[Lerkfish]

America, I think, cannot sustain this sort of empire indefinitely. the American Empire is somewhat different from previous historic empires because it does not always seek to OWN other nations, but to exert CONTROL and INFLUENCE over them. In present society (Iraq or Chechnia being excellent examples), land-grabbing (or "taking the hill") is not cost effective, and every nation you seek to "OWN" this way comes with a very high price tag that drains your coffers and your personnel and offers little in the way of return, especially as you also must rebuild the infrastructure as it gets damaged in the process. Full out war is prohibitively costly in the modern era.
It is no wonder, then, that modern empires prefer hegemony, where through coercion, bribery, extortion or persuasion you convince other nations to bend to your will. It costs less, on all levels, and carries less risk (short term).

However, what is undoing this modern empirism is a force which attacks the vulnerable underbelly of the virtual empire: by increasing the costs to influence to the point where it is no longer cost effective to even influence nations....that force, unfortunately, is terrorism. Although terrorism in one form or another has been with us forever, the modern virtual empire and terrorist cells coincide in some interesting ways: both attempt to achieve larger goals with minimal efforts, to streamline efficiency. Terrorism can't and doesn't need to amass a military force equal to the virtual empire, in order to defeat it, all it has to do is convince the empire that the very costs it sought to avoid by acting virtually rather than directly will be incurred after all. In essence, taking the fight from the virtual arena back to the real arena. Instead of attacking the virtual empire's coercion and influence directly, which would be unwieldy if not impossible, it choose to do what's possible, with minimal risk and expense to incur the highest damage/cost to the empire.

Similarly, Rumsfeld was hoping to demonstrate with "shock and awe" that a very bare bones streamlined force could accomplish regime changes swiftly and efficiently. (now, one has to wonder WHY it was important to want to demonstrate that, unless that was the sort of work we were trying to get into: McWar™, mass produced regime changes that benefit from the economies of scale)

9/11 forced us to rethink the virtual empire. Bush's solution was to try to come up with a hybrid: an old style empire where we temporarily (in theory) possess the actual land, but then hand it over and continue to exercise control over it virtually through coercion, only now with our own puppets in place. For a lot of reasons, this doesn't work well in every case, as we see in Iraq.

So, sorry for being long winded.
In a nutshell: all the historic empires failed, but they did so over longer periods of time because they actually held real estate from which to base their operations to attempt to forestall their own collapse. The difference with the modern virtual empire, is that without the REAL real estate, the empire is built on influence, and therefore could crumble much more quickly and more devastatingly than a historic empire.
And Bush seems to be pushing us towards that demise. A virtual empire remains stable as long as the vassal states see an advantage or desire to be part of the virtual empire. But guess what happens if you alienate all the virtual vassal states? The fiat is the virtual real estate of such an empire. If you evaporate trust from the vassals, you cede your own empire away.

[Nicko]

::shrug:: 250 years is a good run.

[dcolton]

I think there is a much bigger picture that must be discussed. I disagree with your conclusion that an empire built on influence crumbles much easier. I would argue that an empire built on influence is much easier sustained. Policy is defined by governments, not the mass populace. In other words...popular opinion of the US or US policies are irrelevent when it comes down to the implementation of foreign policy that is in the best interest of the US and our allies. We ally ourselves with governments...not people...and our relationships are win-win relationships - creating a benefit for all parties involved.

Just my opinion, I enjoyed reading yours...brought up many questions such as:

Under your version of a 'virtual government'...why would the US try to democratize nations? Wouldn't democracy limit a virtual empires influence?

Is the US getting away with the invasion of Iraq because of this 'virtual empire'? If we were a 'traditional' empire power, wouldn't their be greater resistance throughout the 'conquered' states to an unpopular war effort or disagreeable foreign policy?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
... empirism ...

****Grammar nazi alert****
"imperialism"

Interesting post.

BG

[Zimphire]

So what prong is this?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Nicko:
::shrug:: 250 years is a good run.

Yeah, folks have been predicting the fall of the US for almost two and a half centuries.

And it ain't got nuthin but stronger.

[DBursey]

Militarily, anyways. Its economic, social and moral foundations are in various stages of decline. You'll want to check that rot before it sets too deep. November may be a good time to start.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Militarily, anyways. It's economic, social and moral foundations are all developing a little rot just under the surface. You'll want to check that in time.

Our social, moral, and economic "rot" is occuring at a much less rapid pace than nations such as Canada, France, Germany, and others.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm pretty sure we'll have the benefit of learning from the failure and collapse of other nations long before we have problems of our own.

If we're on the road to ruin, then France and Germay are travelling by air, in a supersonic jet.


"An appeaser is one who feeds the alligator in hopes it will eat him last." - Winston Churchill

[PacHead]

The USA aint going nowhere. Some people are so damn pessimistic, and I believe the "decline" of the USA is a sick fantasy and a perverted, wet dream for some. Aint gonna happen.

This is the difference between the right and the left.

THE RIGHT = Proud of the USA. Optimistic. Is not ashamed of their country and doesn't bend over backwards to accomodate hostile countries, and insignificant peoples who will hate us regardless.

THE LEFT = Doom and Gloom. A pessimistic, sad bunch. Are not proud of the USA, and thinks the USA should bend over and take it up the butt, inorder to be friends with hostile, European countries who do not have our best interests at hand. An unpatriotic bunch, who believes in impotence, appeasement, and is uncapable of seeing the real threat at hand.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
If we're on the road to ruin, then France and Germay are travelling by air, in a supersonic jet.

pfft. should that really be the case, the us is actually travelling in the enterprise going sol 10.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by PacHead:
...seeing the real threat at hand:

THE RIGHT

fixed™

[PacHead]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
pfft. should that really be the case, the us is actually travelling in the enterprise going sol 10.

Wanna make a bet ? I bet a few European countries will implode long before the USA. As a matter of fact, I say this will happen in our lifetimes. The USA is not going anywhere, anytime soon.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by PacHead:

THE RIGHT = Proud of the USA. Optimistic. Is not ashamed of their country and doesn't bend over backwards to accomodate hostile countries, and insignificant peoples who will hate us regardless.

You don't remember some right wing preachers claiming that 9/11 was caused by homosexuality, abortions, and rampant immorality.

Both sides have their pessimists. They just differ in their opinion of what style hand basket we're going to Hell in.

BG

[PacHead]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
You don't remember some right wing preachers claiming that 9/11 was caused by homosexuality, abortions, and rampant immorality.

Both sides have their pessimists. They just differ in their opinion of what style hand basket we're going to Hell in.

BG

Nobody is saying that the right doesn't have a few wackos also. They certainly do exist. However, it seems to me that extremism has become the norm for the left, represented by people like Michael Moore and his lying movie, and his wacko band of followers. The Left in 2004 is far more left than anytime previously.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Wanna make a bet ? I bet a few European countries will implode long before the USA. As a matter of fact, I say this will happen in our lifetimes. The USA is not going anywhere, anytime soon.

i'll bet you this. in the not to distant future, nations, will become completely unimportant, as most political and legal decisions will be made by large transnational corporate based organizations, which will have replaced govts and courts.there will be one world currency, and social norms and cultures will be streamlined.

all in our lifetime.

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
****Grammar nazi alert****
"imperialism"

Maybe a Freudian slip

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
... most political and legal decisions will be made by large transnational corporate based organizations, which will have replaced govts and courts.there will be one world currency, and social norms and cultures will be streamlined.

Heh. You’re right.

It’ll be called “Walmart World.”

All shall bow before the Smiley™ .

We’ll all trade in ‘WalBucks’.

Whenever a problem erupts, the Waltons will simply get on the global intercom and call for “cleanup of Isle Seven.”

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Heh. You’re right.

It’ll be called “Walmart World.”

hay, maybe you're right...we're already half way there.

[itai195]

Originally posted by PacHead:
The Left in 2004 is far more left than anytime previously.

I'd like to see you prove that.

[Saul Goode]

Originally posted by PacHead:
The Left in 2004 is far more left than anytime previously.

How could you tell? From what I can see the only thing the left in 2004 stands for is "Look at us, WE"RE NOT BUSH!! WHEEEEEE!"

[Saul Goode]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
i'll bet you this. in the not to distant future, nations, will become completely unimportant, as most political and legal decisions will be made by large transnational corporate based organizations, which will have replaced govts and courts.there will be one world currency, and social norms and cultures will be streamlined.

all in our lifetime.

I get so tired of hearing and reading this kind of unsubstantiated tripe. Doom and gloomers have been spewing things like this forever. Nah gah hap'n.

It must be hell living with such a cynical, twisted, conspiratorial, negative view of things.

[Saul Goode]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
America, I think, cannot sustain this sort of empire indefinitely…[snip]…you cede your own empire away.

There os no precedence for the type of "empire" as you call it, that America has. Our economics, military might and influence in the world is utterly unique. You may be right, but there are way too many things that can change to try and predict what will happen to the U.S.

Nothing goes on indefinitely, but our country is way too dynamic and flexible to the changing tide to let itself fall apart the way you suggest. IMHO.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Saul Goode:
I get so tired of hearing and reading this kind of unsubstantiated tripe. Doom and gloomers have been spewing things like this forever.

"unsubstantiated"? in which hole have you been living?