3 ms·

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 conversation

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.
      - wu-ikkyu 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. The political control was solidified over the past 100+ years for the benefit of US corporations. Countries which worked towards self-determination because they didn't like seeing the natural wealth of their land expropriated were labeled as communist, and had their governments overthrown with covert coups, assasinations, and mercenary armies. >I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. -Major General Smedley Butler
    - Arnt 9y ago
      Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They try to write a coherent, understandable description of what made the British Empire and the Romans empires while clearly leaving present-day Italy and Britain not-empires. Current-day Italy can boss San Marino and the Vatican State around, current-day Britain has a scattering of islands around the world. Current-day Italy indubitably has the military force to beat San Marino, Britain did actually win back the Falklands but its victory didn't seem self-evident at the time. When I squint at the map, the US foreign dominions and military bases look a little on the large side for a plain country, but ridiculously small for an empire. The US military is all over the world and has very impressive weaponry, but was beaten quite thoroughly by the Viet Cong, hasn't beaten the Taliban and and gave up after the first attack by Hizbollah. "Empire" in quotes looks quite appropriate to me.
- 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.

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.
    - wu-ikkyu 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. The political control was solidified over the past 100+ years for the benefit of US corporations. Countries which worked towards self-determination because they didn't like seeing the natural wealth of their land expropriated were labeled as communist, and had their governments overthrown with covert coups, assasinations, and mercenary armies. >I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. -Major General Smedley Butler
  - Arnt 9y ago
    Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They try to write a coherent, understandable description of what made the British Empire and the Romans empires while clearly leaving present-day Italy and Britain not-empires. Current-day Italy can boss San Marino and the Vatican State around, current-day Britain has a scattering of islands around the world. Current-day Italy indubitably has the military force to beat San Marino, Britain did actually win back the Falklands but its victory didn't seem self-evident at the time. When I squint at the map, the US foreign dominions and military bases look a little on the large side for a plain country, but ridiculously small for an empire. The US military is all over the world and has very impressive weaponry, but was beaten quite thoroughly by the Viet Cong, hasn't beaten the Taliban and and gave up after the first attack by Hizbollah. "Empire" in quotes looks quite appropriate to me.
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.