[yesenadam]

OK, sorry if some of my assumptions were incorrect.

>sometimes they see it as the lesser evil when the populace would go against US interests

So here democracy is 'the greater evil'. Countries have their own interests, the US has just often tried to stomp out any chance of other countries achieving theirs. If anyone tries to do the to the US it's met with moral outrage. Same with 'free markets'. Endless preaching them, actually it's the last thing corporations want.

[eloff]

Yes. To be fair, sometimes those interventions have worked out for the better - look at the difference between North Korea and South Korea today. Of course the reasons for that intervention had little to do with the best interests of the Korean people and a lot more to do with preventing the USSR from spreading their influence - but even that seems to be a clear win in hindsight - those places where the USSR spread it's influence suffered in poverty, their populations denied basic human freedoms. Many of them still do.

So yeah, the US looked out for their own interests, and I don't suppose that should be a surprise to anyone, because that's what every nation state does. But by and large they made the world a better place for it - with a few glaring exceptions. I don't think the world would do as well under Chinese leadership - but I also do not think we will see that world in this century. China is not poised to overtake the USA as many seem to believe is inevitable - their near future is written in stone in the demographics of their country, and will more closely mirror the story of Japan. This seems likely to be a second US-led century.

[slededit]

To play devils advocate - its not at all clear that the south would be better off were there not massive embargos imposed upon the north. For decades after the split the North was the more prosperous country.