“Nation building” carries with it the implications of taking over other nations. Not freeing its people. “Nation building” is akin to the Romans expanding their empire. The only land that America asks for is enough to bury those who have made the ultimate sacrifice while freeing a country from tyranny.
Huh? You've got a mighty convenient definition there, but it's not a very convincing one -- for one thing, it bears little resemblance to the actual application of the term.
"Nation building" begins after you've torn down the old structure, which is only the first step of "freeing its people." The next step is to build new political and security structures that are both stable and accountable to the rule of law. It's what we did in Germany and Japan, for example; and it's also what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The point is, of course, not to "add to our Empire," but rather to transform an enemy into a self-governing nation that no longer poses a threat to our security.
The alternative is letting the population live among the ruins -- which neither frees them, nor enhances our own security.
We gave Iraq freedom? They just passed a law there. You can’t smoke in public. That is freedom? Wait till NWO gives them all the laws they gave us. Freedom no more.