Actually we are in ugonda, somalia, south africa and a couple other countries... mostly the ones with diamond mines. So yes we try to impose our will everywhere.  We just try to make them think we aren't controlling them so they won't get pissed off.

They do care about Africa:

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/congo.htm

There are critics to this book but here is more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man

I think that USA meddle with all countries that have one of their big companies representation in and where all those companies see profit in. USA is military superpower because its economic superpower. And all those big companies .... they want to get even bigger and they do support and donate money for election campaigns and they do bribe. So far nobody gave anything for free and all those millions aren't for free as well.

Plus there is lobbying and I bet there is also if you do not help us we wont be able to keep that factory, offices ....  open and so and so many people will loose their jobs.... 

You are talking about BP and oil spill???? Well he sort of has to.

They made a mess out there and America and probably whole world will be paying huge price for if for a very long time. Western society its too money orientated and thats why it will be our downfall. Money is our GOD.

He doesn't need to blame other countries. He can simply blame BP. Of course, then people will vote him out, but I'm pretty sure that that will happen anyway now that he isn't the saviour of the world everybody thought he would be

does the word America work??

Its not a scapegoat .. they are the ones responsible... Its not like obama blew up the well.  Plus if our gov't takes it over then it will be our tax dollars paying for it.  he just needs to make sure that the people who did the inspection(or failure to do so) see fines and jailtime.  Same for Haliburton which supplied the subpar concrete.

You probably are living in the imperialistic territories of the US. The native Americans were conquered and subjugated by the dominant anglo-saxon culture. That is, by definition imperialistic.

I will go along with that.  Perhaps the fact that our language comes from England, which until the 19th century was extremely imperialistic, is now causing a problem.  I believe the term coined during the cold war was "Sphere of influence", and that is more accurate of the state of the world post WWII.

You are probably living in the imperialistic area of England, where the native Picts and Celts were conquered by Anglos, Saxons and Normans.

If you go back far enough, I am sure you can claim that we are all imperialists as we conquered Dinosaurs.  However, there comes a time to be realistic in that America is not occupying America. And the natives of this land are living here as part of the country.  That the dominant culture comes from elsewhere is nothing new.  Look at Latin and South America.  However that does not make Mexico or Brazil imperialistic.

I meant BP not Britain.  Obama has never said that Britain is responsible either.  Some people in american news have said it though and I agree that it is wrong.. But BP is British Petroleum.. The Beyond Petroleum thing was a marketing slogan.

Also we gave the same taliban leaders the country (Afghanistan) back when no one else stood up to take the reigns.  Looks like america is staying there for other reasons too since we found lots of minerals under there. Of course that report was done in 2007 and just came to light.

Ok, I confess!  Mexico and Brazil are bad boys!

As for the rhetoric on Iraq and Afghanistan, yes, they do use those terms to describe what is happening (even though in both there is a multi-national coalition - and so far, neither country has been taxed to pay for the American Expense).  But we have to be careful about how we describe the situations.  Politicians can spout off with 30 second sound bites and come across as fools - because they will never admit they are wrong.  We however should strive for accuracy so that no one can come back at us and discredit a valid argument because we are wrong on definitions.

In other words, just because idiots say those things does not mean we have to mimic the idiots.

im·pe·ri·al·ism

(ĭm-pîr'ē-ə-lĭz'əm)   n. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition OR by the establishment of ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL HEGEMONY over other nations.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imperialist?qsrc=2446

Territorial acquisition isn't a requirement to be imperialistic...its just a common trend of empires...

Sphere of influence is China telling North Korea "don't be dumb and launch nukes at America"...invading and occupying nations across the globe is not sphere of influence....unless, of course, you consider Iraq and Afghanistan within our "sphere of influence"...

Good call

Yes, in many ways things are better...but you can't just ignore the intentions of the US because the results turn out to be good...take for example the Marshall Plan after WWII...the US helped rebuild non-communist nations, but it wasn't because America is nice and it was "the right thing to do"...the Marshall Plan had the sole purpose of preventing the spread of communism into western Europe...

If Al Capone spares your life because he needs you to break into a bank vault, you might be grateful that you're still alive...but you don't thank him for it...

The Iraqi people are grateful for the removal of Saddam...but the US didn't go into Iraq because it cares about the people there...we went into Iraq because George Bush was ticked at his dad for not kicking Saddam out during Desert Storm...even if you think we went there for oil, terrorists, WMDs, or whatever crap excuse the Bush Administration had people fall for, it wasn't to help the people of Iraq...if America was really into helping people, it would have invested those resources in helping Haiti, or it would have sent those troops to Dharfur...and it would have done so before we even went into Iraq...

America sent in enough troops to find Saddam and set up a government that has elections...if it really cared about the people, it would have sent more troops to limit the devastation of a power vacuum and would have done a better job at protecting civilian infrastructure...America now has a democratic nation that is "in debt" per se to America...oh, it's also in the mid-east, and it borders Iran...coincidence?  I think not...Iraq was liberated because of its tactical significance...