Many people believe in moral exceptionalism when it comes to USA foreign policy when the vast majority of the time it boils down to the same self-interested realpolitik as other countries.

>It's not hypocritical to want "your" side to win, and it's not from a lack of moral standing when you're motivating this taking-sides with "well, I like and wish democracies on people more than I like and wish brutal dictatorships on people". Yes, it's a "our side is better than theirs" but I think hard and yes, our "side" is indeed better than NK's, Russia's, Iran's, Cuba's. I could contort myself in saying that our side is only better insofar as it makes me ~believe that it's better, behind a veil of fake democracy. But then that's be contortionism, and not a down to earth, pragmatic look at it.

>All sides in this stuff will play realpolitik and use their armies and kill and what not. But at the end of the day, where do you want to live? In which of these regimes is life preferable?

I agree that this is the correct framework to think about things, discarding the chaff of what is fair, good guys, and bad guys.

However, I don't think that where I would want to live translates to my country can do no wrong.

For example, I would rather live in the US than Cuba, but I don't think that warrants an invasion and regime change in Cuba. I also don't think it warrants sanctions on Cuba.

I think life in the US is better than most countries, but I have a moral and logical framework that usually opposes foreign intervention and coercion.

That is to say, I don't think the US has an moral obligation to be the world police and initiate regime change around the globe