Without defending those actions, most(maybe all) of these countries territories were not annexed. That is a major difference IMO. And several of them were justifiable to reasonable people.
Afghanistan was invaded because of 9-11. The Taliban were harboring Al-Quaeda. A good reason not only not to like them but also to go after them.
The intervention in
Somalia was to save them from themselves. Save them from famine, starvation and mad-max style collapse of the rule of law.
Iraq was a war of choice, and indefensible. But none of its territory was annexed.
Yemen is a Shia vs Sunni war. The "west" is only involved indirectly.
Zim is an own goal. Mugabe went after people who had powerful friends.
Iran has not been bombed since the end of Iran/Iraq war. Sanctions are defensible as long they do not violate international law. Countries are free to choose their trade partners.
Lebanon is not under any sanctions. The civil war that took place was also not because the West hated the government.
Syria is typical of what happens when a minority imposes its will on the majority. Russia(generally not considered part of the "west") indiscriminately bombed major cities and committed war crimes.
Tunisia had an internal revolution. No bombing or sanctions from the West.
Cuba,
Bolivia were civil wars in which the US armed this or that group, during the cold-war. Neither was annexed.
Venezuela's problem is internal, mediated by US economic sabotage. The US has not bombed, invaded or even supported armed rebellions there.
