"Imperialistic" can be a subjective evaluation and opinion, but it can safely be said that under the present administration in power, definitely not.
the need for new places to get raw materials
Imperialistic and resource-driven.
The United States was not as imperialistic as other imperialistic countries were. The US only sought the Pacific and the Caribbean/Middle America. The Philippines were acquired during the Spanish-American War (as were several other American territories) and really exercised the US's westernmost desire.
The concept of America as an "Imperial Democracy" suggests a tension between democratic ideals and imperialistic practices. From its inception, the United States exhibited elements of democracy, such as the establishment of a constitution and the promotion of individual rights. However, it also engaged in imperialistic actions, such as territorial expansion through the Louisiana Purchase, the annexation of Texas, and the displacement of Native Americans. These dual characteristics indicate that while America was founded on democratic principles, it simultaneously embraced imperialistic tendencies that would shape its evolution.
The most imperialistic state in the world is Great Britain (they have colonies in XXI century). So Russia is imperialistic not more than USA =)
Manchuria was valuable during the imperialistic age and today, albeit less so, because it is rich in deposits of metal ore.
is being part of the imperialistic approach beneficial to your country?
They wanted to gain an advantage in the competition for global resources. <--- Net
no
what kind of housing do they have in America today?
Yes, both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson's policies toward Latin America can be described as imperialistic. Roosevelt's "Big Stick" diplomacy emphasized military intervention and the assertion of U.S. influence, exemplified by the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which justified intervention in the region. Wilson, while advocating for moral diplomacy, still intervened in several Latin American countries to protect U.S. interests and promote democratic governance, ultimately reflecting an imperialistic approach. Both presidents aimed to expand U.S. influence and control in Latin America, often at the expense of local sovereignty.
Because we are the only ones big enough and strong enough to save the helpless from the world's bullies. We are expected to save those who can't save themselves. If we don't we are heartless. When we do we are imperialistic. It's hard to save a planet single handedly and make everyone happy at the sametime. But who else is going to do something? The French?