This is not the argument. One wrong does not justify another. The argument is that the US cannot play the moral judge who steps in to put things right and restore order when its own track record is as despicable if not worse. — CuddlyHedgehog

Perhaps it's not the moral judge it says it is, but still...

What Great Power wouldn't have it's burden of wrongdoings? Yet does that mean there aren't occasions where "putting things right" and "restoring order" have proved to be good and beneficial?

Would South Koreans be better off living in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Because the US has been so lousy in it's backyard to smaller countries? Where's the logic in that?

This comes to down to Bitter Cranks point of 'personalization of the behavior of nations', treating like humans. If you have a person that has committed a serious crime, you obviously don't give him or her the moral highground anymore and likely be very suspect of his or her judgement. But nations aren't similar. There's no similar "will" or "moral judgement" in a nation, just the sum of actions of various people. You can judge the people, not countries.

Is imperialism necessarily bad, or can its negative side be lessened? Has it spread civilization, helping modernize many countries? Or is it a mixed blessing? It appears to me that the USA is an empire that disavows its own nature, after picking up somewhat where the British Empire left off.

And along with Capitalism, I wonder about the psychological imprint imperialism leaves on people. Both the proponents, and those negatively affected by it. Would there be as much racism, sexism, or other forms of intolerance without the history of imperial conquests? Or is life guided by the cliched “law of the jungle”? IE: do unto others before they do unto you? Are countries ethically accountable?