So, Steve brings up a good point. Perhaps people not only want to side with 'whatever side has the nobler cause', but simply 'whatever side is the pacifist'. This still doesn't explain the articles I read about how Saddam shouldn't have been executed, W. should have been; Israel is worse than Palestine even though Palestine has said no to peace proposals repeatedly, and Israel's offensive tactics have only been used after an attack from Palestine; W. is Hitler, etc. The Hitler one completely baffles me. They are free to think W. is a bad guy. But, do they understand what Hitler did?

So, even if Darth Vader's motives seem righteous to him (which they tried explaining in Episode 2), it is apparent to the audience who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. So, in world conflicts today, even though the sides aren't decked out in white and black uniforms to make it easy, why is it so difficult for people to agree on who the good guys are. And I'm not saying 1 side's perfect and 1 side's morally inferior. I'm saying, when you see a conflict going on in the world, and you learn why it's going on, it should be fairly easy to see who has the best case. Why is this so difficult?