Imperialism Re-defined

I use to question myself on some of the changes that we see in the current world
In a history book if you read the first few chapters you come across ,Ashoka the Great,Gupta's ,Chengiz Khan,The great Moghuls,Vijayanagar empire,Pandiyas,etc. One thing that was common among these kings is capturing new regions and expanding their territories. Each one of the kings were lauded for their quest for expansion of their countries. Although the good things they did we will read one of the core aspect that will be praised was their war skills and ability to rule larger part of India
All these were till 17th Century AD
In the same history book we will read the critics of World war 1,II,Hitler,America,British ,Japans ,Korea's,Iran's,Israel's quest for expansion. Now Bush is being criticized for his IRAQ/AFGAN acts

I understand this argument may look absurd,but some how it keeps hitting my mind often. Though we can claim we are becoming a flat world now..more expansion on trade than war,etc I do not feel to be convinced.

One thing that convinces me is majority people in the world have started realizing that WAR is of no use and if you need to grow you have to have a different strategy

We may not be alive ,lets see how the kids read history books 100 years from now...we never knew Hitler,Saddam would also get into the category of Ashoka,Chengiz Khan,etc