This is the problem with imperial thought. The ones employing it will always argue that they're not being imperial in their thoughts (and actions).

What do you think the British empire told the people when they were invading other nations? That they were 'civilising' them. Bringing God into their lives. Educating them. The list is long.

Don't display your ignorance UG.

The term may be, but the concept and practice is alive and well.

Unless you're counting Han Chinese policy of annexing buffer states around the Han center of China -- to make up mainland China -- I can't think of a single surviving example. The Soviet Union was the other one, and look what a fistful of states are there now.

What is the foundation of our dominance? It's entirely that we are good at trade, mutually beneficial transaction, large scale or small. That's the only thing we've ever done with consistency or persistence. Unlike Charlemagne, we regard warfare as an aberrant crisis and not the regular state of affairs.

I would laugh if I actually thought you believed that.

That's a compliment, by the way.

Keep on living in your delusions UG. I'm not even going to bother arguing this one with you considering the fact that it's obvious the actions of the US have been empirical.

EG: HAWAII; ALASKA; HALF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS. (just to name a few)

And lets not forget the failures! ie the countries the US tried to 'settle' with little or no success.

If these types of actions are not empire building then I'd like to know what they are.

So, rather than trying to suggest that the actions of the US have not been empirical, try telling me what you think has changed so that you can support the fact that perhaps the US is no longer empirical.

Urbane.....how many countries and islands, has America built military bases on?

Whoa, there. We bought Alaska from the Russians. Seward's folly, it was called.
As for Hawaii, the people living there requested the US to take charge. They, missionaries, sailors, fortune hunters, fishermen, planters, from everywhere, had already greatly out numbered and displaced the natives.;)

So, when do we get to feed Pat Robertson to a puma? Huh? Huh?

As for Hawaii, the people living there requested the US to take charge. They, missionaries, sailors, fortune hunters, fishermen, planters, from everywhere, had already greatly out numbered and displaced the natives.

Ask the 'natives' now and they'll tell you they'd like their islands back.

We bought Alaska from the Russians

Did anyone bother asking the Inuit tribes how they felt about this transaction?

Spain wants Central America back. Russia wants eastern Europe back. Japan wants Chins back. I want my youth back. So what, I'd expect them to say that.
The Hawaiian "natives", who were émigrés also, were a bunch of constantly warring tribes. When Kamehameha finally kicked ass, with outside help, and created his kingdom, he delayed any political system developing. And by the time the monarchy ended there were more non-natives than natives, from the four corners of the earth. You'd be hard pressed to define, let alone locate a Hawaiian native.

Anyway, a few planter families had the islands by the short hairs and the majority of the people living there wanted the US to annex the islands and stop the abuse of the majority by the minority. It worked, giving full citizenship rights to the children of the original immigrant laborers that were being oppressed by the planters.:us:

Why, they didn't own it, unlike the Aborigines. :p

We are definitely imperial...
You think it is coincidence that we invaded a nation that was NO THREAT to us IN ANY WAY AT ALL a few years after they discovered they had the world's largest land-locked untapped oil reserve?
Ummmm.... no.
It is an invasion and occupation, nothing else.

The indigenous tribes of Australia have never claimed to own it. They are part of the land and consider themselves to be an integral part of the natural law.

Much the same as the Inuit I believe you will find.

Under that reasoning, if you've bought the land, you've bought the people also.

Slavery?

I wonder where the planters came from? I'm sure they would have benefited from an army coming in to protect them from the 'restless natives' huh?

Who benefits from the US entering these areas? What does the US do with these islands it 'anexes'?

Put lots of big guns on them mostly. Why? To protect themselves from the 'yellow hoard'!