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 : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: regli who wrote (43491)	12/27/2005 2:33:42 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Do those 144 nations include Marines at Embassies? Shoot, if that's the case, every country is an Empire. I know we have troops in all of the Old Nato countries. The one time justification was that if the Soviets attacked that country, they were also attacking The United States. So, our troops were human shields. Japan, Korea, The Philippines, Cuba. The Navy is in Australia and used to be in New Zealand. I still find 144 hard to swallow. 35, maybe.

To: regli who wrote (43491)	12/27/2005 4:49:22 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

<I mean empire literally. A country that has its armed forces stationed in 144 countries or territories has to be called an empire.> Well, then in my view that view is a mistake: <<a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state>> It's fair to discuss the US's powerful position in the world, but not to change the definition of a word. <As to technological superiority, I personally don't think that's significant anymore with the notable exception of the war machine.> In the given context I should have said 'military superiority'. dAK