Their own, of course. It's rather similar to the famous dictum that 'the Chinese want wealth and stability, not Western notions of human rights'. I would argue (in both cases) that we had best actually ask them.
I guess this is where we diverge in opinion. To me, it seems like there is a dividing line between things that can be classified as cultural differences, and things that are crimes against humanity. Maybe its the American in me speaking up (not that I'm saying America has an exclusive claim on these), but I believe people have certain unalienable rights- life, pursuit of happiness, etc. Communism or capitalism, dictatorship or democracy, or anything in-between, people must have these rights.
In the example of Saudi Arabia, even though they are not my customs, women wearing burkhas, not working, and being secluded away fall under "people do what they want". Stoning women to death for not doing such things crosses the line.
I am opposed to war under any circumstance and in any guise. Which does not mean I do not understand that war can be forced upon a guiltless party. But all war is deplorable and should, ideally, not happen.
I agree with the "ideally would not happen" and "deplorable". I simply believe that there are worse things than war, and that if it takes war to prevent those things, then it is a necessary evil. To use the old standby, I would rather have some country declare war on Nazi Germany rather than let them continue their domestic policies.
I'm not happy with majoritarianism. By these lights, there would be nothing wrong with the roughly 80% whites in the US around 1950 deciding democratically that blacks don't get full rights. If the blacks had voted in favour, I'd be more convinced of the merits of that particular system...
If 100% agreement was required for state political action, no action could ever be taken. If some crazy nut out in Idaho who wears a tin helmet to stop the UN black helicopters from reading his thoughts doesn't want the US to do something, then it can't be done? I'm sorry, but if you truly believe that every single person must agree with every single decision, then I would peg you as someone who opposes the very concept of government. Which is kind of odd, because we would have never advanced beyond hunter-gatherers if people didn't badn together, and sacrifice some individual freedom for the benefits of unity.
To counter your example of race in the US, if your doctrine was followed, blacks would never have been given full rights- the Supreme Court decision that ended segregation came down to a 5-4 vote in favor of equal access.