I'm sure you'll find plenty of people thankful for (rather belated) assistance against the Germans. And many of the same people will think the US is now going down the wrong road. Performing miracles yesterday does not give you a blank check for today. If it did, that would be more like theocratic oligarchy. Whatever the US did to Europe's satisfaction in WWII hardly excuses its treatment of the "underdeveloped" (and post-intervention, economically hobbled) world. The Native Americans, Koreans and Filipinos (activist movements from both of those are still protesting general political meddling and specific massacres), Latin Americans from "big stick" Teddy onward, the Middle East lately, and more.
I think the government is _trying_ something in the Middle East that is mostly not what they say it is -- they're more concerned about oil and showing off bombers than human rights or WMD. That makes a bad foundation for nation building, and people in the region can often see through it. They've found regional governments from North Africa east ranting about democracy as a cover for rampant corruption and exploitation. Armed movements historically began with such concerns. The US investment of capacity and lives (2500+ of ours, but many times that number of "theirs") is not worth the gamble to me. Big business is a much more probable winner than average people. Halliburton gets to drill and build and feed until the troops depart, if not later.
To play the hypothetical history game a moment... I doubt the Germans could have held the Eastern Front even if the US never landed in Normandy. If I recall correctly, leaders at Yalta (1942 I believe?) were pretty clear that there was going to be a power vaccuum in Europe, and the Russians were already making a good start toward forcing a German retreat. Russia lost a couple million lives and did most of the dirty work. Give them some credit. We didn't watch half of the US burn in that war, and come back kicking. We got in on the ground when many cities west of Moscow (Russian and others, including German) were cratered wastelands.
Even had the Germans somehow ruled over then-devastated Europe, they had a tiny navy and the US had massive industrial capacity. I bet the Nazis would have made an even easier Cold War opponent than the Russians. The Russians' missiles could barely fly for the first few years, their showpiece air defense system was never up to speed, they had chronic economic problems, and the CIA was hounded by American conservatives to report that they were stronger than they were. Quite similar to Bush and Rumsfeld talking Iraq all out of proportion. The Germans could not have easily built and coordinated so much industrial strength as the Russians. And they would have been struggling with guerrilla movements that the historical Soviets couldn't dream of before Afghanistan.
The US... It's more a love-hate thing, but it's "my" country too for the present. And I'm fine with you having your opinion. Although if you'll accept some acerbic humor: you might pay attention to travel advisories (really, not the most popular opinions globally). That said, I think this war is particularly disastrous. We're bumbling around like the Brits in the Age of Imperialism proper, claiming we can send a few soldiers with talk of our capital's glory and thereby "civilize" most everything from Afghanistan to India/Tibet. Yet we have little real knowledge of the people and our military fires gay translators. We're packing bigger guns than the past Brits (not to ignore those along for the present), but that only alienates people more when they see those guns used to profit spinmasters back in the West.