Actually, Jmac, liberals are just as prone as social conservatives to be censorship minded. The PC mindset and speech codes at universities are byproducts of socially liberal people. Further, the Obama campaign is trying to censor povs that they feel are unfair to their candidate, all the while distorting the records of the other side. Nice piece of political hypocrisy.
Frankly, as regards WW2, it is right to point out that a healthy share of the credit for destroying the German war machine can be attributed to US involvement. That should not overlook the contribution made by our allies, both eastern and western. Even if GB provided nothing other than only Enigma, its contribution would be almost sinful to overlook. It naturally provided more, of course. The USSR tied down >60% of Hitler's armies on the eastern front. Imagine how impossible D-Day would have been had the USSR been forced to capitulate in '41. Even in the Pacific theatre, commonwealth troops helped tie down Japanese forces in places like Burma. It would, however, be incorrect to contend that the US entered the European theatre only toward the end. Invasions of Africa and Sicily/Italy were underway as early as '42/'43. The final push only didn't take place till '44. Also, not all the concentration camps were liberated by the Russians, though the many of the largest ones did lie mostly in their path. Frankly, the crack about the atomic bombing as atrocity is pretty empty. The war itself was something of an atrocity and ugly tactics were used by all sides.
As regards the question of "loyalty" and allies, I think it was Palmerston in the 19th century that pointed out that countires have permanent interests, not permanent friends. I've been to Europe 2x and have not generally found the people to be hostile to Americans or the contributions of our grandfathers (outside of govt positions and the portions of the "intelligentsia", who even tend to be America haters in our own country). It is only natural, as Palmerston pointed out (and we discover even w/in our own families) that people ain't always gonna agree on everything and will have their own agendas. Ce le vie/guerre (sp?).
As to the UN, it's a useless pit of vipers if we're going to be honest. It serves a kind of PR purpose for all the major players, but that's really about all. Given that it only takes 1 of 5 countries to nix something, perhaps we should be gratreful. All the more so with the hostility many of its members have toward the US and even west/developed world in general. I can only thank God/fate that the UN is so weak. A UN army/military would be a waste of money anyway for the aforementioned reason. As it is, what military force the UN has currently is a major joke anyway. I wouldn't advocate anyone make its military subservient to the UN, even our enemies (tempting though it might be). While we shouldn't expect other nations to be grateful for the support we do provide through the UN, nor should they ungratefully assume that the $$ spigot will flow unquestioningly.
As for Iraq, SD is quite correct that it was never necessary for the whole charade of justifying an "illegal war" (so called by its critics), as the very breaking of the cease fire terms automatically set things in motion anyway. That's how wars work. Break the ceasefire terms and war resumes. Had an actual peace treaty been signed, the Iraq war critics would actually have had a possible case. Instead, all they've got is bupkiss.
Ce le guerre.