highthief

Or is it enlightened? I was thinking that (in light of the recent California execution) that the US is one of the very few (maybe the only?) Western nation with an active death penalty. It's the only Western nation without universal health care. It's the only Western nation that still seems to have aspirations of some degree of imperialism. It has the largest gap between rich and poor of Western nations.

Is the US therefore behind the times, or is the US ahead of the times (will other nations abandon universal health, restore the death penalty and invest hugely in the military?). Nations have, after all, made such changes before.

This is not a US bashing thread. Take it elsewhere if that's what you want to do. It's a legitimate question that needs to be answered in a dispassionate manner.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Charlatan

In my mind the US is the last great European power. Due to their size, natural resources and geographical isolation they have managed to build a strong safe secure homefront... something the other European nations could not.

But they do share the same acquisitive, domineering, imperialist attitude as the nations of Europe that they left. Yes, they can do good things for the world, but so did the European powers.

I think there was a time in the early days of the US where it might have turned out differently but they didn't choose that path.

This is not a bash at all. Simply the way I see the evolution of the USA.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

stevie667

We did! We just beat the crap outa each other in the 40s and had to lose a few hundred thousand square miles of colonial terratories to cover out costs.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

albania

Each country has it's own moral prerogatives, they ascribe some of these prerogatives into laws, some have a strict moral code others have a liberal one. Neither is necessarily better or right but it seems as though generally a more liberal moral code is the manifestation of modernity, or advancement.

Seaver

Whats wrong with the death pentalty?

If you put someone in prison for life, they wont care. They will (and do) kill anything and everyone they can. They will riot, break as many things as they can, kill as many guards as they can. They will rape, they will be raped, they'll live the rest of their life with no hope beyond the 3ft of cell they have. They'll never so much as touch a woman or enjoy something as simple as watch the sun set.

Personally I'd rather be put to death.

alpha phi

Put in that light the "ultimate punishment"
is less of a punishment than life in prison.

I must agree with you on "Personally I'd rather be put to death"
Live free or die.
I wonder if this would change the mind of those
who see the death penality as punishment.

__________________

Lebell

Just some quick thoughts.

IMO, the discussion is meaningless without a discussion regarding the former Soviet Union and the cold war.

Younger people now really don't get how serious it was and what the stakes were. The Soviets had real plans to isolate the United States with an increasing number of Communist governments which would have had serious repercutions for us and the entire west.

Now the question is, is there a need for a lone superpower?

Personally, I think if we voluntarily left the stage, it wouldn't remain empty for long. China has made real noise about being a superpower while the ultra-right islamists have long pined for a regional Islamic state in the middle east. Right now, I don't see anyone else stepping up to the plate to answer these threats.

I think that the rest of the World bemoans us while they are secretly glad we are around.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Ustwo

My take is that socialism has made Europe weak. I used to think that was a good thing as it kept them from killing each other, as is their want every 50 years or so. I think I was being short sighted as I was not thinking of threats from the east (China), or the growing Islamic militant movement. A strong Europe is important as long as they can (for once) keep their guns from pointing at each other. America alone will not be enough, but with Europe the Western ideals of personal freedom will prevail. While socialist politics and polices have made Europe weaker and poorer then it should be, and non-integrated immigration has torn at the social fabric (they ARE done rioting in Paris right?) and taxed the system even more, I think there is a budding movement away from those policies.

This cusp will come when the social system can no longer be supported by the shrinking tax base. The question will be, will the socialists go kicking and screaming, dragging everything down until there is no choice but to change policies, or will wiser policy prevail and Europe will adopt a system closer to that of Ireland.

I would not call America enlightened or anachronistic in all this, we operate in a different set of circumstances than Europe, and as such or policies will be different. We may well shift to the feel good but ultimately crippling policies of socialism for a time, but for now we are what we are.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Gatorade Frost

While I completely support America, I believe this statement reeks of "to the victor goes the spoils" and since we won, America's writing the history on the subject. Of course had America fallen and the USSR controlled the world, America would be the evil capitalist nation who starved children and didn't have universal health care, etc. They would be saying 'If the USA won, there would have been serious repercussions to us and our smaller Communist allies.'

I don't think there's ever technically a need for a single superpower, but whether it ends that way isn't exactly subject to what the world needs. If a country ends up as a super power, I suppose that's good for them and they have more sway in the world.

If America just collapsed at this very second? I think that Britain, Russia, and China, would fight for dominance. At the moment the Middle Eastern nations are too fractured to rebuild the Ottoman Empire, so as far as I can tell that couldn't happen. I say Britain because as a whole they've been a fairly steady power, and at the moment they have their military in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. which gives them more sway in the Middle East and in world affairs. This is just from an American perspective, though, so as to whether they're as powerful and independent as I think they are could just be my ignorance on the matter. Russia of course is still powerful, just a bit broken. They're still militarily strong; while their standing manpower is iffy their access to the black market and to basically be ing the arms super power in the world to the highest bidder makes them a powerful force. Of course China is an obvious choice to become a super power because they have the world's largest standing military, access to nuclear weapons, a huge economy, etc. but at least from my perspective they seem a bit est ranged from the world culturally, governmentally, by language, etc. so their ability to gain dominance wouldn't expand as much as it potentially could.

Back to the original poster, I haven't ever seen a real reason that America should be compared to the rest of the 'Western powers.' From what I can tell our style of government has worked out for us for the last 250 years and both through that and our access to land we have grown from a small group of colonies to the world super power.

If at some point the majority of the American public decided that the death penalty wasn't soemthing that represented them it could, though infeasibly, pass an amendment to make it so. Or they could move from whatever state their in to a state without the death penalty. At this moment too many people support the death penalty for that to change, and honestly that's ok for the American people.

In the future I suspect that many other nations will have to give up on their health care programs. Not necessarily because I have any facts to back me up at this moment because in all honesty I don't, but universal health care seems too expensive to me in the long run. Not enough people contributing equally to it without a proportional cost for running it in a reasonable manner.

__________________
I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well."
Emo Philips

alansmithee

Well, I could disagree with some of your initial premises (especially the imperialism one) but it's irrelevant. The US is neither an anachronism or ahead of the times, it simply is. Events are cyclical, and countries/people/everything evolves to whatever situation is best for that particular period. If the heavy tax burdens and foreign subsidising of universal health care become too much, other nations will abandon it. Or if public health becomes too low and other coutries start footing some of the bill, the US will try universal health care. And not all parts of the US have death penalty, only certain states do. And the only way of feasibly lowering the gap between rich and poor would be to outlaw rich people. This isn't healthy, and Europe is feeling the pinch because of their lesser wealth imbalance. I recently read an article in the Wall Street Journal about how Europe is unable to attract the well-educated and skilled foreigners required to keep up to date with their sagging birth rates because those foreigners choose either to go to the US (where there is a greater chance of increasing their wealth) or stay in their home countries. It seems Europe is only able to attract low-skill workers, and France is only the first to see what that eventually leads to.

Charlatan

From some of the things I've been reading about immigration policies, the European nations have often made it a point of seeking out unskilled labour as immigrants rather than looking for the upper eschalons.

I was reading an article where the German immigration ministers and other European immigration policy wonks were looking at and admiring the Canadian immigration policy for it's ability to seek out and attract skilled labour (doctors, engineers, etc.).

Sadly the article failed to mention the problems these skilled people are having once they get here... Many arrive only to find they are not accredited to do their job. They end up driving taxis and working in restaurants. This is an issue in the current election that should heat up as the immigrant vote is strong.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Poppinjay

America operates on a unique platform. Despite what folks like Limbaugh say, we have a weak central government. In a land this large, you just can't have the same rules for folks in Nebraska that you have for folks in NYC. There are some hot button issues that would seemingly make America appear to be an anachronism, but those are glam issues. The real progressiveness of America is that people in Baltimore can fashion their rules and laws to suit their needs. Those needs will be vastly different from people in Ogallala.

Not all states have the death penalty. To each his own.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

Rodney

There is an old maxim in government: "Guns or butter?" Meaning, does the government give domestic programs a high priority, or military programs? In the old days, 1950 and earlier, the common wisdom was that you couldn't do both because there wasn't enough money; you had to choose. And in those days, military forces were usually cut to the bone between wars.

In Europe, after the two great wars that nearly ruined them all, they put butter first. Makes sense; they had much to rebuild (with U.S. help), and the U.S. occupation provided security. The United States, as the sole undamaged _economic_ superpower, could afford guns _and_ butter for several decades. Partly because much of the social spending that government had to take care of in Europe was handled here by employer-funded benefits.

Now, we're not so rich anymore -- or at least the wealth is increasingly distributed in a way that the old employer-funded social services are not as available. But we're the only major power currently putting guns above butter. Even the Chinese gov't is putting a lot more emphasis on economic development (arguably butter) than guns.

So in my mind that is our major difference -- not touching on any of the reasons why guns have been a priority for the U.S. I personally think that without more spending on butter, we'll be unable eventually to care for and maintain the guns that we have bought, much less lift them and aim them inaccurately.

So in the end I think that both the U.S. and the European nations and Canada are -- well, not anachronisms. But unbalanced in a way that cannot continue. We will not be able to spend so much on guns indefinitely. And they should find a way to fund some of their own, instead of depending on an outside source. If they could give up their individual national pride and field a single continental defense force, they could probably afford to do it without spending much more. Just as we, if we really looked at an intelligent redesign of the U.S. health services and educational establishments, could probably deliver sterling services to all without spending much more, to a net economic gain for America.

raeanna74

America is supposed to be considered the land of opportunity. Immigrants once saw it as such. Opportunity is useless unless the person presented with the opportunity has the ambition and work ethic to take advantage of it. The very extreme poles seen in our society are a result of each person's willingness to take advantage of opportunities given them. Until socialism or another type of system begins to rule the country and distribute wealth more equally we will not see a change in that.

I personally see the death penalty as almost an outgrowth of this same mindset - you choose what to make or your life. Everything is a consequence of our actions. You kill someone you've chosen to have your life ended.

As for the universal health care. I really think our country would be better served by supporting this type of system. Our health care system still serves people based on how much they've made of the opportunities presented to them.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

Seaver

Bit of a stretch in my opinion. If you hold a gun to a person's head to make them evacuate their home of a thousand years, force them to work on dangerous building projects (say he lucks out and loses an arm), and then force him to move to a new village (where acient feuds exist), then force him to work in a cramped environment making $2/week so that they can afford a new class of jets. Is that butter?

Rodney

Good point, though I'd argue some of the specifics. I don't say economic development is being done for the best interests of all Chinese, let's say (or in a humane or just or egalitarian manner), but it is focused on building up the country's economic might, not military might. Arguably butter.

To be fair, there are some forces in the Chinese gov't -- including the new #1 guy -- who realize that China can't really develop beyond a low-cost export power unless they start sharing the wealth with the little guy, though better wages and societal guarantees, and thus jump-start internal demand. Kind of like Henry Ford, back in the 1910's, deciding to raise his line workers' pay substantially so they could all afford to buy his cars. Thus starting a real boom in the industry.

Who's to say that China won't put guns over butter later, though, when they're richer and feeling fat and sassy? No one. That's certainly what happened with the U.S.

I do know that you're not a true superpower unless you've got the economic might to back sufficient military might. China's not there yet, though it might be someday not too far off.

And it can be argued that the U.S. no longer does have the economic might to support our military might and thus has limited time left as a superpower. Because we have to borrow from the Chinese, Japanese, and Europeans to maintain our current guns/butter mix. Go too far along that road, and international bankers will do more to take America down than all the nukes and planes in all the other arsenals in the world ever could.

Seaver

Well I'll concede your point there. However it doesn't take a genious to figure out they're investing in "butter" simply for what is called "defensive developmentalism."

It's what happened to the Ottoman Empire and followed by the M.E. countries since. They want a good military first and foremost. For that you need to get rid of the old feif systems and install a new capitalistic one for income. For that you need to nationalize the economy so the state controls it for max development. For that you need bureacracy. For that you need education. For that you need personal liberties in the public sphere. For that you need good economic conditions. For that...

You see where it goes, completely re-writes the society. China is trying to do that but stopping at state controls of development. They will either stop there and start re-investing in the military, or lead it to it's conclusion of an open/free society.

Unfortunately for most of the ex-Ottoman states, they stopped at state controls as well. We know what fruit that tree has blossomed.

Suave

Well you're accurate in most your statements, but all Western nations (discounting Mexico and South America) are still economically imperialist. The US just stands out as the most powerful of them.

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

rat

Equality of opportunity, not of results. That is the driving mentality behind our socio-economic system. America is void of guaranteed results. Many go hungry. Many feast, and know not the pangs of hunger. But either way, dedication, hard work, discipline and self-reliance have created some of the richest, most powerful, and successful men and women of our nation, regardless--or even despite--their backgrounds. If that's barbaric, I'll take barbarity over civilization any day.

__________________

Suave

Unfortunately, equality of opportunity is a myth. The invisible hand doesn't regulate markets and give everyone a fair shot; it holds down those who don't have power to begin with. The majority of people in America are born into their wealth, and the opportunities pertaining to gaining wealth. It is like this in any economy, but the issues of structural inequality do decrease with greater impelementation of social programs.

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

Aladdin Sane

The United States is the reason the other western countries can have luxuries like socialized health care and country club prisons. Contrary to popular belief, mankind has not entered some new enlightened age where the lion and the lamb have laid down together. The only thing standing between the relative international stability we see today and global chaos is the U.S. Sixth Fleet and the American will to use it. If the United States didn't spill the treasure and blood necessary to slam some little murderous despot up against the wall every 10 years or so, western countries that depend on the United States for defense would be in deep shit. Most "allies" depend on the United States to keep the sea lanes open and the skyways safe. If Canada was unable to deliver its lumber across the ocean it wouldn't be long before its prosperity would end.

I'm betting it will happen again before all who are reading this reach old age: there will arise yet another genocidal utopian ideal that will threaten civilization, and the only country that will be able (and willing) to stop it will be the USA. So yes, in that sense, we are an anachronism.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

highthief

Conceited much?

Seriously, some people really overestimate the importance of the US in the world, as if the earth would stop spinning if the US took a different position.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

WillyPete

Is it just me or does the US tend to be happiest when dealing in non-eurpoean countries with Dictators, monarchs and autocratic governments.
The US policies don't tend to settle well with countries that follow a true democratic pattern.

Charlatan

Typical. While I can appreciate that the US spends more on their military that we do, it isn't just our lumber that makes us wealthy (if you want to call it that).

The US is quite happy to purchase our oil as well and I expect when your states start to dry out in the next 10 years (as the US geological survey predicts) you will also pay big for our water.

The real question is will we have the backbone to say "no" to the US water interest unlike our stupid position of US oil interests (see the NAFTA agreement).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

stevie667

Someones being listenting to too much propaganda if you ask me

That may have been true some 50-60 years ago, with u-boat patrolling the shipping lanes and bombers raining death from the skies, but unless someones failed to mention something along the way, i think your information is a tad out of date.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

Aladdin Sane

This is true until there is a manmade or natural disaster anywhere in the world. Then, it's not that the United States is lacking influence; no, then it becomes there is no end to the malevolent, evil, bloodsucking reach of American fangs. An earthquake hits south Asia? Uncle Sam caused it. A hurricane hits the Gulf Coast? It's George Bush's fault. Islamofascists bomb London--yep, if not for the United States...

As historian Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote:

"The world does not hate the United States. Of course, it envies us. Precisely because it is privately impressed by our unparalleled success, it judges America by a utopian measure in which anything less than perfection is written off as failure. We risk everything, our critics abroad almost nothing. So the hope for our failures naturally gives reinforcement to the bleak reality of their inaction.

The Europeans expect our protection. The Mexicans risk their lives to get here. Indians and Japanese want closer relations. The old commonwealth appreciates our strength in defense of the West. Even the hostile Iranians, North Koreans, Cubans, Venezuelans, Chinese, and radical Islamists — despite the saber-rattling rhetoric — wonder whether we are naïve and idealistic rather than cruel and calculating. All this we rarely consider when we read of anti-Americanism in our major newspapers or hear another angry (and usually well-off) professor or journalist recite our sins.
The European way is not the answer, as we see from the farcical negotiations over Iran’s time bomb. Struggling with a small military, unsustainable entitlement promises, little real economic growth, high unemployment, falling birth rates, angry unassimilated minorities, and a suicidal policy of estrangement from its benefactor the United States, Europeans show already an 11th-hour change of heart as we see in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, and soon in France."

Soon the mad mullahs in Tehran will have the bomb. Who will the world look to for security when they threaten to use it? Canada? France? When the nutty little dictator in North Korea threatens Japan, or the tyrannical regime in Beijing invades Taiwan, who will receive the global 911 call for help?

One sure way to move past all the propaganda is to examine conditions on the ground. Let's use the Door Test. When the door is slung open which way do people move? For all immigrants worldwide the number one destination is the "anachronistic" United States. Even with the death penalty and private health care firmly in place, during the last 10 years twice the number of immigrants have chosen to come to the United States than to all the other western countries combined. This does not even account for the millions of illegal U.S. immigrants. Ask those millions why they came here and continue to die to get here. I suspect their view of the United States would not match your own.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Ustwo

Well said Aladdin Sane well said. They won't get it but well said none the less

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Charlatan

Yes... there are many who immigrate to the US (legally and ilegally). There are also many who immigrate in the same ways to other parts of the world.

Does this really have anything to do with envy of the US per se? I'd argue no. Envy of the opportunities that are on offer in much of the developed world? Yes.

As for the international community wanting the US to be the Global Police. I would say it is not as cut and dry as you would have it. It isn't that the weight of the US armed forces isn't appeciated. There are definately times when it is. The one big issue that gets to the root of most nations problem is unilateralism.

When under the auspices of the UN or NATO there are few problems with American involvment in a region (i.e. Gulf War 1, Serbia, etc.). There are those who are upset with any action but I am not talking about them. I am talking about those who look at Gulf War 2 and say, What are they there again? Why are they making problems for everyone?

The answer from the US is, ineveitably, because we can and we want to.

No listening to their so called allies.

I don't expect the warhwks on this board (and elsewhere) to understand this. After all might is right and the USA is certainly mighty.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Gatorade Frost

I suppose I'm a warhawk so as you said, I don't quite understand this as well as more objective views can, but how I see it "because we can and we want to" does not effectively answer the question aside from grossly over simplification of the situation.

Anyone can say "Why does anyone do anything?" "Because we can and we want to." That's not a strong argument because it's just like saying "Why do we breathe?" "Because we can and we want to." It ignores the fact that without oxygen we can't survive, but to the argument "Because we want to and we can" fits the question.

To apply this to world politics, saying "Why did America invade Iraq?" and having the response "Because we can and we want to" ignores all of the valid (and occasionally invalid) reasons for going to war. This isn't a "Why did we invade Iraq" thread, so I won't get into that, I'm just pointing out what I see as a flaw in your argument of saying "Because we can and we want to"

__________________
I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well."
Emo Philips

highthief

I have not stated my views, so I'm not sure how you can accertain how the views of immigrants (like my parents, like my wife's entire family, etc) will or will not match my own. Your argument has this very basic, fatal flaw in it.

Meanwhile, millions upon millions emigrate to other western nations. Canada has a higher rate (as a percentage of population) than the US, for example. With 300 million people, the US certainly has the capacity to absorb large numbers of immigrants.

Does the US have a role to play in the world? Yes. An important role? Yes. But not the super-hero, godlike role you ascribe to it. And to be frank, it is people such as yourself who sound off so vociferously about the US being better than everyone else put together that has, more than anything, turned a lot of opinion against the US around the world. It's one thing to have pride in your nation, it is another to put everyone else (including your allies) around you down to try and make yourself look bigger.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

TheObserver

I'd say that the United States for many reasons is still a very primitive country, due to certain laws, and regulations, such as in the case of abotrion, the death penalty... As for world control/influence, that's on everyone's mind to some degree.. It's just America seems arrogant enough to try and actively/directly implement it.

Charlatan

Fair enough... but given that I was addressing "unilateralism" I think most can see what I was getting at.

Perhaps it would have been better to say... "We don't care what you think. We're going to do it anyway. Damn the consequences."

It is one thing to be an important part of Global Security it is entirely another to just throw your weight around like the school yard bully. People start to resent this.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Aladdin Sane

The U.S. has no need to make itself look "bigger." No need at all. You ascribe to my words a meaning that is not there.

"...it is people such as yourself..."
You are the only one here who has dared call the United States "godlike." In debate it is the opponent who makes things personal who has lost. C.S. Lewis described this tactic as "Bulverism," after a professor who, being unable to defend his weak position, attacked the motive or personality of his adversary.

It is quite alright to point out the perceived failings of the United States; suggestions that it is backwards and/or the cause of all conflict in the world is the coin of the realm. There is no quicker way to get yourself deemed a genius than to point out a U.S. failure. Much of the world press doesn't hesitate to lay the blame for almost anything at Uncle Sam's door. Fair enough. I wouldn't change that if I could. It clarifies things. It's good to know what folks are thinking. On the other hand, let one person stand up and defend the "Great Satan" America and suddenly they are jingoistic, imperialist, Nationalistic, and...OOOOOOH, How dare you defend yourself! Why should it be acceptable to condemn the United States but not to defend her?

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Suave

What do you have to back up your claims aside from speculation? The European countries are all essentially in bed with each other, and the only reason dictatorial countries, such as some in North Africa, might have the military resources to mount an assault on a wealthy nation is because of arms deals brokered by the United States and former USSR. The best the United States can accurately claim is perhaps that their military acts as a safeguard against the situation that the American government has played a central role in facilitating.

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

highthief

I'm only responding to your words - I never attacked the US (you may perceive it that way, perhaps because you don't like the word "imperial", even though it fits - just as it fit the Soviets, Brits, French, Germans and any other superpower that has gone before - but I can't help that) but you attacked the rest of the world. I'm not sure if you can understand that, but try reading everything from the begining and you'll see that's how it has played out. And now you don't like it when I do (and I'm not even criticizing the US, just your viewpoint).

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.