Ben Shapiro, in "Why war in Iraq is right for America," after detailing the myriad ways in which the war has failed and lost public support, and even admitting that Saddam Hussein probably wasn't a threat to us and that America's relative reluctance to enter past wars has worked to our advantage, writes:

"But now, America faces a crossroads. Since the death of the Soviet Union, we are unquestionably the world's only superpower, the world's remaining empire. Acquiring an empire requires a different mindset than maintaining and expanding one. Empires either decline or they grow. If America is to survive and flourish, Americans must realize that empire isn't a choice: It's a duty. . . .

"That is why impatient isolationism serves us ill in Iraq. Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to our nation? Perhaps not. But toppling Saddam Hussein and democratizing Iraq prevent his future ascendance and end his material support for future threats globally. The same principle holds true for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and others: Pre-emption is the chief weapon of a global empire.

"No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for Americans and for the world. Forwarding freedom is always important, but it is especially important where doing so ensures America's future security – as in Iraq. Maintaining American empire will require Americans to recognize the dangers of impatient isolationism." (Emphasis mine.)

Then Erik Rush, in "The case for imperialism," says that Western imperialism is a "moral imperative." Because Third World countries are so backward, Rush says that they're better off being ruled by Western powers. He writes:

"Might it have been more prudent – and intellectually honest – to have maintained true puppet governments in the Third World, but with the social, economic – and yes, military – provisions in place necessary to acclimatize these cultures to Western concepts, rather than simply exploiting them economically and then withdrawing when the chips were down?

"Am I saying that a program of culturally colonizing the Third World in a systematic and deliberate fashion would have been an appropriate course of action? Keeping culturally underdeveloped nations 'down' rather than allowing them the self-determination we so highly value?

"Yes – that is exactly what I am saying. Societies that eschew slavery, mass execution, stoning, rape as a criminal penalty, beheading and impalement are – to be blunt – culturally superior to those that do not. It was the West's moral obligation to see that overwhelming economic and military power did not fall into the hands of culturally immature societies, but lack of conviction, moral weakness and intellectual dishonesty caused us to drop the ball.

"For the record, despite all that has been done in the areas of humanitarian, economic and military aid, the nations in question still accuse the West of having 'kept them down.' It's one of the reasons so many of them want to kill us." (Emphasis in original.)

Some people just don't get it. Worse yet, some people call themselves conservatives and yet turn around and support government expansion that would have done Stalin proud.