (that would be the USA) while they (the UK) still gets everything they want. Blair wasn't Bush's lapdog, on the contrary, the Brits have been America's puppetmaster. Is it a coincidence what America sees as their national interest also seems to line up with the UKs? If I'm wrong, can anyone name the last time where the Brits did't get their way in foreign policy?

Well there was a little matter of the Falklands when you guys played both ends against the middle. leaving your Marine Training Teams with the Argies and then trying to surrender on Tumbledown Mountain after taking part in the conflict was a little naughty.

That's odd. A Brit friend of mine always told me that Reagan had a carrier group waiting in the vicinity in case Maggie needed help - and she didn't.

Well there was a little matter of the Falklands when you guys played both ends against the middle. leaving your Marine Training Teams with the Argies and then trying to surrender on Tumbledown Mountain after taking part in the conflict was a little naughty.

That's odd. A Brit friend of mine always told me that Reagan had a carrier group waiting in the vicinity in case Maggie needed help - and she didn't.

Would not surprise me. Like I said, both sides against the middle.

If you were really old would have posted negatives about the British Empire? With all the predictions of doom and gloom?

I'm not old, but I've lived a few lifetimes.....as to posting negative punditry towards such respective empires, I can do that - evil to the core: British, Spanish, and American Empires - to name a few. As comparative empires are viewed, we can easily pin an evil on all the European varieties through our invented history, for the most consistence and nasty brutishness and geneocidal periods all manifested from the genuine mean-spirited and disconnections European empires. A fact many scholars, apologists, and defenders principally miss. And then, there is the Mongol Empire......perhaps the most brutal.

Well there was a little matter of the Falklands when you guys played both ends against the middle. leaving your Marine Training Teams with the Argies and then trying to surrender on Tumbledown Mountain after taking part in the conflict was a little naughty.

That must have made the POMS feel real good about themselves. Reclaiming a scurry of growthless isolated frozen rocks in the south Atlantic. Long live the Queen...

If you were really old would have posted negatives about the British Empire? With all the predictions of doom and gloom?

I'm not old, but I've lived a few lifetimes.....as to posting negative punditry towards such respective empires, I can do that - evil to the core: British, Spanish, and American Empires - to name a few. As comparative empires are viewed, we can easily pin an evil on all the European varieties through our invented history, for the most consistence and nasty brutishness and geneocidal periods all manifested from the genuine mean-spirited and disconnections European empires. A fact many scholars, apologists, and defenders principally miss. And then, there is the Mongol Empire......perhaps the most brutal.

Don't forget about the Swiss.

...and the Dutch.

...and the Dutch.

Or the Hudson Bay company. Don't want to leave Ian out in the cold.

Which empire was it that invaded Aotearoa and practically wiped out the indigenous people?