The U.S. Global Empire: A Unique Hegemony

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Global
In summary: I don't know...argumentative and condescending. I stand by what I said.In summary, the new empire is the United States. The US has a large military presence in most of the countries in the list, and it is the only country in the list with a military presence in every country.
  • #1
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,142
1,755
There is a new empire in town, and its global presence is increasing every day.

The kingdom of Alexander the Great reached all the way to the borders of India. The Roman Empire controlled the Celtic regions of Northern Europe and all of the Hellenized states that bordered the Mediterranean. The Mongol Empire, which was the largest contiguous empire in history, stretched from Southeast Asia to Europe. The Byzantine Empire spanned the years 395 to 1453. In the sixteenth century, the Ottoman Empire stretched from the Persian Gulf in the east to Hungary in the northwest; and from Egypt in the south to the Caucasus in the north. At the height of its dominion, the British Empire included almost a quarter of the world’s population.

Nothing, however, compares to the U.S. global empire. What makes U.S. hegemony unique is that it consists, not of control over great land masses or population centers, but of a global presence unlike that of any other country in history. [continued]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'm kind of puzzled. I thought all US embassies had at least one or two military assigned as security (or perhaps just for show).

Is that not true? Or do we only have embassies in 70% of the world?

I would presume Mr. Vance's only true objection is the troops deployed to perform combat and the troops deployed to prevent combat. The handful in each country performing embassy duty, etc. are only thrown into impress the reader that the US is truly an imperialistic country.
 
  • #3
Good question BobG. I too remember reading that all US embassies have at least one member of the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines.

In more than 70% of the countries in that list, the only military presence is a handful of personnel attached to the embassy. And the US is not the only country to boast of such a list.
 
  • #4
BobG said:
I'm kind of puzzled. I thought all US embassies had at least one or two military assigned as security (or perhaps just for show).

Is that not true?
Yes, you're right. This fact (misleading implication) has been posted before...

There is a little more to it though: pretty much every country has military liaisons on embassy staff as well. I went on a deployment to 8 different countries on the northern coast of europe and in every port visit, we were met by a military liaison. But one LT who exists only to introduce the ship's captain to the mayor of the town and to tell the crew where to pick up women is even less of an occupying force than a squad of Marines who exist to guard the embassy door and put the flag up every morning.
I would presume Mr. Vance's only true objection is the troops deployed to perform combat and the troops deployed to prevent combat. The handful in each country performing embassy duty, etc. are only thrown into impress the reader that the US is truly an imperialistic country.
Yep. Its a pretty lame attempt to justify the assertion that the US is an empire.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Looks like Ivan beat Adam to the punch. :)
 
  • #6
Is that an ad hominem which has zero to do with the topic?
 
  • #7
It seems one of our enemies’ thinks another enemy of ours enjoys having US troops in their country.

“A German government source suggested the news of a major pullout had not been welcome, according to Agence France Press. "Berlin continues to signal its interest in an American military presence in Germany and has emphasized that it can offer ideal conditions for bases," the source told AFP on condition of anonymity.“
.
 
  • #8
GENIERE said:
It seems one of our enemies’ thinks another enemy of ours enjoys having US troops in their country. [Germany]
And it is worth noting that Germany is home of the largest permanent detatchment of American troops.
 
  • #9
JohnDubYa said:
Looks like Ivan beat Adam to the punch. :)

So, you assume that a post makes for an opinion? What exactly did I posit with this post? Did I add any comments? I saw this article and thought it was interesting fodder for the forum. As usual you assume way too much.
 
  • #10
Ivan Seeking said:
So, you assume that a post makes for an opinion? What exactly did I posit with this post? Did I add any comments? I saw this article and thought it was interesting fodder for the forum. As usual you assume way too much.
JD didn't say anything in that post about your assumed opinion. Are you assuming that he's assuming it based on what I can only assume is your assumption about JD's assumed opinion of Adam?

Why not just post your opinion instead of opening the assumption can-o-worms?
 
  • #11
It caught my attention as a good post for discussion. That's all.
 
  • #12
Okay, Russ PM'd and argued that I was being unfair. Look, I post a lot of things that have nothing to do with my own opinion. When I have an opinion you can be sure that you'll hear about it. I do sometimes delay my responses or comments due to time constraints. Sometimes I will post a link and comment later. This is not intended to trick anyone, it is a time thing. Also, I still think it is fair to recognize that a link does not make for a opinion. In fact, even specific comments made to defend an opinion might only be an attempt to be fair to all positions. It does not mean that this is my only perspective or opinion on something. I see very few things in black and white. In fact I usually agrue against any black and white perpectives no matter what side they take.
 
  • #13
So, you assume that a post makes for an opinion? What exactly did I posit with this post?

I was mainly joking. My post was in reference to Adam's continual posting of news stories with enormous flaws. A child can see that only having one soldier stationed in a country is hardly tantamout to the US controlling interests in that country.
 
  • #14
A day later...sorry I went off on you JW. I need to stay off of the forums when I'm already angry. It was a bad morning.
 
  • #15
It's cool. It's cool.
 
  • #16
I wouldn't quite label the U.S. as a true imperialistic power. Sure it has had its times of manifest destiny (Philippines, Mexico, attempted Canada) but its has taken more of the role as the world's police force instead.
 

1. What is the definition of a global empire?

A global empire is a term used to describe a state or group of states that possess significant political, economic, and military power and influence over other nations and regions around the world. This can manifest in various forms, such as through direct colonization or through indirect control and dominance.

2. How did the United States become a global empire?

The United States became a global empire through its expansion and rise to superpower status after World War II. The post-war economic and military dominance of the U.S., along with its policies of intervention and interventionism, allowed it to exert influence and control over other nations and regions.

3. What are the key characteristics of the U.S. global empire?

The U.S. global empire is characterized by its unparalleled military strength, economic power, and cultural influence. It also has a strong presence and influence in international organizations and institutions, and often uses its power to shape global policies and agendas.

4. What are the benefits and drawbacks of the U.S. global empire?

The benefits of the U.S. global empire include access to resources, markets, and alliances that can benefit the country's economy and security. However, there are also drawbacks, such as the potential for exploitation and negative impacts on the sovereignty of other nations.

5. Is the U.S. global empire sustainable in the long term?

This is a complex question with no definitive answer. Some argue that the U.S. global empire is unsustainable due to its reliance on military power and potential for backlash from other nations. Others argue that the U.S. has adapted and maintained its dominance through economic and cultural means. Ultimately, only time will tell if the U.S. global empire will continue or decline.

Similar threads

Writing: Input Wanted Great Lakes Earth Map
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top