>>I am convinced that the huge HUGE majority of American citizens wouldn't countenance anything like I described above, but if your leadership did you (collectively) would be faced with either telling the leadership to not do it, or support them.
>
>This is what confuses me about people that keep screaming about US "imperialism". Yes, we could use our power to take what we want. But we don't. Heck, we suffer that madman in Cuba! And we'll probably put up with Chavez' noise for a while, unless he starts shelling his neighbors.
>
>Show me the imperialism! The Soviets moved into Eastern Europe during WW2 and didn't leave for decades. THAT's imperialism, in my view.

I don't see a whole lot of evidence to support traditional "imperialism".
On the other hand, the U.S. did have a different technique... prop up or install governments - even if dictators - that were clearly against the "red menace". And it certainly wasn't shy to "protect its interests" in banana republics, again by installing/supporting corrupt governments. And in those same places often out-bidding USSR attempts to gain a foothold.

But it is also true that there were two super-powers during that time. It has been only a short while that the U.S. stood alone in that regard. It took less than 15 years for your leadership to decide to go into Iraq basically unsanctioned and with a lap-dog ally. And it remains to be seen if Iraq ends up governed in the same style as propped up regimes of the cold war days.
So I'd guess that talk of "U.S. imperialism" is aimed at stifling FUTURE gambits more than anything.