Excellent question with good insight. I would disagree, though, that the US is or should be a parent to other emerging democracies. A role model, yes. A quidebook, yes. But it's exaclty the belief that we somehow are responsible for running other governments that so often gets our leaders into trouble. We're not the boss, we not the parent, we're simply another country.

I think you've touched upon a central issue. Although I'm confident we have learned much since our early days, we have forgotten one, very important key: WE decided to rise up against our oppressors. No one did it for us, although we did get a good amount of aid. And certainly no one molded our emergent democratic government. We made all of those decisions on our own. When the US went in and overthrew the Iraqi government and destroyed that nation's infrastructure, we left a people who did not have the means to support themselves vulnerable to a small cadre of forces that we helped empower only through imposing our will. We can see the beginnings of civil war between age-old enemies because of this. The Iraqis did not arrive at the point where they could overcome their differences and unite together to depose Saddam of their own volition, so they have no desire to put aside whatever conflict have separated their various ethnic groups now. Iraq is being pulled apart by outside influences because it has no strong, central identity. It had been held together pretty much by force before this, and there are those now seeking to do so again. A powerful group who controls the militias and the central police are suppressing and slowly eliminating the ethnic minority. The Iraqis have not had the desire nor the opportunity to formulate their own inclusive ideas of government because we have pretty much done all their work for them. We removed their former leader and his government and its infrastructure. We do their "crowd control" and police work. We set up their elections and oversaw the formation of their governing bodies. What happens to a child who has parents who give them to them and do everything for them? That child is spoiled and ill-prepared to lead their own lives independent of the parents. I don't know that we should neglect to give aid to others, when such aid is sought, because of the shortcomings and missteps we have made along the road to where we are now. I do think, however, that we have overstepped our role in nation-building. We do not have the necessary understanding of what these people hold to be true in their hearts because we are not them. I also think that we have missed some very important opportunities to work with them productively by allowing them to call their own shots, and using us just for support, instead of us at the helm of their country.

your logic is right, we don't have the right to impose those standards. in addition, we don't have the right to take away the experience of becoming an authentic democracy away from these newly-emerging democracies by essentially telling them what to do. i think that the role the united states plays in global politics has a lot to do with corporate interests and has little to do with enabling countries to find their own democratic voice so much as it is about stablizing an area so that it can fill a financial niche and/or participate in the global market being run by said interests. the u.s. isn't in the business of revolution anymore...we have an empire to attend to if you haven't noticed.

Don't forget the present-day parallels! We don't even let adults marry other consenting, non-related adults unless they have the socially-preferred collective total number of penises. And better still, our official argument for it is that to do so would constitute an actual *threat* to odd-integer-penis-count marriage. Very bizarre indeed.

Recommend viewing the United Nations Charter. While personally not a fan of the United Nations, its Charter is admirable. If the USA is doing no more than encouraging adherence to the UN Charter that these 190 plus nations have already pledged they abide by, then you must ask yourself, "Are these nations hypocrites?" and also ask yourself, "Why am I uncomfortable with the supposed words of Irish philosopher and British Statesman Edmund Burke"? "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing" Also, as most of these newly-emerging democracies have cultures and histories that go back thousands of years, for you to so easily let them off the hook of responsibility, gives the impression you hold a condescending attitude toward them.

The key words in your question are "imposing [our] standards". The simple answer is that no country has the right (though we seem to have some power in this area) to impose their standards on any other country. Of course the standards we seem to have include invading other countries to get their oil, interfering with the governments of other countries to favor our national corporations, supporting other repressive regimes where the oppressed country gives lip service to our alleged superiority, fostering corrupt corporate practices, protecting corporate greed at the expense and suffering of the common people, and so forth. Not quite what I would call sterling examples of exportable political philosophy.

How about using the UN Charter these countries say they support it.