Ok, I'll take this in parts as well:
1. The US gives billions of dollars in aid to foreign countries each year. I don't see how that is not "humanistic," especially since we don't have to. And when countries that have extreme ideologies and crazy leaders(there is no other way to put it, their leaders are either completely blinded by rhetoric and inflammatory teachings or insane, which can be considered the same thing if you think about it), such as North Korea and Iran, admit that they are developing nuclear weapons, how do you think the US is going to respond? Rely on nuclear missles that are almost 20 years old for protection and as a last resort? Or will you accept that the US is made up of rational people by and large, and will adequately protect themselves and not allow thier(absolute) last line of defense to deteriorate to shambles?
2.I don't like the UN, or respect them, neither, I think, do most Americans, especially after the oil-for-food scandal that most people seem to gloss over. As to the US's "excuse" for attacking Iraq, you obviously aren't thinking logically enough about this. This is not some new kind of gun, or a really cool new set of tinkertoys that Iraq was suspected of having. This was "weapons of mass destruction," notice the words "weapon" and "mass destruction." These are evil, illegal, barbaric weapons that can kill a multitude of people(Like when Sadaam used said WMD's to kill 4000 of his own people in 198. Merely the suspicion of those devices, which are highly illegal, is a cause to go to war, so that those weapons cannot be used against your own country in the future. I repeat, with weapons of this nature, that can kill thousands of people and be snuck into different areas of countries and used as giant suicide bombs, if you will, even the suspicion of such a thing is a cause for war. The US had concrete evidence at the time of the war for that suspicion. From the UN weapons inspectors that were not allowed into Iraq from 1998 to 2002, which only raised suspicion in the eyes of the US that something was going on, to the inspections going on in 2002, where there were rumors in the intelligence community that Iraqis would move out contraband materials just before inspectors arrived, and moved them back when they left; also, the head of the UN weapons inspections team said in January 2003 that, "not genuinely accepted U.N. resolutions demanding that it disarm." This was coming from a man that does not really like the US, and was accused of making excuses for Sadaam to try to stop a war with Iraq. Worst of all, there was a report that Iraq was attempting to buy weapons grade uranium. Taking all these into account, I would say that the US had ample reason to believe that Iraq might have WMD's, which is such a serious thing that war is a viable option in that case. The fact that none were found shows that the US was wrong in hindsight, but does not negate the fact that they had a good reason to go to war when they went to war, and now have a good reason to stay in Iraq a little longer for the time being, which is to try to clean up the mess they made.
3. That is wrong. Just wrong. The rumor is based on a study done by extreme environmentalists, where they made a graph of the minimum barometric pressure of the hurricanes when they made landfall, and then they manipulated the results to prove their point, that hurricanes have been more powerful since 1970. Not only do I consider this one of the lowest things a intelligent person can do, try to falsify reports to create a hysteria that goes along with their goals, but the information is false. The basic trend of the graph is flat, meaning that hurricanes are just as powerful as they have always been. Like any graph, there are spikes in it, and there is one spike, still within normal bounds, since 1970, and they made it look like hurricanes are more powerful than ever, when really they are just manipulating data to suit their purposes. And if you want to talk about countries that are screwing up nature, the US has been a big polluter, but has been trying to change that. India and China, on the other hand, use massive amount of coal for energy, not a very good thing for the environment, and show no signs of trying to change. And just because the US refused to adopt some of the extreme policies set forth by the Kyoto Protocols, which I read and thought to be an idealistic, optimistic piece of crap that would never work, they are labeled as nature haters, when the US follows many environmental policies that other countries won't follow, and is trying to become more "green."
I don't see anything wrong with disagreeing with the policies of my country, I just suggest you research what you hear a little more before you make arbitrary statements about an entire country of individuals.
P.S. - I'll reiterate this again, I was not for the Iraqi war. Whenever we get involved in other countries, the world hates us. I say that the US pulls out of all dealings with other countries that it possibly can, and let the rest of the world fend for itself and see how it does without us, and let us deal with our own problems, we have enough inside our country to occupy us.
P.P.S. - Where are you from Isalroc? Just curious.
Edit: Noticed I made a lot of grammatical errors, will try to correct them. And that is a very wise move, Aikido, I am probably going to be flamed by many USA haters shortly.