In college I used to get into arguments with my father when I would state that the United States was imperialistic. He used to get irritated with me because of it. Do I think that the United States is about the business of colonizing and obtaining land to call it an extension of the U.S.? No. But, I do feel that we are ideologically imperialistic. In the past decade this has shown itself to be a very damaging aspect to this country. I think this can be stretched, at least, back to the end of WWII with the NSC-68 or the "policy of containment". In many ways it seemed like we backed ourselves into a corner politically in terms of foreign policy not leaving much room for revision.

My question now is this: Since we are a major world power we have to be mindful and proactive about our "fellow man" which includes all peoples in all countries in terms of making sure people like Hitler, Milosevic, Hussein, Bin Laden, etc do not cross the boundary into genocide, malevolent dictatorships, and general human rights violations. And, because I do not believe that ideological imperialism is a route that will lead to positive results, as it has yet to do so in 50 years, how do we reconcile ourselves with military presence in multiple countries and pre-emptive wars (i.e., Iraq) with the general idea that we have a responsibility to humanity internationally? I think of the cliche, "give a man a fish; feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish; feed him for a lifetime". How do we do this without slipping into ideological imperialism which leads us to not just promoting democracy but forcing our "Empire of Liberty" onto the rest of the world (who may or may not desire this) via wars and increased violence?

alex, i'll take the rapist for $100.

"Looking out for number one." Having said that, I think for the major part the world respects us as the lone Super power. Inevitably we have to live up to the part or in some cases convince ourselves that we are doing so, even when some may argue or disagree with our methods. But then again, I don’t really see much willingness, capability or cooperation from other Nations when it comes to clear and concise effective plans for resolving world issues. As the saying goes, doing something is better than doing nothing at all.
In recent years our ever growing dependence on foreign oil is well recognized as the nation's Achilles heel. That factor alone appears to largely influence our policies and how we view the rest of the world. Remember which country nineteen of the twenty-one hijackers came from.

Acquisition and maintenance of foreign land (with the cooperation of the Nations involved) for security reasons could be seen as a responsible strategic measure, for example U.S. presence in South Korea. Strategic positioning for access and expediency, again with the full cooperation of that foreign government, is quite understandable. But, we most certainly run into wide criticisms and resentment if the intent, no matter how obfuscated or wrongly perceived, is to induce imperialism in order to find new markets and resources for economic exploitation. I’m not quite sure what our full intent for Iraq was and I’ve heard various reasons why we went in. But one thing is certain, our presence is not allowing us to accomplish whatever it was we went in for. I wish we had paid more attention to Afghanistan.

I would like to see us and other Nations exert the strongest diplomatic effort and resources to resolve the complex Middle East issue. It is way past time to find a peaceful solution to the biggest causation of anger, and animosity regarding our foreign policies in that region. But remember we may still have to go to foreign places. It's a global community.

I agree that going other places is a necessity. I guess I am just curious to know how we can go other places and fulfull the role of "superpower" without getting knee-deep in a shitditch of unwinable wars and further resentment toward our "goodwill". Promoting democracy is one thing. Forcing other countries to have a democratic society is another, you know what I mean?

Oh, I understand what you are saying. One can simply say that we went about it the wrong way this time- try getting our esteemed political leaders to agree on that one.

“Promoting democracy?” among all the other reasons we’ve been told. If true, then we have a whole lot of World real estate to democratize- impossible dream.

I have a hard time viewing this as anything but imperialistic. Note the signatories.

Article quote: "..shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?"

Nice read Sketch. The signatories are 'frightening' people indeed, they all reek of power and arrogance. Nothing wrong at all with securing plans and advancing national interests for the future. My hope is that we go about it without 'kicking sand in our neighbor's face.' The current either you're with us or against us way of advancing principles only leaves a long trail of global angst.

I think we need to go to our room and think about things for a while.

We can only come out when we decide to play nicely with others.

You couldn't have said it any better. In approximately four days we'll find out if any lessons have been learnd and if were are ready to adjust 'our attitude.'

I am not sure that democrats are the answer to learning to play nicely. I guess ushering in a democratic controlled senate et al would show that people are interested in seeing if someone else can do a better job. We'll never know unless they actually win and get a chance. Almost enough to make me want to vote this year.

Poor men wanna be rich, rich men wanna be kings,
And a king aint satisfied till he rules everything.



---Bruce Springsteen

it's not an intellectual political conversation until Bruce Springsteen is quoted.

Yes, that quote does capture the essence of the topic and issue at hand and such is the nature of man.

I also agree with Chappy. We are stuck with a two-party system (no offence to Independents) and I don't know if the Dems will do any better, but our current course could use some fresh approach and adjustments.
If ten, fifteen or twenty years from now we still in Iraq and the Middle East fighting then we can forget all that talk about sustaining favorable American influence and principles around the world.