Worcester (I have no trouble with the name mate, I live but five minutes drive from the Shire) I think the difference comes in this. 12th August 1949. The British Empire wasn’t overly brutal as Empires go, but Britain always had the option of putting the boot in. Just like in Iraq eighty years ago, RAF carpet bombings ordered to put the rebels in check. For America to do this, as immoral as it may be in the first instance, can’t put 100 terrorists up against a wall and have them shot. But then again, look at the trouble we had of holding onto Ireland. Putting 10 Catholic Nationalists up against a wall, was never any help, as I doubt whether it would be in this case.

Sorry about the nbame Worcester, but I have to disagree with some of your points. The US economy was the worlds largest by the 1880's and was certianly preeminent by the early 1900s. We are having some troubles in Iraq, but that is because we have CHOSEN to acccept them. Lets remember that the British Empire was not a sea of tranquility there were numerous revolts in India and the Boer Wars make what we are going through in Iraq look like a picnic. We are alos talking about differnet times, the British WANTED an Empire..we don't. Plenty of people do ignore out leadership, and plenty of people ignored the British, but they can't ignore our PRESENCE. Our culture is everywhere, our money, our language are dominant in world affairs. The UNtied states is every bit as powerful now a the British Empire was in its heyday..the power is just shown differently.

Your language? Hmm, that’s a new one on me. I know American dialects differ due to the archaic nature of the lexis used, i.e. Fall, being a 17th century word. Yet I don’t think Cherokee, Sioux or the Apache language is rampant through out the world.

I kind of agre with 98c when he says that the us has as much power a the British empire in its heyday,but not fully. I think that america could have a legacy to leave the world that would far out strip anything the british empire left.An that is something the people and leaders should realise,and strive for. Whilst some people may argue the british empire was an oppressive,and expansionist entity,it really did give something back,it was not completely an `evil empire`as some others have been,it took time but it spread democracy,leagal systems,scientific and medical advances,etc etc the world over.Even Hitler admired the stability the empire brought to the world,this was brought about by entereprising and strong individuals and leaders who knew what was right for the world and werent afraid to get on with it. The americans have so much capablity,they could usher in a new world order,or even a true american empire that i hear so many people thinks exists,for the modern world,not soley through force of arms but economic prosperity,a better way of life,the american dream for the world that chooses it.Or needs it.

AAAAAHHHHHH the american dream, pah . anyway i agree with warhammer that america does have the most vast and technologically advanced army but your over confidence in it annoyed me alot .think about it ,if there were to be a massive war between the us and the rest of the world im pretty sure that the uk , the commonwealth countries and other allies the world order would side with europe due to its deep involvment in the european union and tyes to many of the countries in europe. This ofcourse is an assumption but one that i have thought over.

Although I enjoy the conception presented by Worcester on the British Empire (BE), there are certain things which should be taken into consideration. Firstly, the BE actually did not make any real profit from its Colonies (as many may think). The only real value that Colonialism had (while this was not well known at the time)was the prestige involved with gaining land and the like. The main reason why the USA is turning such high negative numbers (per-capita) in relation to the (2nd) colonial period is because of the differences between American foreign policy and the Imperialist policies of the European powers. The USA does not intend to profit from its ventures while the very essence of Imperialism is just that. While countries such as Britain and France were able to extract value from their colonies, there were many other factors which negated most of their gains (although there was no real loss of money either). I am not inferring that Empire building was not benificial however for the simple fact that (and as I have already stated) wealth was attributed directly to colonies - which precipitates the notion of prestige. Secondly, in regards to the notion on power throughout the ages, I dont think that the BE was as dominant in the colonial era as the USA is today. This is based on several factors. For example, although the BE controlled a large portion of the Worlds population, the vast majority of it was invaluable (no offense intended). In present time, the USA has a much larger population in proportion to the rest of the world. In addition, Britain had many worthy rival nations - led by France and Germany. The USA does not have this problem (I wont bother delving into the added complexity that un-conventional devices bring to stage). While it is clear that for a time Britain was the most powerful nation in the World, I will also argue that France too, and Germany for that matter were the most powerful nations for a time. The same goes for Spain and others such as the Mongol Empire (although there seems to be a historic rift between the 'West' and 'East') to name a few. The length of time that these countries carried this title is of course debateable. I would put the USA at the top of this 'all time' strata, followed - albeit distantly - by France and Britain (no order) in the modern era.

i think pakistan would give india a glove slap and say "i dont take crap". trudat

"i dont take crap.....please come again"

Well, I will admit there was quite a bit of arrogance in my post... :) War can be unpredictable, and who knows what surprises might surface in such a scenario. However, as it stands, we can target and destroy any facility we feel is a threat. Not so much over confidence, just stating fact. There is just no army, navy, or air force in the world today that would be able to stop the bombs and cruise missiles from taking out every strategic facility within 300 miles of the coast. Look at the nations today that have aircraft and navies that could attempt to shoot down our planes, and sink our ships. Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, India, and the rest are countries with a handful of second hand equipment, that wouldn't last a week against an Aircraft Carrier, let alone the rest of the USAF and navy. Air superiority is king in the modern age, and while the countries mentioned might be able to shoot down quite a few of our planes, they just don't have capacity and stamina for a full blown war. Do you think that the combined air forces of europe could withstand 8 weeks of bombardment from the 3 Carriers we have in the region? Let alone the heavy bombers flying all the way from Midwest USA. Do you think russia, germany, and france would have enough time to get the factories in full production so they could mount an effective air defense before all the factories they have are reduced to rubble? You can't just build a modern fighter in the neighborhood car assembly line like you could 50 years ago. You drop a bomb on a Mig plant, and just where are you going to assemble the precision modern fighters that would be needed to stop your tank factories from going up in flames. Europe would have a hard enough time fighting off 3 carriers, meanwhile 2-3 more carriers from the states arrive to help. Reinforcements are key. How many nations today have the ability to make their own aircraft? Russia and the United States have made the majority, with the United States still making them, and the Russian aerospace industry is rusty, with most of its plants closed and out of date. France makes a few fighters, don't think the germans have any fighter making capabilities. After the last of the world's supply of Migs run out, who is going to make more? How fast do you think you can rebuild your Aircraft manufacturing capability AFTER we own your skies? You can't get to the United States unless you take out our Air Force. And you can't make your own Air Force unless we let you build your factories in peace. In a conventional world VS America scenario, the world gets one chance to stop America. If we get Air superiority over your skies, you might as well surrender now, and try again after we go back to sleep. The united states has the capacity to take the fight to the enemy, and destroy his ability to make machines that can defend the nation, let alone take the fight back to America. Anyway, I would think that Britain would side with us. Why would she side with France, Germany, and Russia? There isn't nearly as much in common in terms of values, language, and other things. And I am not saying that America says FU world and goes on rampaging and conquering. Of course in that case, Britain would probably side against us, or at least be neutral. I was thinking of a more rational, and practical world war where it is started by a nuke going off in NYC, or something like that. Also, Britain wants to be a part of a France/German run conglomerate state almost as much as Linux wants to give its company to Microsoft. In any case, unless some far left, America hating PM comes to power in the UK, I am inclined to believe we will be on the same side in most cases. PS Avatar: Tried to sound less overconfident this time, and more of showing a picture of what would happen if we went to war with the world right NOW. As it stands, most of the world has been reducing its military might since the cold war, while the US has almost started to surpass that level. The current levels of viable military aircraft and navies in the world, combined with decreased military industial bases would paint a rather sad picture for the opponents of the US in at least in the first few years. In a war that might last 10 years or more, we might be hard pressed to keep the strategic oil reserves that we would have secure to feed the war machine.

oil-to feed the u.s warmachine,do you not think it slightly suspect that the u.s and its only real ally u.k have inserted an understrength army in the middle east,within striking distance of all the opec nations. if the iraq sitaution was to worsen just how much extra muscle has the u.s left in reserve? im not sure. china and the u.s soak up much of the worlds oil exports,and i have noticed that a few people have recognised something of a comparison to todays situation with china and japan of 1940. the u.s and all its military might is still constrained by itss need for oil. Who is to say that somewhere down the line that the us uses the excuse of a worsening condition in iraq,or invasion of syria would need yet more "coalition of the willings" troops in he midle east? hmmmmmm