Regards, Ivan
Well, it is not our duty, but it should be our goal. I give you Japan and Germany as examples of countries who are better neighbors because we DID step in in the past.
We almost agree...I'm not advocating invading countries for human rights abuses alone, but I am saying that in such cases as we are able make a justifiable case for national security, our overall objective in such instances should be "regime change." The overall strategy would have to be adhered to over decades, as they have between the liberation of Germany from the fascists and the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban.
I'd say Iran amd North Korea are the only two countries that present such an opportunity at this time.
That there must be a form of global law enforcement is a natural result of changes in the world, over which we have no control. Each of us is destined to choose what form that governance may take.
Here, now, we have an emerging force in the world that can act to cut back the growth of socialism and brutality. That may seem a little "imperialistic", but in the absence of such action, the UN's paradigm will predominate, and the planet will continue the flush itself down a rathole.
People yearning for liberty everywhere will follow a strong lead, and support the overthrow of evil in their own countries; but someone has to lead : that leadership has devolved upon the US, UK, Austrailia, Poland, and others.
There is a race between communism allied with brutality and the Jeffersonian idiology of limited government subordinate to the natural liberties of persons. The UN espouses the former; the Anglosphere, the latter. By choosing to allow dictators to have what they will in their own countries, you also tacitly endorse tyranny: tyranny can not survive without parisitically feeding on prosperous, free nations. They are, by nature, propelled to swollow up societies like the one in which you live.
And as if that knowledge would not be enough to have one choose a position on the side of aggressive support of liberty, I would think that the simple knowledge that somewhere--anywhere--there was a human subject to brutality by the likes of Saddam, would be enough to move the heart and mind toward resolute counter-offense. We owe that support by virtue of our humanity, in addition to our interest in self-preservation.
I recall a network TV news story about one 19 year-old boy in Afghanistan who taught himself English and studied history by means of an illegal satellite dish and forbidden books. He hid the Oxford English Dictionary under the floorboards in his bedroom. For him, alone, was the liberation of that place worth the effort: he was at risk of death for his pursuits. I said to myself, " Here is a future leader of Afghanistan!"
As to attacking tyranny and brutality everywhere at once: that's impossible; but Iraq is a good place to start.
You have a choice: support action against all those evil bastards, or isolate yourself from "foreign entanglements" until the armies they nurture beat down your door.