First off, your original list doesn't quite make sense. Force didn't/hasn't removed several people on your list, many historically famous butchers are conveniently missing (Americans?, Royalty?, the Church?), and in the case of Castro and the U.S.S.R., the threat of force nearly ended the world.
Despite all that, I do agree that force is sometimes necessary to stop more suffering. However, it's rarely the case that war couldn't have been prevented beforehand through a bit of moral thinking. Obviously, that means no military aid to nations with a bad track record, such as Israel or Colombia. This also means you don't exploit the rest of the world, creating a perfect vacuum for a warlord to rise to power. The Vietnam war was mainly caused by the grueling poverty imposed by French imperialism, for example. And you certainly don't shake hands with those warlords once they gain command. We could make a similar list here, rivaling yours, the difference being of course that we are partially responsible for the suffering caused by these monsters through our aid and military support. Often these support mechanisms directly cause the exact type of dictator you are using as justification of war, taking the Taliban, Hussein, Indonesia, and Batista, for example. Perhaps some of these dictatorial regimes could be avoided by more carefully choosing our relationships with the rest of the world. Simply boiling down foreign policy to "useless talking" and "invasion" is a gross oversimplification that makes you sound like a warmongering idiot.
The best way to avoid war is to not help cause it in the first place. For example, let's take the war in Iraq. Had we not supported Saddam militarily throughout the eighties, he wouldn't have had the capacity to to invade another country. We could have prevented all of this by simply not selling arms to a dictator. The U.S. not only sold Saddam weapons, but they also helped Saddam develop his chemical and biological weapons programs in their crusade against Iran. I would assume that to someone who expresses so much reverence for freedom, you would understand the concept of not aiding those who legally despise it, i.e. dictators. Explain to me then, why Saddam was a former ally? The U.S. was pretty quiet when Saddam was using chemical weapons on his own people and the Iranians, despite the fact that it is explicitly forbidden internationally as a war crime. We certainly knew about it, so where was the outrage then? After the first war Bush I suggested that the Iraqi people overthrow Saddam, but in an ironic twist of fate we gave absolutely no aid to the Iraqi people to achieve such a task, after heavily funding the mess in the first place through Saddam. Instead of helping the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam, we punished them with brutal sanctions we knew would do nothing to the Iraqi elite, but would have horrible consequences for the rest of Iraq. When half a million Iraqi children died due to sanctions, the fact that most of Iraq's water treatment facilities were intentionally destroyed, and there was a dramatic increase in infectious disease, people like you turn around and blame Saddam! Before you go off about the Oil for Food program, keep in mind that is wasn't initiated until 1996 - by which time the damage was done. The Pentagon admitted
that one of their goals in the first Gulf war was to disable Iraqi society at large, rather than concentrate solely on military targets. They have also admitted that one of their goals was to make living conditions so unbearable to the Iraqis that they would overthrow Saddam out of desperation. In addition to destroying Iraq's underlying infrastructure, the U.S. fought to keep humanitarian goods, which had no military use, out of Iraq. Sounds pretty fucking sick and sadistic to me. If this is how you bring "democracy" to the rest of the world, you can definitely count me out. Explain to me again how this use of force was supposed to prevent human suffering and uphold freedom?
Having some consequential silver lining out of unbearable horror and misery does not excuse the atrocities committed to reach that silver lining, especially if there were far more humane options to achieve the same goal. Iraq could have been liberated without the use of heartbreaking sanctions and reckless invasion. Similarly, WWII would surely have been prevented if crippling sanctions against Germany had not built the resentment and power vacuum necessary to allow someone as ridiculously evil as Hitler to rise to power. The buildup of the fascist powers in Germany was not an overnight or secret procedure. Say whatever you want to, but the supposedly freedom loving U.S. did nothing to stop the rise of fascist dictatorships in the world, by far the biggest "threat to freedom" that's ever existed, until they were forces to be reckoned with. On the contrary, Wall Street invested heavily into Nazi Germany, including IBM, Coca-Cola, Ford, and even Prescott Bush
. The main, local, political opponents of the Nazis, the communists, were systematically exterminated with the quiet apporval of the western world. Certainly, showing some support for the supposed democracy the fascists were dismantling would have been a good way to preserve stability in the region. The world powers at the time were far less concerned with maintaining peace and order in Germany than making Germany entirely pay for a war it was only partially responsible for. I don't think I need to even get into appeasement, or a lack of backbone on the part of the other signators of the Treaty of Versailles, as a crucial misstep in allowing Germany to rearm. There were plenty of obvious opportunities to stop the Nazis, without a world war or concentration camps, beforehand. This scenario is often repeated, and it's highly depressing to find people like you focus only on resolution through war as opposed to these more humane alternatives.