Which brings us to something I've been trying to figure out:
Once a Western country i.e. US, or a slightly earlier Britain takes over a country militarily or with military threat, due to a cruel dictatorship, resources worries, a really bad civil war, invasion, etc and there is no given political structure to take over (i.e. not when UN took Kuwait back for the Kuwaitis from Saddam), which seems to work best, out of:
-Colony, eventually releasing once it is strong enough?
-Pulling out after setting up a democratic system?
-Leaving troops there to keep peace for a local government you set up?
-Other options I missed?
And which is most moral?
Raise taxes on said colony.
Get caught up in a war with it.
Get tired, admit defeat, and then grant independence.
More seriously though:
Colony: That definetly wouldn't fly these days, especially when the tech level is equal. Sure, we have some territories or 'colonies', but they're all islands in the Pacific. Actually, we did do the 'make into a colony and release later when stronger' thing with the Phillippines.
Pulling out after setting up a democratic system: We tried to do that with Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan was somewhat successful (not without it's problems), but I'm sure I don't have to explain Iraq.
Leaving troops to keep peace: While we did that in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was for different reasons than the British Empire would have done it.
If anything, colony seems to work best.