To be fair, it must be said that it isn't ONLY the USA that...

To be fair, it must be said that it isn't ONLY the USA that behaves as if the end justifies the means. Look at Russia's support of Belarus or of Assad in Syria. Their end is obviously to be able to defend the entrance to the Dardenelles & Bosphorous which are vital to the access of their Black Sea fleet (based incidentaly as it has always been at Sevastopol --- in the Crimea) and merchant ships to the Mediteranean Sea: also to demonstrate they are an important player in the middle east --- Damascus being but 1 1/2 flight to Rostof-On-Don. However, Bashar Al Assad's regime is morally indefensible, although perhaps less so than some of the alternatives the poor old Syrians have on offer --- eg.DAESH. Or China's support of the military regime in Myanmar or fat boy Kim's despotic regime in North Korea --- both aimed at maintaining China's sphere of influence and at keeping US and "allied" forces, particulalry missiles at a respectable distance from their frontiers. Nonetheless, as self-proclaimed "world policeman" it is IMO incumbent on the USA to be a true example of those values they purport to uphold, the which, unfortunatey, they have historically and continue to this day to singularly fail to do.