Yes they do. You call it "protecting our interests", which when pressed, admit includes virtually everything.
Of course, but that wasn't what I meant. What happens when the US deems anyone to be a "rogue state"? Economic sanctions? Coalitions made with countries which really aren't your lackeys? You know the Romans put troops on other countries soil to provide "protection"? So did we, it's a handy euphemism for force projection, projection which has means other than military. Trade tariffs, sanctions, these are all methods of coercion. EDIT: Look, I know you were brought up seeing the US as the heroes, the good guys, the world police, but for those of us on the receiving end of your protection it looks very different indeed. You must surely realise that the virtues of a nation are in no small part a question of perspective?
Economic sanctions are far, far from being equivalent to military force. Again. Name countries the U.S. kept troops in after being asked to leave by the national government of that country.
The modern welfare state caters overwhelmingly to poor, white, rural voters. Dismantling that social safety net would let "winners win and losers lose" as the OP suggests. So when do we get started?
Again, I didn't say that so I don't feel the need to answer the strawman. The fact of the matter is simple, the US uses many means to exert influence around the globe, be they military or economic and most governments have the sense not to ask. Crossing the US is extremely unwise, not because it has some legitimate authority, but because there are consequences. That's exactly what it means to be an Empire.
If he's any indication of the quality of teachers in the public education system, the U.S. is in deeper shit than we all thought.
Why do you see fit to attack me working at my chosen profession. Especially when you know nothing about how I teach. I don't attack you for the job you do (assuming you have one).
That is not the definition of an Empire. Virtually every nation tries to exert influence. First line from Wikipedia definition of an empire An empire is a sovereign state functioning as an aggregate of nations or people that are ruled over by an emperor or another kind of monarch. Needless to say the U.S. is not rule by an emperor or any kind of monarch
I think it was Colin Powell who said that the U.S. never took more territory than was necessary to bury our dead.
You've seized and lost many, you've used other methods to coerce dozens into compliance. Believe it or not most empires use force as a last resort. You're an empire, whether you like it or not.
Yes it does. Force is only one means to create an empire, the Romans used diplomacy, as did we, it's less costly. Force comes when that fails, see Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, gunboat trade with Japan.
Which is what all empires claim. We "protected" India and much of Africa, we "protected" you. That's what protectionism means, exerting influence under the guise of "protecting" someone, the main danger being yourself if they don't play along. Criminal gangs do exactly the same thing. Nothing bad will happen so long as you tow the line.
I don't follow. Who gives a rats ass about India and Africa? In any event I loathe people from those places.
We had an empire. It was arguably the most powerful in history. We included many countries whether they chose it or not and called it protection, we called it "civilising" them. Those countries which complied almost inevitably did so because not doing so would have impacted badly on them. We asked first, but rarely if ever took "no" for an answer. The US now has that mantle. It's arguably starting to fail but it uses exactly the same methods as we did, as the French did, the Romans, the Greeks...
Why do you assume I was talking about you? Aren't you Tracker? I mean, I know Dayton3 is a failed Arkansas school teacher who claimed to teach history. Is that what you do, Tracker3?
You use Merriam Webster in school, yes? Surely not wikipedia, which is frowned upon in academic referencing? The Collins English Dictionary says this:
of course, dating from a time when there was no standing military, it could be argued that both the regular military and National Guard(s) have made such a requirement obs your "protection" has been one of the greatest threats to my country since the end of WW2.
IIRC there has been no threat to invade Canada. Why would you say that? We only want what is best for you.
