Sure it has. Where have you been. We just went to Iraq in order to install a government more like ours and to give the people our wealth (in the form of a gubment more like ours). Bush actually says that this was part of our purpose there. And this is just the most recent formal and concerted effort to spread our way.
You've begged the question, though: if somebody (say, Osama bin Laden) threatens to attack us, are we morally bound to wait until he's actually trying to hurt us, or are we allowed to take him out once it's clear that he'll eventually make the attempt?
We are morally bound to defend ourselves and not attack unprovoked. OBL has attacked us directly repeatedly thru the years. His death should be priority #1. Iraq OTOH has not directly attacked us and this, in my mind, is where the line gets blurry. Did Saddam attack us or even pose a real and identifiable threat to our nation (notice the lack of "interests in my comments)? IMO no, it has not been shown conclusively, but there is that blurry area that he may have, might have done something.
This points out the problem with strict neutrality: it's stupid. It gives the other guy a free shot at our jaw, and requires us to hold off on protecting our interests until the price of doing so becomes enormous.
Then we need to make sure that everyone on the planet understand the consequences on their free shot. Nuke him. If he really took the free shot then nuke him. Make it plain, swift, and devastatingly clear that if you take your free shot you get d-e-d, and that right quick. Even though we went in and took their palaces, oil wells and desert they are still alive and even more pissed. Like knocking a hornets nest down we're just stirring the pot in order to create more of a "problem" which requires more of our "solution".
Again: we have an obligation to carefully choose when to intervene, but we also have an explicit interest in maintaining the right to intervene when our interests demand it.
Yup, very carefully. And finally, the reason I choose not to use "interests" in my justifications. Our interests, national, are now of the type that we are only safe once everyone on the planet has come around to our way of thinking. Out interests are in the furthering of our security by converting everyone else. And these interests are what's going to not only make terrorism here at home a daily occurance but also bankrupt us leaving even our basic need for self defense unattainable.
We are morally bound to defend ourselves and not attack unprovoked.
Define "provocation."