factfinder

The only place where the globalization does not work are the UN. Formerly ,the danger presented the regional dominance but today it is unthinkable that a small state(e.g.the Netherland Kingdom)could become a world power when it is not a geostrategical superpower .
The former world menacing empires have nothing comparable with the US empire. The empires of days gone may have thought they were the heart of the world but did not think of dominating the world alone ...
The US have not practised the colonialism in its true sense(with a short exception of the 19/20th cent.) - instead they grippingly wittingly formed satellite states ..
The condition sine qua non for the former regional powers were strategical navy bases around the world , that´s why the British flag is today flying over Gibraltar which is a weird international demilitarised zone on the Moroccan side only , St. Helen and Flakland Islands but the US began to feel the need for them as late as aafter December 1941 and gained them in a more simple way than Britain - by way of "voluntary" contractual engagement.
Another difference lies in style is that the British empire bore a sherly British design while the American one ,as well as the Bolshevik empire, was established on the idea that the rest of the world has to follow it or else it must be "liberated " and was built under the label of the revolutionary universalism,i.e. watching the observance of human rights - though they might have followed an example of Britain that justified its naval presence in the shooting-grounds of other regional powers under the pretext of watching the world ban on the slave trade while the speciality of the SU how to come to the vasal states was its support of the "nations struggling for their liberation " ...
The British empire whose power was in a sense more global than the American one because it ruled over the seas as the US can never rule over the air never dreamt of its hegemony over the US or Europe for it knew its limits .
When Britain ceased to be a commercial artery of the world, it became its financial heart but the US economy was based on a totally different strategy - as they were ,unlike from exporting Britain, importing the goods,the American business circles protected the American home market but their protectionism is colliding with the ideology of a free market they are advertising beyond their borders.
Another difference from the former British empire is the impact of the military-industrial mafia whose influence was publicly criticised by Pres. Dwight D.Eisenhower while in the UK the arms production kept falling, the British relics being e.g. aaircraft engines Rolls-Royce ...
The US produced weapons as a sport but the SU was soon out of breath snorting heavily behind their neck . The idyllic American hegemony was substantially infringed by gen. de Gaulle whom the US completely ignored as the head of the French resistance movement abroad during the WWII (in spite of the lamentation of the CIA de Gaulle survived all the attempts on his life ) who dared extend the American invention of atlantism to Ural when the US opposed an independent European defence, and did not hesitate in 1966 to withdraw the French military establishment from the NATO ...
After the collapse of the SU the rip between the US and EU broadened: the EU di not need the American military umbrella and the US did not need the pedantic EU and began to act on their own - iI Bosna they demonstrated to the hesitating EU that " the dirty work has to be done by someone" ...
The US have no intention to practise the occupation of the whole planet but while their modus operandi is clear enough, the final aim of their strategy is rather impenetrable .
The US militarily prevail and there is no one to match them but their economic resources are weakening and their share in the world economy grows less and less . They are very vulnerable - how about if the OPEC demands the oil invoicing in euro and not in dollars ???
The US cannot ever succeed in democratising the Middle East because democracy lies in the republican education from the family tradition .They can never turn the Arabs and Co. into democrats if they tolerate the islam, practising in the 21st cent. the inferiority of women, interfering with the state affairs and slavery still booming in Maghrib and subSaharian states and elsewhere .
Does Washington really think that another Shia republic (and another Shia oil power) will be better than the Sunni regime in Ryad ??? Does Washington know what it is doing in the Middle East - or is it just playing Rambo ???
Bush Senior tried to make a hole in the Middle East by putting pression on the Israelis in 1991,the AgainBorn Christian Bush Junior by putting the military pressure on the Arabs and Co.
During the intervention in Bagdad Bush ,not wishing to repeat the mistake from Vietnam, followed the Putin´s great example from Chechnya and tried to get out of the field all TV channels not belonging to his fanclub and all journalists not worshipping him as a hero but he ,unlike Putin, failed : the CNN remained and covered the events in a more gruesome way than the Pentagon´s Fox News - hopefully, in the next military intervention (against Syria or Saudi Arabia ) Washington will be in the know already if he learns from the media empire of Silvio Berlusconi ...
How long will the hegemony of the US last ? Let´s be afraid that it will fade out of a total lack of interest of the American themselves, all the more so that the costs for Iraq are bearing the Americans unlike from the Gulf War ...