Doesn't your "parting shot" put a big hole in your argument that we must show the rest of the world what they can become?
no, i don't think so. i think it demonstrates what happens to a country when it tries to be the global hall monitor. we wage senseless international war, spend billions on useless defense systems, hand money to butchers('strategic allies') and chop education spending while raping social security.
Exactly so. What kind of example is that to set?

Besides, few nations have the advantages the US has always had since the first colonies were established: wealth and massive natural resources. It is doubtful that they can all aspire to America's greatness.
oh bull. many of the worst hells on this planet are resource-rich. it's the gross profiteering that's keeping them down. but let's not forget that america's great natural endowment was reaped by slave labor. my country and yours were built by those horrible insensitive captains of industry.
True about the slavery. Except we did even worse to the natives of some of the countries we ruled (that reads as if I say it with pride: I do not). The difference is, America kept its resources for itself, whereas the colonial powers, and the later economic invaders stripped those resources out of the poor countries for their own benefit, and continue to do so in many places.

As for your "Darwinist" approach to the problem, I would point out that natural selection is wasteful and random. It is only after countless evolutionary dead-ends have been encountered that a step forward might occur. "Responsibility" and "consequences" are not linked ideas - in fact "responsibility" does not feature at all.
but they are linked. it is through conflict that our greatest leaders find us. eventually in those countries and war zones we are referring to one of their own will lead them to a better place. or they will be conquered. that is the pattern of our (human) history. they have the government they have because it is what they have provided for themselves.
I can see the consequnces of random events in what you describe, but I cannot see responsibility being involved in any of them. All I am saying is, I don't think it's a "Darwinian" description. I have no problem with what you say, I was just being a bit picky about a phrase you used. Apologies.

But I'm prepared to adopt your attitude: let's lead by example. Let's show the world what we have the capacity for. Let's double international aid and think about increasing it more. Let's treat the poor as if they are worthwhile people, not stupid fools who deserve their fate because they were born that way!
nobody born poor 'deserves' it. but c'mon, man, our hand outs are bandaids on arterial wounds! what happened to teaching men to fish? and where exactly does the increased foreign aid come from? america is bankrupting itself now, do we just keep the cash flowing? look, you must at least agree that we have to get back on some stable financial ground before we can throw more money into black holes.
Yes, let's go back to teaching men to fish. And buy them a boat to fish from. Then we can buy their catch and eat, while they buy goods that we make and they don't.

America is NOT going bankrupt. Nowhere near it. Anyone who tells you different is lying, or ignorant. America is going through an economic decline because its economy could not keep up with its consumerism, triggered by avaricious bankers willing to lend to anyone who could sign their name, and fuelled by producers whose affluent consumers have no more easy credit. It will be painful. Those who suffer the most pain will be the poorest. But eventually America will emerge again, rich, plump and greedy, just as before. (I recall my economics lessons where I learnt about Thomas Malthus, who said: The rich, by unfair combinations, contribute frequently to prolong a season of distress among the poor. )