Absolutely we have been (and need to get out of) "nation building" for many years particularly in the the Middle East. For example deposing Saddam Husein and Muammar Gaddafi (both of which helped ISIS/ISIL gain power in the region) we funded the "moderate Syrian Rebels" that later became ISIS. I mean we really could go on and on for an eternity about our aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East (and its failures) that is always geared to for American political advantages.
They are imperialist in the way they boss around other countries around and being hypocrites, and they're similar to 18th century countries but in a worse way if you leave the genocide of America and Australia to the side.
They're worse because they have globalisation and this allows them to exploit other countries resources by allowing them, the foreign companies to own things such as oil. Now obviously not the whole lot because there are lots of different foreign companies with their own territory. But while doing this they're not really using some of the money they make to help build up that country they're taking oil. Also cheap labour.
So they're worse if excluding the genocide because they're doing the same thing but under a different name called globalisation instead of colonisation but none of the money they make from it goes in help that foreign country get built up and modernised as it would under the imperialist and colonist British empire or Spanish.
And I'm not saying globalisation is bad, just some things that I said were bad and that its badder than a non allowed genocidal spreading empire because of this.
Also it's funny that I think the only reason the authorities gave up on the colonising way is because of not having to pay a single cent really to build up others if it was an empire, they just need to make money from buying lands and using the same cheap labour as an empire but all the money's going to themselves unlike an empire because that empire would actually build up the regions it took over, just look at the Roman or British empire. Also note the fact that as soon as British empire disappeared, Africa turned into a poor starving place or way worse than it was.
The United States, with its western allies continue to meddle with the internal affairs of other nations such as the ones in Africa. They have put in horrible dictators, they have supported Mobutu, a Congolese leader that stole $1 billion from its economy. Furthermore, they have also been involved in multiple coups. It is therefore an imperialist nation.
It's not matter you consider that yes or no, USA is an imperialist and neo-colonialist. USA plays a role of world's police officer. USA has the greatest amount of weapons, especially nuclear. USA can attack or help friend country to attack any other country in the world without responsibility of attacking. Everyone knows how dirty is game around oil in the middle east. If there is no oil in the middle east, there would not be wars and interference of USA. Just one example: USA helped transgressors in Libya to destroy current country system. News were overwhelmed with the USA's ''liberation'' of Libya people. They started democracy in that country to help USA control government and OIL( they couldn't do that before). And look now what is happening in the ''liberated'' country of Libya. The people are suffering, they are in conflict, don't have right conditions for living. And finish stroke to USA politics are the information how people have lived before. Before ''liberating of country'' the studying was free, the oil was very cheap, they had one of the best standard of living in Africa. And that is just one example.
The U.S. foreign policy of the last 20 years or so has been heavily interventionist. I will not deny that the U.S. occupied several nations. However, if it were imperialist or colonialist then either these places would be annexed or their resources would be exploited. This has not been happening. And of course, the U.S. did not maintain the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. is neither colonialist nor imperialist.
I do acknowledge the fact that the United states has been getting its hands dirty around the world, especially the middle east. But the word imperialist/neo-colonial wrongly describes the actions being taken with our foreign policies. Yes, we attack nations and undermine their stability, but we do not annex the territories of said nations and we surely don't send Americans to the annexed territories to become colonists.
Given that the fact that the US has not conquered land since Manifest destiny ended speaks volumes about our "imperialistic" nature. The US has sense repeatedly shown that it does not care about gaining additional territory or establishing colonies. In fact colonialism is such an ineffective way of establishing wealth that no nation, especially the US, relies on it anymore. Globalization and trade are far more effective ways of generating wealth than a colony system. Is America aggressive? Absolutely. But we do not fit the definition of Imperialist or Colonialist.
For one to have a colonial empire we would need colonies. Which we do not really have, also if we where imperialistic then we would have took over the nations we attack. At the very lest take some of there land which we have not done. We try to spread freedom to the world. Have there been failures? Yes there has been, but we have had just as many victorys. These nations we invade are under the rule of dictators who kills his own people. We are only trying to make the world a safer place. The only way to do that is by force.