Americans mean well, Amos, no doubt about it. When I say "Americans", I mean most of the people in the USA mean well. Most Britons meant well too, even at the height of Britain's imperial expansions. Most Frenchmen meant well when they served Napoleon. Most Japanese meant well when they served their country in WWII. I think Obama means well. I think Jimmy Carter meant well. Bush probably meant well too.

However, empires do not obey the dictate of the millions of people who mean well. They obey the dictate of major financial interests run by a few men. This is the case in all great powers.

Now, the men who are in charge of those major financial interests ALSO mean well...mainly from their own specifically limited perspective. That is, they are running their business interests in order to achieve what they see as a good result. A good result means making the most money possible. Making the most money possible is achieved by securing control over various lands and resources...and those lands and resources are often found in other nations.

Figure it out from there.

I am not suggesting that your country is run by people with consciously evil intentions, Amos. I'm suggesting that like all empires...it is run for pragmatic reasons, period...and that poses a continual danger to weaker nations, as well as to the natural environment.

If those other nations were the stronger, would they do something similar? Yes, I think they would. The same basic forces would come into play.

However, if one is going to try to resist imperial activities, then one resists the current ruling empire, not some other hypothetical ones that don't exist right now, and the current greatest ruling empire is the USA.

There is no real justification for an American presence in either Iraq or Afghanistan, in my opinion. Dennis Kucinich agrees with me on that. So does Ron Paul. They are Americans.

There are, however, strong pragmatic reasons for America to be there, and they have to do with controlling oil, natural gas, and spheres of influence. That's the kind of thing empires pay close attention to. I do not sympathize with the American imperial cause, but I understand it, and I understand why the people who have put it into motion think they are doing "the right thing". From their point of view, it is the right thing.

It just depends who's feeling the pain, that's all. The Romans found it a good thing to occupy Gaul. The Gauls would have found it a good thing to occupy Rome, if they'd had the strength and expertise to do so. In either case, they did not find the other one's intentions to be "good" one, did they? Who is right, the hammer or the nail? Ask each one and you'll get 2 different answers.