? The bottom line is that powerful people have a very difficult time admitting when they're wrong and powerful countries are no different.

And things like that never change.

  As to Mid-East peoples attacking America, how ironic is that?  By and large it was France and England that colonized and dominated the Middle East and North Africa, not America.  It was England that played a significant role in the establishment of Israel (remember the Balfour Agreement).  America has mainly bought their Oil except for Iran where we propped up the Shah's corrupt regime.  Why then do they hate America so much?  I have always been puzzled as to why America is demonized to the extent that it is by Muslims.  I am led to the inevitable conclusion that Islam is constitutionally incapable of accepting equality with another religion or moral system.  They do not attack the Pest because of politics; it is religion or our lack of it that they refuse to accept.  Everything else is just excuses.

America and other western nations are perhaps targeted by terrorists because of imperialism.Imperialism usually refers to territorial acquisitions, but can also cover extensions of power or influence which fell short of that. ?Economic imperialism?, for example, means the process by which an economy extends its financial control over others.Imperialism can also be seen as the control of one or a number of countries by a dominant nation. This control may be political, economic, or both, and indicates a degree of dependence in the subordinate nation.From the US History Encyclopedia:...Concerning America, the years after the Civil War show abundant evidence of Americans expanding their economic, political, military, and cultural control over foreign societies. (e.g. The Spanish-American War and colonisation of the Philippines) The United States needed an overseas empire for its future peace and prosperity.When the United States encountered resistance to its post?Civil War expansion in Asia, the government employed diplomatic and military pressures. In 1866, after the Japanese government closed itself to foreign trade, the United States joined other imperial powers?the British, the French, and the Dutch?in forcing Western access to the island nation over the objections of native interests.Aware of the resistance that the formal elements of American imperialism had inspired after the Vietnam War, policymakers returned to more informal mechanisms for asserting influence abroad. Economic globalization and human rights advocacy took center stage, along with continued anticommunism. The promise of American-style prosperity and individual rights?championed by politicians, businesspeople, and Hollywood writers?triumphed over the gray authoritarianism of communist regimes.By 1991, societies across the globe rushed to attract American investment and aid. Citizens sought out American cultural exports?including McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and Michael Jordan.America's informal imperialism in the late twentieth century was remarkably effective. It did, however, inspire serious resistance. Instead of adopting communist slogans, as they had in the 1950s and 1960s, opponents of U.S. influence after 1991 turned largely to religion. Fundamentalisms of many varieties?Christian, Jewish, and Islamic?arose to challenge the decadence and hypocrisy of American liberal democracy.International terrorism?symbolized most frighteningly by the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?emerged, in part, as a reaction to a long history of formal and informal American imperialism. This observation does not, in any way, justify the abhorrent terrorist activities. American imperialism has produced both positive and negative outcomes, as the contrast between post?World War II Japan and Vietnam makes clear. Nonetheless, the extraordinary overseas influence of the United States, dating back to 1865, has inspired violent resistance. Americans probably will not abandon their liberal imperialist assumptions in the twenty-first century, but they will surely develop new strategies for isolating and defeating foreign challengers.However military historian Max Boot defends U.S. imperialism of past eras:?U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century. It has defeated communism and Nazism and has intervened against the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing. It has also helped spread liberal institutions to countries as diverse as South Korea and Panama."Boot argues that the United States altruistically went to war with Spain to liberate Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Filipinos from their tyrannical yoke. If U.S. troops lingered on too long in the Philippines, it was to protect the Filipinos from European predators waiting in the wings for American withdrawal and to tutor them in American-style democracy. (in Boot, Max. "American Imperialism? No Need to Run Away From the Label". USA Today.2006)I don't blame America, as I wrote above: other western democracies are targeted as well for the same causes  !This is only a personal attempt to understand why so much hatred and unjustified murder of innocent people could have occurred.

Keep in mind America was BARELY imperialists during the turn of the century. Europe and Asia had LONG been in the business of imperialistic conquest.You also HAVE to put yourself in the mindset of the people of this time period. Don't look at through the lens of the modern era, try and look at it through THEIR eyes. The US, by subjugating Indian tribes, with the the supposed ?closing of the frontier? and fears that naturals resources would dwindle, Social Darwinism and imperialistic fever in Europe leading to a fear that America would be left out of world markets fueled the burst of imperialism in 1890?s America. Social Darwinism was in my opinion the most important factor, in that Americans believed in Manifest Destiny and Social Darwinism justified this belief that they would need to compete with imperial powers in Europe and Asia in order that American culture would not succumb as a result of being a ?weak? nation.After the PI was ceded by Spain, the US was in a bind. McKinnley couldn't just leave them to their own, because this would allow European and Asian countries to further their dominion, again, leaving the US behind and potentially in a weak position. Was his option of pushing American culture on them correct? In todays eyes no, but back then, there was really no other alternative.Vietnam is a whole other can of worms. I don't think you can compare the two because the the social climate that existed was so radically different during both periods.

I refuse to be drawn into the imperialist debate.  Nobody can even adequately define what imperialism is.  An excellent example of the difficulty of defining imperialism, and thus the terms of the debate, is to be found in The Absent-Minded Imperialists by Bernard Porter.  Porter discusses British Imperialism but his discussion of definition is relevant to any debate of imperialism.  I subscribe to the literal Latin meaning of the word imperium : power to command, authority, command, rule, control and don't buy any of the garbage about cultural, social, linguistic, or other types of imperialism.  They are all just meaningless ways to muddy the water.The whole imperialism debate seems to be more a way of laying blame for perceived ills than any real discussion of the positive/negative impact of colonialism by European/Western nations.  It is simply a way for people and groups to dismiss their own failings by pointing fingers at someone else.  It is no different than the woman who sued McDonald's over hot coffee a few years ago (perhaps not the best example in the world, a better one would be the kid who complains about getting beat up by the person he has made fun of all school year) or alternatively as a way for liberals to wring their hands and feel bad about something as if they don't have enough self-loathing already.

What about Daniel Ellsberg the most wanted man in America after his Pentagon Papers release about the Vietnam War ? (and The Ellsberg paradox)Henry Kissinger called him "the most dangerous man in America", Richard Nixon a "son of a biatch"

What about Daniel Ellsberg the most wanted man in America after his Pentagon Papers release about the Vietnam War ? (and The Ellsberg paradox)Henry Kissinger called him "the most dangerous man in America", Richard Nixon a "son of a biatch"

You must have watched the Documentary an Arte about him last night?

Yes, I did