Don't you mean "by its own success"? The last time I checked, a country can't just decide that they're going to be a superpower. Furthermore, most countries which begin to climb the ladder end up falling from grace rather quickly. You phrase your argument as if one day, we just decided we were going to take an "unproportional" share. We *earned* that share. And our responsible use of that power (in most cases) is what allows us to keep it.

Well, I guess we are talking about those cases when the power is not used responsibly (more on that later). True, a contry can't just decide to be superpower, but it can decide not to be. I am not sure it would be wise, but the choice is there.

The "empire builder" comment is just plain ridiculous, and nullifies your pat-on-the-back about not passing judgements based on prejudice. America might throw its weight around a little bit on foreign policy matters, and mistakes have certainly been made (Vietnam being one of the most recognizable.) But nothing America's ever done has been an effort to build an empire, take over someone else's land, or anything of the sort. I'm not so delusional to think that every move the U.S. has ever made is of the noblest intentions of making the world a better place, but to call us imperialists is taking things a little too far.

Just US policy towards Latin America in 19th and 80% of 20th century would earn it label 'imperialist' with the same right as to Britain or France of 19th century. There was no dictator too unsavory to install and support if that suited US economic interests.

That changed a lot, but current US foreign policy is lead under delusion of mission of global empire building. 'Wolfowitz doctrine' (about a decade old) seems to be shaping most of the present administration's moves. This and this are two articles on this that I picked almost at random. Here is link to some thoughts from American academia (I think I already linked to that somewhere - read particularly the second part, by Paul W. Schroeder). The common thread (from reading and talking with some diplomats I know) is that foreigners are wary of America; American intellectuals are affraid for America.

BTW, don't you find establishment of Department of Homeland Security amusing? What is then Department of Defense defending, if not homeland?

This quote from Colin Powell (one of the few in the Bush Administration I respect) sums up how much land the U.S. is after in its world affairs

"We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works."

While Europe has much to thank US for its role in WWII (quite late role, BTW - US entered the war when, for example, battle for Britain was already won), especially France, I hope you are not implying US did that solely for altruism? Surely, prospect of first Hitler and later Stalin ruling the continent did not look good for American global interests, no?

I think US did not have any ulterior motives, say, in Kosovo campaign (except perhaps showing Europe a bit how is that done, after they have failed miserably). Afghanistan intervention could fairly be (and was, by most of the world) considered self-defence. But there were no legitimate reasons whatsoever to enter the war in Iraq now (after going through the motions of reestablishing the regime of UN inspections). The same Mr. Powell you quote (and whom I also respect the most of the current administration) balked today at the idea that interim administration in post-war Iraq should be organized or sanctioned by UN. Contracts for infrastructure and oil-field reconstruction have already been awarded, without bids, to 'buddies' (e.g. the company used to be headed by Dick Cheney), to be paid for, at undisclosed price, by Iraqi oil...

I hope that (I think your) reasoning from another thread about swift improvement of common Iraqi lives will prove correct, and I will be happy to renounce my scepticism. However, see Afghanistan a year later. Is improvement big enough (especially outside of Kabul) to more then balance casualties (in the eyes of domestic population)? Probably is, but I am not sure...