What two countries have utilized "neo-colonialism" since World War II?
547615
Neo-colonialism is such a vague notion that it is impossible to clearly identify it as a country's policy.  Neo-colonialism suggests that a larger or more powerful nation uses its influence to abuse a smaller or less powerful one without ever taking physical or legal control of the state.  In that context, any large or powerful nation could be accused of it, and if they do have any dealings with other nations, would have a hard time proving that they do not influence.\n\nTo single out any two countries is, I believe, silly.  I would say that many nations could be accused of this, including the Soviet Union, China, and even the U.S.  Perhaps even Britain and the Netherlands could qualify depending on how the message is construed, and extreme views could accuse many other nations as well.  Personally, I'm not convinced that neo-colonialism is a real force.
369259
fncking imperialism...
1064182
This is an Out-dated term used for the countries which were not with US or USSR during the Cold War. Now a days it is used variedly.. For Developing Countries or Non - English Speaking ( Latin American or Asian/African ) Countries. Today the term is used differently to according to ones own knowledge of what it means.
477383
Globalization is neo-imperialism. This means the whole world should do what USA tells them to do. Anybody says anything against the western invasion, will be called "Anti-western" and be destroyed by American globalizers. On the other hand it is the god given right of the west to be anti-east. To make sure this plan of globalization works, son-of-a-bush is making sure that nobody else can have nuclear bombs. Only America has used nuclear bomb in the past and only they can have it.
626971
The modern British empire is the legacy of liberal democracy, spread of English as the lingua franca (hat tip previous poster) and legal code. Imagine if we were living under the Napoleonic code - you couldn't scratch yourself if there wasn't a law saying you were allowed.
533712
Phillipines?\nGrenada?\n\nDepending on your definition, "intervention" could mean simply military support or sales of arms.  That could include almost any country while not directly aligned against the US.  South Korea and Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Italy, etc.\n\nAs an interesting side-assignment, count up the number of USSR interventions and compare.  Try the 1945 - 1990 timeline.  Also examine communist rule vs. US rule while in control. (Pol Pot vs. Norodom Sihanouk, Ho Chi Minh vs. Ngo Dinh Diem, Eastern Europe before, during, and after)
45937
None, as the Commonwealth of Independent States was simply a name given to the former USSR when then country started to split apart in the early 1990's.
399383
The US and UK have enjoyed a "special relationship" since the beginning. I don't think the "colony" thing is permanent; Tony Blair wanted to be Bush's lapdog, but I think he (and the British public) has learned his lesson.
281835
try "The Great War For Civilisation" by Robert Fisk.  You will need to go back further than 20 years too as the current problems are rooted in the decisions made after the first and second world wars.  This book covers other countries in the Middle East too.
465895
Korea\nVietnam\nDomnican Republic\nIraq\n\nThis site has a list of operations by the US Armed Forces before and after WW II:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_actions_by_or_within_the_United_States
675521
China. \n\nTaiwan was in the UN in the place of China until the 60's
407434
certainly,cuba is for Cubans, Germany is for the Germans; and so forth, why espouse democracy,independence and self reliance  to the people of the World when in reality these are not being practiced. These are only rhetorics a misnomer
459650
here is the list....\n1. zimbabwe....35\n2. canada .....36 ...2003\n3. pakistan....43....1993( noy sure of year)
577486
imperialism and capitalism
1139866
A third world country these days usually refers to a developing country. IOW third world means a poor country with a low standard of living, limited healthcare, limited education and so forth.\n\nThere used to be second world countries, but not any more.\n\nAfter the second world war the world was described as being divided in two. The first world consisted of the westernised capitalist nations headed by the US and England but including Japan, Australia, Canada and so forth. The second world was the communist bloc headed by the USSR and China but including Poland, Cuba, Vietnam, Poland and so forth.\n\nThe term "Third World" was coined to describe all those nations that were not strongly aligned with either camp. Initially this referred to nations such as India and Egypt or Chile that were quite happy to do business with Russia or America based entirely on who gave them the most aid. Eventually the term expanded to refer to all the poor nations.\n\nSo basically "First World" = westernised capitalist nations, "Second World" = communist nations, "Third World" = poor nations not aligned with either first or second world powers.\n\nThese days there aren't really any second world nations. China is the only communist power left, and it is becoming so capitalistic so fast that it hardly deserves the title communist. The remaining handful of communist nations such as Cuba and North Korea are so weak that they don't warrant the term 'second world'. Today we really only refer to first and third world, with Cuba for example considered to be squarely third world.\n\n\nMore commonly we simply refer to developed and developing world.
235536
England. I'm basing this off Joseph Lee's book where he says "Developments towards a welfare state after the war owe more to English example than to indigenous impulse". So, in effect, he says we copied the system from Britain.
346030
i think i have to go with Czechoslovakia.. except its not a country anymore. how about turkmenistan? leichtenstein?