Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
Regardless of the objective, the fact is that the US has NEVER after a war
expressed any form of imperialism.


What about the Spanish-American war? We took over the Philippines and
later granted their independence. Since 1898, US tax dollars have
frequently crushed guerrilla uprisings in the Philippines.


We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
them as the become economic giants.


That is essentially true, but since we expect a return on investments,
it is more accurate to say the United States has used a more subtle
form of imperialism -- by focusing on economic controls and
preferential trade agreements where possible -- with little or no
emphasis on colonization or direct rule. This is unlike British and
French imperialism which was more all-encompassing; they too wanted
economic control but usually accomplished it through a more direct
style of rule.

Other times Uncle Sam acts against a specific country because we are
more interested in regional stability, such as the current situation
in Iraq. If you are implying that Iraqi oil itelf was not a
significant motive for our invasion, then I agree.


It simply doesn't track that we would suddenly revert to some sort of
oppressive colonial policy.


But military action in the interest of regional stability is just
another way of preserving US financial interests, which by extention
also means preserving our internal security. We have a right to do
just that, and we will exercise that right, whether WMD is involved or
not. If George Z. Bush and Art Kramer disagree, they can always move
to France.