Yeah, just as I thought, semantics and (unfortunately) ideology. What the fuck do Libertarians have to do with this.Sounds to me like you're off on some tangent that has little to do with what I was discussing. Or is it simply semantics at this point?[
I
You missed the point,.
Nah, you did. It merely obsoleted the old, and brought in the new, which was Rooselvelt's vision for an end to European colonialism and build a 'new world' of independent states; we didn't quite get there, either, but we got more than close enough to call his plans a success. Whether or not the assorted ideological purists on the left or right like it or accept it or not isn't important, they're going to snivel no matter what about some imaginary point or other. Nobody need take them seriously, as they have no real influence, and exist mostly on innernetz message boards. They can lick Rand Paul's and Uncle Bernies' ankles for solace.
The cultural influences remain, just as a lot of the old Roman and Greek influence does in the West.
Sounds to me like you don't know the difference between 'collapse' and evolving relationships. There was no 'Big Giant Collapse', many of those countries are now part of the Commonwealth, and they are bound together under mutual defense treaties as well, but it does sounds a lot more dramatic to claim a 'Collapse' than the reality, right? It's more than 'just 'semantics' for those of us who understand the relationships, it's a political reality. Libertarians love the dramatic version, but then they don't have much a grasp on reality to begin with.
Actually collapse and evolving relationships are often one in the same, the Empire ended (collapsed over time), that doesn't mean Great Briton and it's former empirical colonies didn't form new relationships. We were talking about the end of empire, Great Briton's empire ended but Great Briton did not. Rome ended but Italy did not...... Think you can wrap your myopic brain around that?