Why the fuck is it our job to protect the world from what a handful of sociopaths perceive to be evil?

Maybe we should try learning from history since every time we topple a government or overthrow a dictator someone even more fucked up takes there place.

It was this exact attitude, in concert with the callous indifference towards vast human rights abuses and the ongoing genocide of 6 million Jews, that kept the U.S. from trying to stop Adolf Hitler militarily for so long.

Which "handful of sociopaths perceived Hitler to be evil?" Or could it be that you were just picking and choosing which human rights atrocities and which dictators who commit them it's okay to oppose and which aren't? Could we get a more comprehensive list of which groups of people, which races, which religions, whose death and misery we should feel comfortable about in pursuit of this retail non-interventionism you're pushing? Should we feel okay with Kurds being gassed in their villages, or with Jews being gassed in internment camps? How many arms of children in Somali villages getting chopped off, is acceptable? Is there a number?

Yeah, no. You are profoundly and inexorably wrong, and your glance back into history to include just the two nations of Iraq and Libya is stilted and wrong as well. While it is surely tragic that religious jihadists sometimes take advantage of the power vacuum left behind by deposed dictators, that's only persuasive as to a move to more focused and less facially destablizing military operations, NOT to the broad isolationism of the Ron Pauls in the world, who can afford to arrogantly articulate foreign policy that does not affect them one iota either way.