www.ditl.org

"A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority." <- Dictionary definition. Now it depends on your idea of rule, but to me the supreme authority angle would mean that to be an element of the empire it has to be under direct control of the authority. While an Empire may have influence with other empires, they are not under direct control of the supreme.

All right. But was I talking about the American Empire, or merely its imperialistic policy?

I mean, is there a dichotomy between being an Empire and being imperialistic?

I think you can be imperialistic without having an empire.

Reliant121 wrote:I think you can be imperialistic without having an empire.

Right. All right then, I was refering to America's Imperialistic behavior, and its tendency to (successfully, I might add) secure influence and power through leverage.

In that sense, America has imperialistic tendencies but does not possess an empire. I can agree to that.

Comparing the USA in its current state of evolution to that of, say, late Middle Age/early Rennaisance Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, or GB - America is hardly imperialistic.

Mikey wrote:Comparing the USA in its current state of evolution to that of, say, late Middle Age/early Rennaisance Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, or GB - America is hardly imperialistic.

These were colonial times, where relations weren't set up properly. We live in a time closer to the Roman Empire time, when the involved parties pretty much all know each others.

Different time means different means.

Perhaps. We could easily go up north and annex you if we wanted, but we don't.

Mikey wrote:Perhaps. We could easily go up north and annex you if we wanted, but we don't.

Exactly. What would be the point? You don't need to control directly our territory for benefit from it, as we have set an interesting relation of bilateral trade that powers both our economies. Part of that agreement is not trying to challenge your military supremacy of North America, in exchange for your protection to protec the integrity of our territory. Said protection is in your own best interest, anyway, as you don't want a foreign power to set up a beachhead on our territory.

Recognizing the fact that it's in our best interest to have a relationship with Canada, rather than march in and take Canada, is exactly why we're not as imperialistic as 17th-c. GB (for example.)

Mikey wrote:Recognizing the fact that it's in our best interest to have a relationship with Canada, rather than march in and take Canada, is exactly why we're not as imperialistic as 17th-c. GB (for example.)

But Canada is kind of the exception, as our geopolitical interest are practically the same, seeing our similar geographical location.

Other such client-state (yes, I consider Canada to be a kind of client-state to the US, as Quebec would be if it became independant) don't share these interest, which is why you still need strong imperialistic tendencies to secure what you need to further your interest. Again, luckily for you, your main imperialistic tool was your consumer base, which, immediately after WW2, was probably the most powerful negociation tool in the world.

Mikey wrote:We could easily go up north and annex you if we wanted, but we don't.

You've tried that before, and got sent packing.

Pretty sure we could pull it off now.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Pretty sure we could pull it off now.

It would never be worth the money spent.

And the added instability and international backlash would definetly make the whole venture a negative for your country, overall.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:We could easily go up north and annex you if we wanted, but we don't.

You've tried that before, and got sent packing.

Yep. Now that you've got your little jibe in...
In a straight-up fight without outside interference, we could skim across the pond for a bit and make you guys states 51 - 54.