[Looking for Diogenes]

This guy might have the right ideas, but his knowledge of history is shaky.

The United States, with the temporary exceptions of the occupation forces in Japan and Germany after World War II, has not ruled others and shows little intention of doing so.

Apparently this guy has never heard of the Philippines, which we occupied from 1898 to 1946.

[LenS]

True, but the Phillipines were our sole colony and it's independence was a US goal from the moment we beat the Spanish. Independence would probably have occurred sooner if there hadn't been an agressive and expanding Imperial Japan to the north -- independence would not have lasted long before 1945. Unlike European and Japanese colonies of those years, the US govt. was quite aware that the Phillipines would never become a source of economic wealth for a colonial master and was to be released as soon as it's chances of survival and success were good.

The other few US conquests and acquisitions -- Guam, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico -- have all become either states or territories with US citizenship. Cuba was turned over to self-rule and independence very quickly after Spain was defeated.

[Billthedrill]

Apparently this guy has never heard of the Philippines...

Yeah, I caught that one too. Or Panama, for that matter. But what is significant about those, and for that matter about the occupation of Japan, a decidedly proto-imperial stance, is that we voluntarily returned all three to native governments, and what is even more astonishing, left even our strategic bases in the Philippines when asked. That simply is incompatible with the "imperialism" cliche we've become accustomed to.

Continental Europe has always found it easier to sit back and criticize than to step to the front. The risk of that policy is irrelevancy. It's surprising it's taken so long for that to happen, but I agree with the author, it is happening.

[usmcobra]

Occupied or protected?

It would seem to me that the seldom used term "Protectorate" is best used to cover
the stay of US armed forces in The Philippines.
The same holds true for Panama, Where there was a need American troops were stationed to defend what was there.

Semantics, perhaps but those that hate to see American troops in a country always deem them Colonial patsies there to enforce american rule, instead of defenders.

[Publius6961]

This guy might have the right ideas, but his knowledge of history is shaky.

LOL.

Not nearly as shaky as some people's grasp of the concept of "empire".