My real point is, why should a Canadian be within my fence - and, for example, someone from Rwanda be outside my fence?
I don't get where there is any moral obligation to protect a Canadian - when it is improper to protect someone from Rwanda.
If your argument, which it appears to be, is that it is wrong to involve oneself in any foreign militaristic intervention other than pure and immediate self-defence then yes, I believe it is equally wrong to use the law to involve oneself domestically to stop you from buying (or even stealing) my property. If I can personally stop you, bully on me. Just like if the Rwandan civilian could have stopped the organized genocide, bully on them. If I can't, tough luck.
If there are human and civil rights, they are inherent to every person and deserving of protection. If someone's human and civil rights are not deserving of protection, then I want the right not to have to pay taxes to protect other people within Canada if I so choose. If you get to choose people outside of Canada you don't want to protect, I want the right to choose people in Canada I don't want to protect.
Now, I actually am not a libertarian - I don't believe in this. And therefore I believe in the possibility of interventionist humanitarian action. I believe we should have acted to stop the Rwandan genocide and I believe we should act in the future to stop genocide. Now, the devil is in the details as to when it is appropriate to act - but public policy decisions are difficult.
Saying "all war is bad" is simplistic and dangerous. And leads to the death of 1,000,000 black people in Africa.
Question war. Just like we have to question every police shooting and every interventionist action by the state taken internally within Canada.
But sometimes police have to shoot someone to protect hostages - and sometimes it might be necessary to bomb somebody to protect inherent human rights.
Hopefully someday neither the Army nor the Police will be needed.