I'd say things are better than they were, actually. Terrorism is still an issue, true, but Saddam was in fact a bad person, and had more than a few screws loose. I'd say that while things certainly could have gone better, and the way things were done was horrid, things are actually looking up. Al-Qaeda is in shambles, real equality progress is being made, and there's one less psychotic dictator in the world.
Under Saddam, the economy was actually haflway stable and basic utilities such as electricity and water were reliable. Since the Americans moved in, the economy went down the shitter, utilities were non-existent for a while due to the initial invasion basically flattening the place and while those issues aren't as bad as they used to be (though not as good as they were before the US occupation), the place is about as safe as an active volcano. While the rather frequent IUDs and firefights may be specifically targetting American soldiers, let's just say that collateral damage in the form of civilian casualties isn't exactly a once in a lifetime event.
Ahem, proof?
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money.
Remember, Iraq and Afghanistan both are rather small countries, and America's total GDP is around $16 trillion (and that's GDP, i.e. the value of the entire economy, tax revenue is a fraction of that and military spending a fraction of that fraction). You want to occupy every country in the world with anything less than first world living conditions? Yeah, you can probably get a rough idea of how well that'll work.
There will always be poverty, violence and other issues here. World peace is impossible with humans in control. Also, it's only poorly thought out if you don't, well, think it out. With good planning, it's not poorly thought out. Additionally, I'd say that that is in fact the racist mindset. No group of people should be more important than others due to their nationality.
Racist? What exactly does it have to do with a person's race? Words have meaning, pal, don't misuse them for a cheap ad hom if you want to be taken seriously. Also, note that I didn't say one group is more important in an absolute sense than another, what I said is, from the perspective of any given government, it's citizens are more important than non-citizens. This isn't unique to Americans. Americans are no more entitled to aid from the Italian government than Italians are to aid from the American government. I know, you want us all to be the white knights of the world, saving the oppressed and downtrodden of the world from their shitty situation. However, that's simply not feasible. Resources are limited, even to the west, and domestic problems, contrary to what you're implying, are not trivial. Again, the government has no business spending its citizen's tax dollars on foreigners when there are plenty of unsolved domestic issues that negatively affect said citizens to deal with.