The US came to be a power too late to have any colonies in the traditional sense. This is only relevant however if you are going to stick to the colonial aspect of imperialism.
This is a self-contradicting statement. If a nation is sovereign, it by definition is not controlled externally by anyone else. Otherwise, there is no proper sovereignty. You are also quite conveniently omitting the fact that the US has exerted influence in the domestic and foreign policies of many countries over time, the extent of that influence is still the subject of much debate. Again, yes. There haven't been any American governors or viceroys in the traditional colonial sense, but that alone does not make an empire.
It's quite easy to appear lawful when you're the one making the law.
Heh, I'm surprised you brought this up. I guess this is an exception to the rule of "if they want us out, we leave", then.
Why yes, and Americans don't wear those weird wigs, or sail around in galleons either. Comparing American imperialism to traditional imperialism is like comparing the Old Regime with present democracy, or medieval battle tactics with modern submarine warfare; it makes no sense and it doesn't work very well. Times have changed, and so has imperialism.
Save for the colonial bit (which, since there are no US colonies, is irrelevant), this sentence works just as well if you replace "British" with "American". You are focusing your entire argument in colonialism, because it's the only way it works. But there's more to imperialism than colonies.
Heh, "intellectually dishonest", that's pretty cool. I wish I could get that under my avatar.
Anyway, why get so worked up about it? Unlike many people, I do not believe that imperialism has the negative connotations that the word seems to have acquired recently. I'm not attempting a thinly veiled attack against your country, either. But if I were to rephrase and say that the US is a "superpower", would you dispute that as well?
It's just an argument of semantics, then.