The American Empire...

[Beet]

This one's for the history books.





Relative Military Spending by the nations of the world, ca. 2003



And for comparison, the British Empire at its height (circa 1920):

[opebo]

That is a fine post explaining 9/11, thefactor.  Thanks.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Thing is the U.S doesn't actually control the countries where it has troop bases.

[Bono]

This one's for the history books.





Relative Military Spending by the nations of the world, ca. 2003



And for comparison, the British Empire at its height (circa 1920):

I wasn't aware that the 13 colonies were part of the UK in 1920.
And plus, the US uses military facilities in North Korea and Iran?

[opebo]

Thing is the U.S doesn't actually control the countries where it has troop bases.

Haha, tell us another one.

I wasn't aware that the 13 colonies were part of the UK in 1920.
And plus, the US uses military facilities in North Korea and Iran?

I think you need reading glasses.  Where do you see that on the map?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Haha, tell us another one.

I wasn't aware that the U.S controlled the U.K, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy or Belgium.

Except in the demented imaginations of various whacko extremists of both left and right...

[opebo]

Haha, tell us another one.

I wasn't aware that the U.S controlled the U.K, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy or Belgium.

Except in the demented imaginations of various whacko extremists of both left and right...

The US controls nearly everything - at least everything they care to bother about - outside of places like North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia.  In any case US control of the world far exceeds that the British exerted in their heyday.

[Beet]

That is a fine post explaining 9/11, thefactor.  Thanks.

That's a fine sarcastic post there opebo. Thanks for jumping to conclusions!

Al and Bob, opebo is clearly being a troll and does not deserve to be responded to.

[opebo]

The US controls nearly everything - at least everything they care to bother about - outside of places like North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia.  In any case US control of the world far exceeds that the British exerted in their heyday.

Shhh... The black helicopters are coming!

It is quite blatant, out in the open, and obvious.  Nothing conspiratorial about it.

That is a fine post explaining 9/11, thefactor.  Thanks.

That's a fine sarcastic post there opebo. Thanks for jumping to conclusions!

Al and Bob, opebo is clearly being a troll and does not deserve to be responded to.

Not at all, I genuinely believe your map and graph are good visual aids to understanding 9/11.  Of course I realize you may have had some other reason for posting it.

[Beet]

The US controls nearly everything - at least everything they care to bother about - outside of places like North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia.  In any case US control of the world far exceeds that the British exerted in their heyday.

Shhh... The black helicopters are coming!

It is quite blatant, out in the open, and obvious.  Nothing conspiratorial about it.

That is a fine post explaining 9/11, thefactor.  Thanks.

That's a fine sarcastic post there opebo. Thanks for jumping to conclusions!

Al and Bob, opebo is clearly being a troll and does not deserve to be responded to.

Not at all, I genuinely believe your map and graph are good visual aids to understanding 9/11.  Of course I realize you may have had some other reason for posting it.

Well ok but if you truly think what you're insinuating (which I HIGHLY doubt) then you are sick.

[Frodo]

I wasn't aware that the 13 colonies were part of the UK in 1920.

my guess is that map is meant to refer to the past few centuries of British colonial rule, and mentions the United States as a former colony, which explains why the former Thirteen Colonies are in pink and not in red.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

i didn't see any shadings on those two except black -though it is hard to tell the difference between black and dark green unless you're looking closely at it. 

[opebo]

Not at all, I genuinely believe your map and graph are good visual aids to understanding 9/11.  Of course I realize you may have had some other reason for posting it.

Well ok but if you truly think what you're insinuating (which I HIGHLY doubt) then you are sick.

You mean do I truly believe that 9/11 was brought on by American meddling in other parts of the world?  Of course I do!   How is recognizing the obvious 'sick'?

[DanielX]

Not at all, I genuinely believe your map and graph are good visual aids to understanding 9/11.  Of course I realize you may have had some other reason for posting it.

Well ok but if you truly think what you're insinuating (which I HIGHLY doubt) then you are sick.

You mean do I truly believe that 9/11 was brought on by American meddling in other parts of the world?  Of course I do!   How is recognizing the obvious 'sick'?

Because the US isn't chiefly responsible for all the problems of the world.Here are three major World Problems:

1. Arbitrary colonial borders in Africa and the Middle East - but that problem had nothing to do with the US, as Americans never colonized there (you might add 'until fairly recently'). Those borders were drawn up chiefly by the Europeans, and to a lesser extent by the Ottomans (the British and the French redrew boundaries  for Ottoman provinces post-World War I [making more viable colonies/states] to make the current Middle East). The Only US 'colony' in the entire area was Liberia, set up by freed slaves and which has always been independent.
2. The extreme poverty and lack of political freedom in Africa and the Middle East - some of this has colonial factors (especially in Africa), although it has as much to do with the European powers simply dropping their colonies, rather then giving them any kind of transition to independence. Part of this also has to do with a sick definition of 'anti-colonialism' in the form of anti-capitalism and religious (chiefly Islamic) extremism. Like i told you earlier, in 1960 Ghana's per capita income was higher then Singapore's (and its overall income was considerably higher then Hong Kong - which remained a colony until 1997!).
Another reason for this could actually be considered America's fault. Thinking free markets and democracy impossible in the Middle East, the US and others from the 1950s to the 1990s tried to preserve the status quo, often by funding folks like the Shah and the Saudi royals, as a method of getting stable oil. The fact that this was wrong does not mean the US should pull out of the middle east; it means the US should, from now on, pressure these governments to enter the twentieth century and get free market democracies.
Also, the US has been giving too much no-strings-attached foreign aid (tens of billions of dollars a year - $2 billion per year to Egypt alone). That should end.
3. Islamic extremism. This has some connections to 1 and 2, but its real founding had other reasons. One was the failure of pan-Arabism (an ideology real big in the Middle East in the fifties and sixties). Another has been resentment - the bulk of the muslim leadership   (dictator and religious leader alike) sees the wealthy, hedonistic West, and wish to bring it down rather then improve themselves (and even a Jerry Falwell type 'Fundamentalist Christian America' would be hedonistic by their standards - as even there, women would generally be allowed to leave the house to go shopping without covering their faces. And even a 'Socialist America' would be wealthy by their standards - just as Germany is fabulously wealthy in comparison to Syria at the moment). To 'bring it down', they intend to use a mixture of terrorism and sheer power of immigration - and it's working, at least in parts of Europe. At the rate things are going, in thirty years Britain, France, Germany, and Sweden will all be extremist muslim states (or at least their major cities will be, as the countryside, especially in Britain and Sweden, will be more difficult to take over)... even today, there are some neighborhoods which, due to Islam-based thugs, are worse even then the nastiest of the Barrios in the US (at least there, a woman without a headscarf might not be attacked).

[Jake]

Easier to read

[ATFFL]

Why is Cuba at Zero?  We lease Gitmo from them.

[David S]

That map comes from Matthew Whites website. So who is Matthew White? The answer in his own words:
Q: Who are you, and why should we trust the accuracy of your information?

The Short A: No one in particular, and never trust any information without double checking.

The Long A: My academic credentials are pretty slim -- a couple of years of college and that's about it. I'm not a university professor or anything like that, and I currently earn my living as a librarian.

[Bono]

Easier to read

Dankie.

On an unrelated note, I was under the impression that there were troops in liberia.

[Jake]

Yep, this map is wrong on a few counts. Most notably Romania, Tunisia, and Cuba. Which we have bases in at the very least.

[Bono]

Why is Cuba at Zero?  We lease Gitmo from them.

Technically that's not a lease but a life rent, or right of beneficiary.
So, maybe they consider it part of the US.

[KEmperor]

Yep, this map is wrong on a few counts. Most notably Romania, Tunisia, and Cuba. Which we have bases in at the very least.

You see that dot on the southeastern tip of Cuba?  That's Guantanamo.

[J. J.]

I'm trying to figure out how the US "controls" Australia with less than 1000 troops.

[Bono]

I'm trying to figure out how the US "controls" Australia with less than 1000 troops.

Dood, the aussie army has like 30000 people.

[Beet]

Anyways, the U.S. currently is an empire, and this should be recognized and confronted. Note that recognizing this fact places no normative value on it, either positive or negative.

Although it certainly does not "control" most of those places on the map, such as Germany, the U.K., etc. The Key listed is what it is. Nor does the red on the British map necessarily indicated British control, as Canada and Australia were quite independent. These should be quite obvious points however.

The troop positionings however are emblematic of a broader "soft" power, which is a major portion of the American unipolar structure.

IMO, unipolarity is an opportunity to forge global institutions that will (1) play the major role in engendering acceptance of unipolarity, (2) provide a framework within which to avoid war and other conflict given inevitable challenges to unipolarity; and inevitable or even desirable compeitition between states, and (3) allow exploitation of cooperative possibilities for much greater prosperity and freedom to all.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nor does the red on the British map necessarily indicated British control, as Canada and Australia were quite independent.

Only *technically*

[Emsworth]

Nor does the red on the British map necessarily indicated British control, as Canada and Australia were quite independent.

Only *technically*

Of course, the King-Byng Affair had not transpired and the Statute of Westminster had not been passed by 1920. Thus, Canada and Australia technically remained Dominions of the British Crown, rather than independent countries.