As we have seen in the case of the US even democratically elected govts do reprehensible stuff like the Iraq invasion and the Contras.
Democracies have a weak point though, because not always does the majority stand behind the "good" side of history. For example the US electorate was 80% in favor of the Iraq invasion in May 2003, a month or two after the invasion had begun and approximately at the same time with the infamous "Mission accomplished" speech. I've always compared the Iraq war with the equally infamous Athenian Sicily Expedition [1], which had got the majority support of the Athenian citizens at its start but which in the end proved to be disastrous for the Athenian democracy.
The unwritten corollary to this is that we elect better officials. And in that regard, this week's episode of the EconTalk podcast on cronyism had an interesting line I've since been pondering. Paraphrased, "It's not that we should get better people, we need to incentivize bad people to do good things rather than incentivize good people to do bad things."
With our way of life being using up the planet's resources in an unprecedented speed, exploiting third world countries and waging war around the globe?
Microsoft is losing relevance heavily right now so they take more compromises than before.
India, on the other hand, is a melting pot of multiple cultures, ethnicities, and religions that have managed to co-exist harmoniously, despite the odd riot or skirmish. Based on this alone, I would support India's "way of life" to be worth fighting for.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Pakistan
Not every war is about protecting democracy or anyone's fundamental freedoms against undemocratic enemies. Nationalism, disputed territories, conflicts involving minorities, these things cause wars, and democracy doesn't necessarily fix it.
Sometimes the world is a bit more complex than a Hollywood movie.
I don't think though it makes sense to try to paint every single conflict as good-vs-bad, democracy-vs-dictatorship, since you can easily have full democracies fighting each other for any possible reason (imagine potentially UK-France, Yugoslavia breakup or anything else)
MSFT is not selling weapons, so long as they are not selling to tyrants, I think they're in the clear.
If they were selling tanks this would be a more complicated discussion.