ah, it's a fine line to walk, isn't it? In one sense, it's good for the greatest power & influence to be held by a country/society that is relatively benign, democratic and altruistic....yet simply becoming powerful and influential tends to move a country away from those virtues.. "Power corrupts...etc."

In WWI and WWII, the U.S. waited, and entered the war when we were needed and when it was clear that we were helping to repel agressors. How far we have come to this point of starting a war, just because we (that is, the powers-that-be) feel that we are the designated arbitors. It is clear that our motivation has become confused--partly sincere objection to an evil tyrant, partly cunning self-interest, partly wanting to show off and do this "because we can", partly trying to stabilize things and 'make the world safer', partly (understandable)knee-jerk reaction to 9/11....

I TRULY wonder what other countries would do if they had serious leverage and power...could we trust Lichtenstein or Suriname? There is no easy way to answer this, as there is something deep in the genetic structure of too many humans in (almost)ALL cultures that breeds competition and belligerence, even as we speak of cooperation and peace.

No, I don't think we are 'evil'...yet...not like Saddam would be IF he had managed to keep Kuwait and extend HIS power...but 'evil' is a slippery concept, and too many people in the world easily slip into defining 'evil' as "anyone who has more than me and doesn't seem to want to share".....*shrug*...

and as long as people's identities are defined by their clan, religion and relative place in the pecking order, 'evil' will continue to be a tennis ball, lobbed at any one you don't like or agree with..