English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

As far as world Empires go Rome came and went and it's influence is still felt today (the calender etc) The British Empire was one of the most influential and mile for mile I would guess the absolute biggest - it kind of pulled back after the second war and now it's the US that is the world super power - the world Empire as such.

Was the world better or safer when the UK was running the world stage ? Is the US doing a better job than other comparible nations in a similar position etc?

2006-08-16 20:24:32 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

5 answers

they occupied almost every nation on this planet!!

but at least they werent as brutal and hypocrites as the Americans. they invaded countries for their benefits and weren't afraid to say so!!
they didn't need to attack them selves and kill 3000 of their own and blame it on some one else.

2006-08-16 20:38:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

The US approach is "imperialism lite" vs. the British "imperialism classic" approach so it's hard to compare. The British intended to administer their colonies in perpetuity whereas the Americans do some nation-building to try have friendly democracies all over the world. I mean Japan, South Korea, Germany etc. are independent countries now and the intention is to have the same process take place in Iraq.

I don't think "imperialism classic" is sustainable, sooner or later colonies rebel. So the American approach; as imperfect in practise as it may be, is best.

2006-08-17 03:28:52 · answer #2 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 2 1

Ask the liberated people of Europe, China, southeast asia, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, northern Africa...

All of the places the United States has liberated from the oppression of brutal governments and conquerors. Do we own these territories? No. Are we trying to expand the borders of our nation? No. Do we have an emperor, or a democratically elected President with term limits and severe limits to his power? Answer: we have a president, not an emperor. We are not an empire. The people are in charge.

I would have to say, that in spite of the anti-American and anti-West bigotry found all over the world, in spite of the jealousy and in spite of the propoganda, people like not being controlled by a foreign power, and they like freedom.

Therefore, America, unlike the British crown, is a liberating force, not a conquering empire.

2006-08-17 03:35:10 · answer #3 · answered by askthepizzaguy 4 · 1 3

Are you kidding me. Neither UK or USA can't compare with Rome or Greek empire. The British Empire was mostly imperialistic, using goods of Africa and Asia, raping them with Christianity. I think British don't have that cruel imperialism in their conscience, like German has about their Nazi History. But they should have. The same or even worst is with USA. UK and USA didn't do much good influence in that world.

2006-08-17 03:35:51 · answer #4 · answered by nelli 4 · 1 2

Not at all. The UK and the US are conjoined twins controlled by the global cabal of rulers who are not elected, but born into power and money. Democracy proofed to be a too dangerous thing, so they (the cabal) rigged it and played both sides (left and right) in order to be in control at all times.

sad....

2006-08-17 03:35:15 · answer #5 · answered by The answer man 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers