Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Galapagos Islands -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (28644)	2/24/2003 4:37:53 PM
From: bramble88	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57110

A political unit having an extensive territory The US has extensive territory. The fact that most 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation Americans feel that this is naturally their homeland does not change the fact that only 220 years ago the majority of this territory was not part of this country. Please understand that I am not trying to be judgemental here, am not saying give it back to the natives, just pointing out reality as I see it. And of course there is Puerto Rico and Guam, I you want true remote territories.. :) This country was founded on expansionist ideals and it has never stopped expanding. Yes, we are not as quick to attach territory these days, but it does happen in other ways. I believe that in the age of multinational corporations, the dictionary definition you provide is a bit limited. As for 911, it did understandably lead to increased nationalism, and it did lead us to use the tools we are so accustomed to already (force and influence) in a more visible and aggressive manner. But this is a sensitive subject. I only mean to say that the use of force is not new to this nation. And it is not only in 'the good fight' of WWII that it was used. We have used force in the Phillipines, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, El-Salvador, Panama, Granada, Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia, just to name a few. In most of these cases self defense is an unconvincing argument. There is also control by militarily and economically propping up otherwise unpopular regimes or funding and training insurrections (often against democratically elected governments -but this is besides the point here). This is something that the definition you provide ignores in a literal sense, but I think it belongs; control is control, and it comes in many guises. Some examples: Chile, Nicaragua, Guatamala, Angola, Mozambique, Nigeria. So, all I am really trying to say is that yes, this IS an empire. By the way, Rome too was a democratic republic during much of its expansion.