I think you're making the mistake of generalising the rest of the world into a single homogenous mass. The people who criticise you for intervening in Iraq and the people who criticise for not intervening in Sudan are probably not the same people. And of course the comparison is extremely crude because Iraq and Sudan are very different countries.Seldon2639 said:America can't win, and it bothers me. We're never allowed to be right. If we interfere in a foreign country (Iraq), and free their citizens from an evil dictator, we're imperialist dogs. If we fail to interfere in a foreign country (Sudan), we're amoral bastards.
Personally, I don't necessarily oppose American interventionism, my problem is that America is not consistent. You can't claim the moral high ground for toppling a brutal dictatorship in Iraq when you're supporting other brutal dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Egypt to name just three. For America, a dictatorship is only a dictatorship if it's an enemy, otherwise it's a 'developing democracy'.
America's role as world policeman is a self-appointed one and one that is bitterly resented in much of the world, even in America's European allies (except for their British lapdogs) most people are hostile to this sort of policy. I think America could 'win' in the eyes of most non-Americans if abandons its role as world policeman and if it wants to keep it they keep they're going to have to start being consistent and stop sorting the 'good' dictatorships from the 'bad' dictatorships.