ext_71374 ([identity profile] ginsu.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] johncomic 2012-07-03 02:34 pm (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary: 1. an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state

To me, it comes down to national policy; America just hasn't got the juice to make other countries create new policy to suit itself.

America is more like Facebook (an organization that I loathe) in that it extends its tentacles in myriad overt and subtle ways and it can squeeze with more or less force. But it cannot dictate terms to other nations in the same way that Facebook cannot actually tell Amazon what to charge for a new Kindle, or the NY Times what it can and can't publish.

The other thing is that because political power is constantly changing hands in America, it's hard for empire-like growth and control to be maintained through consistent policies.

In recent history, the foreign policy Bush wanted is not remotely what Obama wants, so while America's military bases remain, what they are used to do is night-and-day different.

Contrast the Iraq War with Gaddhafi's ouster in Libya and you will see what I mean -- tyrants dethroned in both cases, but the cost in blood and money, to all parties concerned, was dramatically lower under Obama's influence.

If we invade Canada under Obama, I think the main thing we will steal is your healthcare system.

Post a comment in response:

(will be screened)
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting