I don't quite consider pointing out a difference in attitudes a diatribe. The US has never approached its foreign forays with quite the same condescending attitudes that marked the British and other European colonies. The US may have been wrong, even muddleheaded, in its assessment of situations (Vietnam and Mogadishu spring to mind) but they've certainly never openly espoused things like the "white man's burden" or posted signs comparable to "No dogs or Chinese allowed" in the cities of colonies.
I'm a little puzzled how Congo got into the conversation. I never mentioned it.
As for missing your point, I don't think so. I just thought your point was ill taken. Regardless of what you and lots of others think about Americans, I doubt very seriously that the general population is any less aware of what's going on in the world than they are in your neck of the woods. Truth is, most people don't have a clue about what's going on in their own backyards, let alone what's going on in the rest of the world. After more than 30 years as a journalist, the biggest lesson I learned is that most people JUST DON'T GIVE A HAPPY DAMN.
The long and short of it is that I found your inferences insulting, not because they're particularly untrue, but because you were attributing them to those OTHER ignorant people. Include your tribe in the mix and we have no problem at all.