>Quite true. I would be part of Columbia, have no canal and probably very little else. (except perhaps malaria ) Imperialism does have an up-side for the Imperialized. Suez Canal, Panama Canal, India's rail system and government etc. English and American colonies didn't do badly and for the most part didn't have to do a whole lot to throw us out. Spanish, Portuguese, French, Belgian, German, Dutch ... not so much.
>
>( and in many cases - the non-Moguls in India for example - having a big power find it in their interests to play you off against the other side can turn out to your benefit. )
>
>Of course we do it to protect American interests. That is the point. The only question is, does it also benefit the local people. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It is not the work of angels. But smart people know the best - and only sustainable - deals are win-win. Creating zero-sum games leads to instability and ultimately failure.

Charles,

I think you just made Nicholas day by recognizing the US as Imperialist <g>

I fully agree with what you said about English and American colonies, heck sometimes I wished Buenos Aires defenses would have not been so good and defeated the invading English twice (or thrice? can't remember), I believe Argentina would now be a much better country now. Having said that, I do not condone countries invading another countries without direct provocation (and preferably without staging the provocations "pour le gallerie") as we all know it is not an act of charity and there is always an interest behind it, even if we cannot see it.

>
>When I agreed to play the game all they promised me was I wouldn't get bored and I'd be on the side of the angels "more often than not" <s>

I am sure that looking from the other side it was more not than often <g>