Without us, you wouldn't even have an internet. Don't underestimate us either, we defeated the greatest superpower in the world at the time, the British empire. If we fall, it will be our own doing. You lost your lead in science a long time ago.
lol at your "at that time" own-ass-covering The British Empire was a hyperpower. It was the largest and most powerful empire that the earth has yet seen. Someone's a little insecure!
Taxes/ IRS States receive Federal money. (A few, even more that total their citizens pay in federal taxes.) NO STATE PAYS NET MONEY TO FEDERAL GOV. Without this influx of federal dollar, many states would collapse, not be able to pay their costs. etc. You have just backwards.
Yes, some are a little insecure, and it's the british. The british 'empire' was merely a first world army/navy enslaving millions of largely unarmed, and certainly uneducated third-worlders, and kept them unarmed and ignorant. Once armed with guns and education, those third-worlders threw off the yoke pretty damn quickly. The so-called 'hyperpower' couldn't retake a young America, nor could it impose will after WWe. It was hence breaking apart long before WW2, which merely accelerated the process. Present day America and the Roman empire is/was far more dominant, compared to the rest of the world, at their respective heights than the british ever were. Jaybee.
"once armed with guns and education"? You mean because of all the institutions the British built there? Schools? Railways? The so called "superpower" couldn't beat a bunch of rice farmers. In an age of supersonic flight. Three hundred years previously, in an age where it took months to cross the atlantic, sure, the British fared none too well against the fledgling US....but without the French it'd still be British, so stop blowing your fucking trumpet. Present day america is so lame that it had to invent a new type of empire just so it could call itself an empire. The Roman Empire and the US "empire" should never be included in the same fucking sentence because one just isn't. A proper empire is in control of significant territory outside its own borders. You are not a proper empire so go back to playing rounders you cockmutilated self-trumpeting uberjaw.
What a disgusting troll!! The U.S. has never once laid claim to being an "empire." That's simply meaningless rhetoric used by people in other countries because in their hearts they feel inferior to the accomplishments of the U.S.
From where I'm sitting it's mainly yanks trumpeting their "Empire". Like I said, when they control a quarter of the earth's surface....then they can start bragging.
There's a few things wrong with this sentence. a) Control should be changed to controlled b) America had influence over the entire world at one point, not just 25% c) The Earth is covered 75% in water, so saying that the British Empire owned 25% of Earth is tantamount to saying that the British Empire controlled the world, which is/was not true Also, I'd like you to define "control", as many people confuse control with influence, domination, and amiable relations. AmishRakeFight
Then I have no idea where you are sitting. Americans don't even use the term in reference to themselves - not at all.
Very much agreed. I have never once heard an American refer to ourselves as the American Empire, unless it is used pejoratively. AmishRakeFight
Despite it's flaws, the United States is still the most powerful and wealthy nation in the history of the planet. Our poor people drive cars, watch TV, and eat burgers from South America.
a) No. I was referring to the US. b) "Influence" ain't shit. c) I didn't make up that statistic. When I say control, I mean YOUR country's colour on the map. Nothing less. No puppet governments which no one is really sure are puppet governments at all, leased land, naval bases etc.
Schools that taught british shit and railroads that could experiment with shaky bridges and expendable non-british passengers. Nice. I seem to remember a colony called Hong Kong being handed over in similar fashion without much negotiation, too... I'm one of your unwilling compatriots. Trust me, I'd sooner be in France than these cold, miserable stinking islands, and one day soon I will be. Well, whoop-deee-doo, we agree that America is replete with faults. No surprise there. True. An empire is a monarchy. as I've described above. Correct, I'm not a citizen of a 'proper' empire, by your definition. Mate, don't make so many fucking arseumptions. Jaybee.
you were talking about being insecure.....one finger pointing forward means three pointing right back at you, troll.
Let's see what Uncle Webster has to say about "influence": Main Entry: 1in·flu·ence Function: noun 1 a : an ethereal fluid held to flow from the stars and to affect the actions of humans b : an emanation of occult power held to derive from stars 2 : an emanation of spiritual or moral force 3 a : the act or power of producing an effect without apparent exertion of force or direct exercise of command b : corrupt interference with authority for personal gain 4 : the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways : SWAY 5 : one that exerts influence Also, let's check out the synonyms for influence: access, character, clout, command, connections, consequence, control, credit, direction, domination, dominion, effect, fame, fix, force, guidance, hold, impact, importance, imprint, in, juice, leadership, leverage, magnetism, mark, mastery, moment, money, monopoly, network, notoriety, power, predominance, prerogative, pressure, prestige, prominence, pull, repercussion, reputation, ropes, rule, significance, spell, string, supremacy, sway, weight Do you still want to argue that influence is irrevelent? Influence is EVERYTHING. In a sense, influence is even more powerful than control. Follow my logic: People do not enjoy being "controlled"; I, for one, dislike being told what to do and how to do it. But influence is a completely different matter. Influence means a party has sway over another party's decisions, but does not dictate exactly what they do. The influencee still has the option to disagree with the influencer, but that is not the relationship the controller has over the controllee. The controllee is a pawn to the controller; they have no free will. So, inevitably, rebellion occurs. Do you disagree that with controlling comes rebellion? Look at Iraq. Look at Chechnya. The evidence is all there, G.F. Schlebenhorst. Next, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "I didn't make up that statistic." Do you mean that you didn't make up the stat that the British Empire owning 25% of the world? If so, then you've fallen into a classic problem: you came to the table without your utensils. Your source was obviously mistaken, so I don't hold you to the mistake. No worries. Anyway, the point of this is that control is general; influence is specific. Under the umbrella of control is influence. Influence is merely a more clever form of control that the United States exerts, although how long this will last is debatable. AmishRakeFight
"Influence is merely a more clever form of control that the United States exerts." Yes, but if we consider the rate at which we are winning friends, the less obvious essential of influence is not promising. I am certain that we are now losing both friends and influence at a historically unprecedented rate.
Also, I assumed that you were saying "When America controls as much as Britain did, and reach the land property Britain owned, they can brag." My reasoning for this was because earlier you were talking about how Britain had the largest empire, and continued to act as protagonist for the British Empire, so when you said your comment about "When america owns 25% of the world, ect ect" I took it as I did. AmishRakeFight
I'll quickly admit that it was well over 40 years when I studied British history, but that 25% figure sounds a little high to me. Asia is HUGE and so is much of Europe that never fell under British rule. And they never once had all of either North, South, or Central America. Can someone provide an actual number with a reference? Thanks.
