4 ms·

Empire: an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress. >It does however have states tha

Empire: an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress. >It does however have states that are second-class citizens Colony: a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country. >lots of other countries which are independent but also to some extent economically and militarily subordinate, in which the US State Department feels entitled to influence policy

wastedhours 9y ago
Rounding the point off - hence why "Empire" was in quotes and not just written as Empire. It's not a technical empire, but is making a point (using conversational context).
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  What specifically disqualifies it from being defined as an empire?
  - Arnt 9y ago
    It's not really large enough. The no-quotes empires had subject peoples and areas at least comparable in size to their own people.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      Where in the dictionary definition of empire does it state this? Anyways, it still seems to meet your criteria: >the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-...
      - wastedhours 9y ago
        Although tiresome to argue dictionary pedantry, I think the crux of it is that the implication is that the the US doesn't have any defined role in the rule of a lot of the countries (as in, they don't claim ownership, or even influence), but that it's exerted either overtly or covertly by other means. The point in this context is that the US's web of influence extends outside of the areas in which they have a direct structure of power in place (and isn't consistent within those that it does) - those points, in this sense, imply an "Empire" (quotes, as nebulous), rather than an Empire (the defined thing).
        wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        Very well then. Seems quite analagous to the supposed difference between "enhanced interrogation" and "torture".
        wastedhours 9y ago
        Well, yeah - "enhanced interrogation" is the "air-quotes" version of torture.
        flowersoldier 9y ago
        Similar to the concept of Lawfare. When a government can impose their laws or economic leverage on a foreign country thereby occupying them without troops or a military presence.
      - Retra 9y ago
        Empires traditionally rule over much more sizable peoples and lands, and if that weren't a requirement, then we could probably consider every nation an empire.
      - rhino369 9y ago
        Having military posts doesn't make that territory part of an Empire if the US doesn't exert much political control over the host country. I'd probably call Gitmo part of an empire, since the presence is hostile. But the rest of those bases is more or less volunatry. Ok maybe Japan and can't really say no, but the rest of those bases are voluntary. If America has an empire, it's rather small. Puerto Rico, Guam, American Somoa, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    An empire would have held on to Iraq after the Gulf War. An empire would have held on to the Philippines after [edit: World War II]. An empire would have held on to Japan after World War II. The US is not an empire because it doesn't act like one, not really. Yes, it has some overseas possessions. No, it's not the expansionist conquer-the-world Borg that many people mean when they call it an empire.
    - breatheoften 9y ago
      Your argument presupposes that the empire’s maximal influence would be attained by domination through overt use of force. In reality — the us military empire doesn’t maintain those conquered possessions as conquered possessions because it can’t — it doesn’t have sufficient military power and attempting to do so would increase the front on which conflicts requiring use of that military power would be required (further diminishing direct conquering capacity). The us military empire building strategy differs from your suggestions for tactical reasons not as evidence of a policy that does not involve pursuit of empire building.

wastedhours 9y ago

Rounding the point off - hence why "Empire" was in quotes and not just written as Empire. It's not a technical empire, but is making a point (using conversational context).

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
What specifically disqualifies it from being defined as an empire?
- Arnt 9y ago
  It's not really large enough. The no-quotes empires had subject peoples and areas at least comparable in size to their own people.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    Where in the dictionary definition of empire does it state this? Anyways, it still seems to meet your criteria: >the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-...
    - wastedhours 9y ago
      Although tiresome to argue dictionary pedantry, I think the crux of it is that the implication is that the the US doesn't have any defined role in the rule of a lot of the countries (as in, they don't claim ownership, or even influence), but that it's exerted either overtly or covertly by other means. The point in this context is that the US's web of influence extends outside of the areas in which they have a direct structure of power in place (and isn't consistent within those that it does) - those points, in this sense, imply an "Empire" (quotes, as nebulous), rather than an Empire (the defined thing).
      - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        Very well then. Seems quite analagous to the supposed difference between "enhanced interrogation" and "torture".
        wastedhours 9y ago
        Well, yeah - "enhanced interrogation" is the "air-quotes" version of torture.
      - flowersoldier 9y ago
        Similar to the concept of Lawfare. When a government can impose their laws or economic leverage on a foreign country thereby occupying them without troops or a military presence.
    - Retra 9y ago
      Empires traditionally rule over much more sizable peoples and lands, and if that weren't a requirement, then we could probably consider every nation an empire.
    - rhino369 9y ago
      Having military posts doesn't make that territory part of an Empire if the US doesn't exert much political control over the host country. I'd probably call Gitmo part of an empire, since the presence is hostile. But the rest of those bases is more or less volunatry. Ok maybe Japan and can't really say no, but the rest of those bases are voluntary. If America has an empire, it's rather small. Puerto Rico, Guam, American Somoa, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  An empire would have held on to Iraq after the Gulf War. An empire would have held on to the Philippines after [edit: World War II]. An empire would have held on to Japan after World War II. The US is not an empire because it doesn't act like one, not really. Yes, it has some overseas possessions. No, it's not the expansionist conquer-the-world Borg that many people mean when they call it an empire.
  - breatheoften 9y ago
    Your argument presupposes that the empire’s maximal influence would be attained by domination through overt use of force. In reality — the us military empire doesn’t maintain those conquered possessions as conquered possessions because it can’t — it doesn’t have sufficient military power and attempting to do so would increase the front on which conflicts requiring use of that military power would be required (further diminishing direct conquering capacity). The us military empire building strategy differs from your suggestions for tactical reasons not as evidence of a policy that does not involve pursuit of empire building.