When is it Acceptable for America to Interfere in an Effort to Stop Global Genocide?

This is tough one to answer. If you listen to liberals around this country, they are disheartened by the amount of U.S. interference in Darfur and other regions of the world to stop the genocide. While at the same time, these same liberals are against the war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a rogue leader who tortured and murdered thousands of innocent Iraqi’s. Iraq was a country in genocide. Why does it make more sense for us to use force in the Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur than to stop the genocide in Iraq? Why should we take our troops out of Iraq and lose that war so we can stop the genocide in Darfur? If we did that and Iraq got into the wrong hands then we would have two countries promoting genocide than just one. That means thousands would have lost their lives in vain. Some may argue that we would not have to use force to stop the genocide in Darfur. They are being naïve, the only way to stop the genocide in any region is to use force. If the U.S. sent forces into Darfur, they would be accused of doing so because of oil. In any case, you cannot win. Why is the Darfur genocide so much more important to the liberal elite (the media and Hollywood) than in other region of the world such as Iraq. None of this makes any sense. They complain when we interfere and complain when we do not interfere. This is hypocritical. Either it is an acceptable foreign policy to interfere and use force to stop genocide, or it is not. It must be nice to be an “arm chair quarterback” and disagree with everything a President does just because you do not like him or his party. These liberal elite are acting like a bunch of children that cannot get their way.