than the lives of foreign troops.

The second point is that the U.S. is by far the most empathetic nation on the planet. One only need look to the foreign aid the United States doles out each year (1) - the most of any nation, developed or otherwise - or that our citizens donate freely - again, tops in the 'give' column - to see that the U.S. does not lack for empathy (2). While we are a nation founded upon the morale precepts of a Judeo-Christian tradition, the use of force (economic or military) against nations hostile to the United States hardly speaks to a lack of empathy. I don't advocate the force as a first-use option, but it's certainly not wise to consider it a last-resort either. Pursuing any type of 'sunshine' policy with nations hostile to the United States would merely be turning a blind eye to the cold realities of the world we live in, and any policy of 'wait and see' could turn out to be disastrous in situations where the threat is real. The parallels in history here are obvious as well (appeasement and Nazi Germany; turning a blind eye to a nuclear Iran).

As far as reducing the current and most recent wars the U.S. has found itself in to 'conflict' relevancy, that does a disservice to the men and women who have died fighting them. War is hell. These just happen to be ill planned, poorly executed, politically charged wars, without the benefit of a clear Declaration, and the political resolve it comes with, to guide them.

(1) This is only one of several articles of the same thread. Link:
http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/data/fast-facts.html

(2) Some sources break it down by total amount, others by percent of population that donate (done by poll, which may be sketchy); either way, the U.S. is tops in total amount and at or near the top in percent donating. "Through charitable giving, Americans spread the wealth" link: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/21/opinion/la-ed-charity-20111221

I am going to outright ignore some of this response because it is Santorum-esque rhetoric. You are better than that, try again.
The United States is a terrible practitioner of the idea of Empire.
No the United States is not an empire in the traditional, ancient sense. However, America is most definitely a modern empire. Why you ask? Simple. Over 900 military bases in 133 countries, this has nothing to do with charity and everything to do with power, coercion, and influence.
Your words: “the threat of force (conquest or a fear of re-conquest)”. A couple examples: Cuba, Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea.

“compel their client states to a system of law” What is all this “overthrowing unfriendly dictators”, “nation building”, and “promoting democracy” business? This is exactly what your phrase implies. I do not believe there is even room for a strong counter argument here.

“gain either economic or military advantage through the exploitation of the client states natural resources, labor, or key terrain for defense. “ Uummmm.....Military Advantage. Check. We control the world's oceans. No if, ands, or buts about it. We control the sea lanes for commerce, I would say that is gaining an economic and military advantage. We don't like you, you don't have free trade. Exploited their natural resources, we have sure tried and failed, why? I don't really have an answer, most likely gross incompetence. What other reason was there to invade Iraq? WMDs? Get the F out of here.

“if we're acting the 'imperial power,' we are doing a poor job.” Exactly my point. All empires through history are poorly run, because you cannot control all peoples at all times.

I agree with your three numbered points. But, I think you may have missed the point of the post, or maybe I was not as clear as I should have been. Onto the rest of the response:

“The second point is that the U.S. is by far the most empathetic nation on the planet. One only need look to the foreign aid the United States doles out each year (1) - the most of any nation, developed or otherwise - or that our citizens donate freely - again, tops in the 'give' column - to see that the U.S. does not lack for empathy (2)”

I reread the above a couple of times to make sure I understood it. I cannot believe you used foreign aid as an example of empathy. That is a horrible example. Those monies are used to buy our friends and maintain our empire. Military aid is an example of subsidizing our military-industrial complex by requiring that these foreign countries only use that aid money to buy weapons from U.S. Companies. This foreign aid also props up crap-heads in wonderful despot ruled destinations like Libya, formerly Iraq, Iran at one point, Central America, and Egypt.

I have no qualms with private donations. However, it does not prove empathy. It only proves that the United States is the most prosperous nation in the world and that its people are charitable. Most Americans do not give a damn that we invaded nations, in some cases on false pretenses killed innocent men, women, and children and then threw some money at them thinking that would be okay. That is a complete lack of empathy. That is recklessness and carelessness, most especially from my point of view with the lives of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. Americans think its okay for service members to die as long as we all wrap ourselves in the flag and pray every once in awhile. I call Bullshit. This has to stop, if people were forced to watch al-Jazeera more and see actual dead bodies I think they would be a little less willing to send their children off to war.

Appeasement, friendship, free trade are all slightly different. I do not endorse appeasement of any nation. I do however support friendship or equal treatment of all nations through free trade. Except maybe the Brits and the Aussies, they deserve more than any other nation, proportionally they have shouldered heavy burdens by accompanying us in battle.

Nuclear Iran matters as much as a Nuclear Pakistan or a Nuclear N. Korea. Not at all. It is silly to listen to the rhetoric on television and be scared of the evil Iranians that go bump in the night. A nuclear Iran is no threat to the United States, maybe to Israel but not to the United States. I have stated before and I will say it again. I do not care about Israel, nor do I care about Iran or any other nation for that matter. Any nation that wants to directly threaten us or attack us with substantive action not just rhetoric from their idiot leaders will be dealt with accordingly but until that time let's not get too worked up about it. It was the end of the world if N. Korea got a bomb...guess what they got one, we are still here. This new version of a crappy reality T.V. Show is playing out right in front of us again. And you and other Conservatives are taking the bait, hook, line and sinker. More men and w

Your 'examples' fail to hold water in the pail of common-sense. Cuba never feared the United States because it was backed by a Super Power of it's own (now it merely 'fears' economic embargoes), the force-on-force dynamic isn't congruent with the coercion of smaller states empires typically employ. Iran constantly threatens the United States in a very real, very public manner, demanding some type of response - again, in-congruent with the traditional 'trumped up threat' card an empire will play in order to deploy military forces, Iran's leadership has made very clear their intentions (brush off their intentions and pay the price, as did Europe in the '40s). Toss North Korea in the same pail as Iran. Iraq was far less of a threat than either of Iran or North Korea, and is the only country you listed where the 'empire' label could stick - except for the fact that none of the other crucial elements are present: There is no mercantile system in place to exploit natural resources or labor, no system of political control exerted over the Iraqi government, and no clear benefit for our having been there since had that been our original intent we wouldn't have simply pulled out very recently.

Again, with each example you cite, you merely strengthen my case. Overthrowing dictators (I assume you're referring here to Gaddafi but I'll use him in an example furthering my case here shortly), promoting democracy, and building bridges are all examples of exactly what not to do if you're attempting to build an empire. Rule by proxy, which is what an empire would do, necessitates you maintain power with a central figure that's sympathetic to your cause. Replacing a dictator with an unfriendly, democratically elected government fails to meet that criteria. In fact, allowing that type of self-governance only sets the stage for your eventual withdrawal - which is again, not something empires do once they've conquered a territory. As far as building bridges, that is exactly the opposite of exploiting resources or labor - instead of capital flowing into the empire, it's working in reverse, flowing out of the empire. This is the only area you make a valid point - that the U.S. should abandon such military ventures because it's bankrupting the nation; however, were the U.S. an empire, it would actually be doing the opposite by enriching itself at the expense of its colonies. So, once again, a perfect Counterargument to the accusation that the U.S. is a modern empire.

Now, lets look at what happened to Gaddafi and how it benefits the U.S., or how it benefits our supposed 'allies' - nations in which, incidentally, we station all of those troops. Military venture where the U.S. & Co. played the aggressors - check for 'empire.' Military venture where ground troops did not seize territory - check against. Unfriendly political faction replaced - check for empire. Unfriendly political faction replaces unfriendly political faction - check against. What else is there? Economics. Who receives the vast majority of their oil from Libya? The U.S.?... Think again. Two of the major players in the coalition attacking Libya, France and Germany, bought up at least one quarter of Libya's oil. The United States? Three percent (1). Now, who did the heavy lifting? The United States (2). But wait - that makes no sense... Unless you think about it in the terms I've already described. Once again, the U.S. shows why it's not an empire, and that it has few allies - at least few worth keeping - by demonstrating it does not interject itself into fights to further its empire (Why then? Ideology perhaps; that's another debate). Further, it simply provides greater justification to my third point, above - our 'allies' don't need to invest in their own military (as clearly demonstrated by lacking the ability to simply bomb a country with a third-rate military) if we do it for them.

Foreign aid not a good measure of a caring nation? Really? Last year, the U.S. gave approximately $40bil USD in foreign aid. Roughly 25% of that was for security-related assistance, 25% for health, education, and social welfare programs, 10% for governance programs, 12% for economic growth activities, and 12% for humanitarian assistance (3). What, exactly, about those numbers seems hegemonic to you? Were that our sole concern we'd simply give to states that could be considered our proxies, instead of handing out massive amounts of cash to states where we see no real benefit (such as Haiti) or even worse, may work against us (such as Egypt). That then begs the question: Why give? Certainly, the military-industrial complex (which is a legitimate concern in all of this) benefits from our overseas ventures and through some of the foreign aid, but if they were the 'big push' behind these programs why not direct more than a quarter - the same amount given to health and human services - to security assistance? It simply does not add up. (Note that I do not approve of the vast majority of f

With the exception of Panama, which the U.S. has since returned to complete sovereignty, "we" haven''t gained much - if anything, we've lost quite a bit - from the possessions you mentioned, none of which are States, two of which are sovereign territories, and five of which we no longer have any hand in ruling. That example, like the others, fails to hold water. The U.S. isn't, and never has been, an 'empire,' and use of that term only detracts from the actual arguments against intervening in foreign wars.