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: bramble88 who wrote (28673)	2/24/2003 4:59:20 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57110

of course we have "territory" but to erroneously use empire..."capital E empire" as you put it, is totally false....your context was worded with respect to foreign sovereign countries, the implication being we are an Empire which has the ability to dictate policy of independent states. and in fact i almost did bring up puerto rico and guam... as territories... haven't heard much about guam lately, but last i heard puerto rico had a strong political movement seeking statehood. just because we have used force in other countries doesn't mean that we have become an "empire".....i think empire is a politically loaded term that suggests subjugation. did we subjugate the phillipines, cuba, korea cambodia el savado, panama, granada, iraq, kosovo, somalia and on ?????? this is the cogent, stark, relevant issue when you name the u.s as "capital E empire" that is what i think you are ignoring in your definition of empire. the former soviet union WAS an empire by that definition if we are an empire, bush is darth vader. we are not an empire. A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority. The territory included in such a unit.