Ed, but the modern empire doesn't necessarily need physical occupation of countries .... instant communications, battle groups and aircraft carriers cruising perpetually offshore and the potential for fast response airlifts are more than enough to ensure at least a similar degree of influence that, for example, the Brits had to control their empire a hundred years or so ago. The Brits ruled India etc not by having massive Brit occupation forces but by ensuring that they had in place ruling maharajas etc that owed their existence to the Brits. One similar modern example might be the House of Saud and it's easy enough to find others.
This idea of empire might be a good analogy .... I wouldn't be at all surprised if 100 years or so ago the Brits weren't considered to be arrogant, jingoistic adventurers by other countries ... it goes with the territory so to speak .... but what I find "disappointing" is that most Americans don't seem to realise or accept that their govt's foreign policy PR or spin campaigns over the last few years have been almost solely directed towards keeping Americans backing the administration's policies rather than, perhaps, trying to appear more reasonable and balanced to other countries .... and I wouldn't criticize that approach - it's perfectly legitimate ... but PR and spin campaigns create powerful images and aggressive defence against a few adverse jokes/comments doesn't help ......
....... but I didn't intend to get into all this stuff ...... the OP noted that, compared to other English language boards, there appeared to be few Brits and Irish here and wondered why ..... I've given my own view .... this board covers a wide range of issues and I know I wouldn't be able to constrain myself to commenting only on ER topics therefore as it looks as though I'm possibly heading into trouble fairly soon I think I'd better fade away back into the shadows again .......