When the European was colonizing Asia, Africa, the Americas, and the pacific islands, many of the white European justify it through cultural revelatism. They believe that they are culturally superior to everyone else and that they had an obligation to spread their systems of life to the inferior cultures.
Since their culture are superior to everyone else, they should spread it around the world without having to recognizes that serious consequences of their actions. These land grabs was extremely destructive to the native people that had to live under it. The natives were forced to serve their European masters. European massacre millions of Native American when they were colonizing the Americas, many African were kidnap and force to become slaves. When the native did rise against their oppressors, the European paints them as barbarians and terrorist who are attacking the white knight. These European believe that they were culturally superior to everyone else that they even fought among themselves during the two world wars.
After World War 2, the European country was in shamble. Imperialist Japan was destroying and much European country was divided or bankrupt. The only super power left in the world was the United States. The chicken hawk sent American soldiers into Vietnam for freedom and democracy. They argue that we need to defend ourselves from the red scare of communism. Before the chicken hawk assisted the French in their fight against the natives, one needs to understand why the natives Vietnamese and Asian were fighting against them.
Now, my neighbor’s grandparent who are Vietnamese and live during French colonist or "Indochina" told me terrible story of the treatments of the French. They were forced to work sugar canes flied like slave and didn't have enough money to eat. Of course, they were on the side of democracy and fight against the communist Chinese during the Vietnam War but they can understand why some of the Vietnamese fought on the side of communist. To them, when the United States was fighting along the French, the natives fought with all their might because they didn't wanted to be rule by the French anymore. They were willing to scarify their lives for a government that didn't involve the French. That was why they believe that the united states were fighting for the right reason on the wrong side. The right reason was democracy but they were on the side of the French, their horrible oppressor during colonialism.
Fast forward a couple years later, globalization had allowed big corporation to ship their manufacturing plant over to communist Vietnam. Not only that, the neoconservative now believe that the United States had an obligation to spread freedom and democracy all over the world. That is the greatest form of white liberation. The white knight had to save the natives and teach them about the western white cultural superiority such as democracy. Even if the white knight had to kill millions of the native, the native wouldn’t mind because they are being rescue by the white knight. To them, they are unaware that many natives don’t want to be rescue by the white knight. Just as the natives fought against the European, so too will the natives of the middle eastern country fight against the white knight of the chicken hawk neoconservatives. The whites in the United States may see themselves as liberators but they are unaware that many of the natives don’t see it that way. It is up to the natives to decide on how to run their government and not the white knight of the west. This also had to go back to racism where the white people think that they are racially superior to everyone else, so they had the divine right to conquest the native for economic gains.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
your arguements only make sense if there is no difference between liberals and conservatives.
I'll take you on a little tour:
Post World War 2, the United States, with basically no help from the rest of the world, put Japan back on its feet, setting up a constitution within a few months. Within a couple years, it was good to go.
Germany was another matter. Rebuilding Germany took decades, and some suggest that it wasn't finished until the Wall fell. France was constantly whining about not getting a fair shake. The USSR, aided by communists working in the United States like Alger Hiss (Who, despite constant defense from the Liberals even today, was proven to be a Soviet Spy, both by Chamber's testimony and evidence ( http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/pumpkinp.html ) but also by a series of world war 2 era documents released by the government, which were decoded Soviet transmissions ( http://hnn.us/articles/37701.html ), received a great amount lf land and even a large hand in the rebuilding of Germany (As decided by Yalta). This was rather unusual as Russa was on the side of Hitler through most of the war. They didn't turn until Germany attacked them. Even then, they weren't so much on our side as much as against Hitler.
So, a democrat brought us out of World War 2, giving nearly everything to "Uncle Joe" Stalen (as FDR referred to him, as a friendly uncle, despite the starvation campaigns against those who defied Stalin.) Then a Democrat brought us into Vietnam. President Johnson looked at the French defeat in Vietnam and decided that, in the established war against Communism, the Democrats needed to be shown as tough against Communism. So he sent in our troops with enough rules and restrictions to drown them (none of which our enemy lived by, but instead exploited for their own safety.)
It was a Republican, Nixon, who is blamed for Vietnam. Democrat (traitors, I'd suggest) like Jane Fonda and John Kerry, both of which had visits and connections with the Communist north vietnam, testified and gave public speeches against our soldiers, calling them evil war criminals and baby killers (Though it was largly proven that those two were liars.)... Jane Fonda even manning an Antiaircraft gun for the Communists.
Despite our victory with the Tet offensive, from which liberals managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by publishing the pictures of the horrid war, destroying the morale of the American people. (The North Vietnam commanders would later mention that they were defeated and were going to surrender to us, until they caught wind of the puiblic relations mess caused by the protestors, which bolstered our ENEMY's confidence in fighting.) So, Nixon, a Republican, brought our troops home.
There were other wars and skirmishes... korea, gulf war, kosovo.... but just as we ignored the Communist threat for many decades, we started to ignore the threat of islamic terrorism. In the 1970's they rose up, attacking embassies and bombing embassies. They took many american hostages on an airplane, holding them for a year before releasing them to newly elected President Reagan. (One of these hostage takers is now the president of Iran.)
There were more bombings and killings of Americans by the islamic terrorists, all overseas, and all kept unreported by our media. Eventually, they even struck against our military, bombing the USS Cole... for which Clinton had no response.
Each time they weren't swatted, they gained strength of morale. Then came 9/11. They took down 2 towers of the World Trade Center, killing 3000 people. They tried to take out the pentagon, hitting part of it, and another plane was taken down on its way to the White House (by some brave americans who fought the islamic terrorist hijackers).
We finally fought back. First in Afghanistan, where the branch of islamic terrorists that struck at us were headquartered. But then we also needed to go after those who fund and support terrorists. This brought us to Iraq who, since the first Persian Gulf War had not complied with the UN requriements and had even kicked the UN inspectors out. Saddam was killing his own people, gassing those who tries to oppose him. So we removed him and are currently working to rebuild that country, however we are doing it with the same methodology as we did with Germany. We are, in the interest of NOT appearing imperialistic, allowing other nations to have a say in what happens.
Long post, but all needed to say this:
Conservatives and Liberals are two wholly different groups of people. You can't suggest, and be historically honest, that we're somehow exploiting the world for the sake of "white Liberation" . .. which is, by definiation, a VERY racist term.