Are United States and England Imperialist cauntrys?

Question

From the times England had spread the seas seeking treasurys and goods belong to others peoples .
Now United Estates had invaded other cauntrys from 70 year to present . As well put pressure over Governments with differents ideologys.
Granada, Panama, Haiti, Iraq, Afganistan, etc. are some examples to invades cauntrys.

Answer 1

Come on...The US? We are the lighthouse of democracy in the world.
US doesn't invade countries. It helps and aids countries (using the lovely army).
US doesn't kill people. It helps people by putting their mother's and children to sleep (forever) because they are TERRORISTS!
US loves you (as long as you say yes sir).
US protects you (but please pay up)
US teaches you democracy (vote for $)
US teaches you English (come on man, run a spell check)

Answer 2

Difficult to interpret this question...but guessing on your meanings for some of these points:

England was at one time building empires. The US did have some colonial interests at one time as well. Now that the world has been fully explored, claimed and governments established, there is respect for those governments as long as they play by the rules of good world citizenship.

Granada: The Soviets and Cubans were building a three mile long air base on a 10 mile island to support long range bombers. It was the start of the Cuban missile crisis all over again.

Panama: Manuel Noriega was pumping drugs into our country despite our repeated attempts to stop the practice. I'd describe that as fighting back.

Haiti: ???? It's the UN that's there, not just the US. Any involvement there was purely humanitarian and attempting to establish order in a country 100 miles from our borders. The unrest there was potentially a threat to our interests if their problems escalated beyond their borders. Besides, don't neighbors help out neighbors?

Afganistan: Homeland of the Taliban, a recognized oppressive group harboring the acknowledged sponsor and mastermind of the 9/11 attacks? I think this was fairly justified. The more significant issue here is that we're far from the only country there. NATO is there with a fairly large contingent of troops from other countries as well.

Iraq: This is a can of worms that will only start a vitriolic debate in the US at this time. Some believe that it's for the better for stability in the region, others think it was a waste of time. Either way, I don't belive that very many people were sad to see Saddam go. We have no interest in maintaining a presence in that country any longer than absolutely necessary.

Now, whether or not we're building empires? Not in a territorial or colonial sense. Perhaps in an economic sense...the same as any other free market economy - trying to establish bigger markets for goods and services.

If it wasn't for free market innovation and motivation, we'd still be waiting for the Model T automobile and riding around on horses asses instead of listening to them.

Answer 3

I wouldn't say the United States or the U.K. are imperialist.

I think the strictest sense of the word would require the U.S. and U.K. to conquer, hold, and administer foreign lands for the purposes of extending their territory and enriching the "mother country". Neither the U.S. nor the U.K. does this.

It's been about 100 years since America gained any significant territorial possessions. There have been several instances of U.S. intervention in other nations, but these instances have usually been either temporary or long-term but not very extensive. I'd be hard pressed to name a modern instance where the U.S. invaded and held a foreign territory with the intent of keeping it in their possesion. U.S. involvements in Vietnam, Grenada, Haiti, and Iraq were never attempts to add those countries to an American empire. They were usually just aimed at replacing some regime, eliminating some threat, or preventing some faction from taking over. Those may or may not be legitimate goals, but they aren't imperialism, in my opinion.

If you take a looser meaning of the word "imperialist," I guess you could say it applies to America. The U.S. government has applied various forms of pressure and persuasion on other countries to get what they want. But by that standard, you could claim that EVERY country is imperialist. Every country tries to get what they want from other countries and opposes other countries at times. That just makes the word imperialist meaningless.

The same answer applies to the U.K., but even moreso. The U.K. has had fewer notable modern instances of international involvement. When the U.K. is involved in military action, it is usually to defend its own rights (the Falklands conflict) or as part of an international peacekeeping force- neither of which could rightfully be called imperialist acts.

Answer 4

in depends on your definition of imperialism

so far, the U.S. has never "colonized" a country it invaded in the last 70 years

granada, panama, haiti -- none are under U.S. control

we'll have to wait and see about Iraq and Afghanistan, but it doesn't appear that they will remain under U.S. control for many years

The U.S. population doesn't appear interested in a long occupation
The current leaders claim their intention is to leave as soon as a local government of locals is ready to take over

I would have to say it looks like pretty lame imperialism

Answer 5

Define "cauntry"

Answer 6

Imperialism is to conquer and populate.
All the countries you have mentioned are already over populated. Which is the major condition of them being considered 3rd world countries.

Answer 7

lol.

yeah, we're an imperialist cauntry.

Answer 8

Are You buying a condo? it's the United States

Answer 9

Maybe they are not in the real sense of the term and they can't be even if they wish to but they seem to be at least acting so!

Answer 10

More fascist than imperialist.