>>West having a better society doesn't make them right.
>
>In this particular fight, they've got more right than they other guy.
>
>I want them to win.

Good for you.

>Again, America is not perfect. It is not ideal.
>
>But it is still better than the Islamo-facism that is trying to overthrow it.

How is it trying to overthrow the US? Is it trying to introduce a new type of government on US soil? Is it trying to destroy institutions here? What makes them a threat.

>I don't have a problem taking sides.

Neither do I, except when the side I'd like to take is morally questionable. In Yugoslav wars I had a lot of trouble defining patriotism - because my country wasn't the one I knew.

>Your idealism is what prevents you from doing the same.

Idealism is only a part of it. The other parts may be described as acquired cynicism, lack of trust, and lots of perception that they don't mean what they say and don't say what they mean.

>>And I'm still saying they aren't right in what they're currently doing, and in the way they're doing it. And mind you, this was about US foreign policy, not the whole West - which you switched somewhere along the way.
>
>Your opinion is that violence is an inappropriate response to Islamic militants.

No it's not. I didn't say that. Instead of re-telling your reading of my words and then commenting on that reading, you could, for once, try with what I actually said. So, here's it in simple terms:

- Bin Laden and Hussein couldn't stand each other. Bin Laden had bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with Saudi financial sources. Afghanistan campaign was undermanned, underfunded and didn't actually capture Bin Laden.
- Saudis didn't get as much as a slap on the wrist. Only when Al-Qaeda started acting then its existence there was brought to light.
- Saddam Hussein was not an islamo-fascist. He was a secular dictator.
- The mujahedeen were tolerated when they were arriving from Iran, Pakistan, Yemen etc to fight in Bosnia (you have one try to guess on which side). Everyone was looking the other way.
- Bin Laden had no connections with Iraq. Now Al-Qaeda may be connected with any militia there, and may even have infiltrated the Iraqi security forces.
- Halliburton
- Fallujah
- Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, outsourced CIA prisons, rendition
- culture of corruption
- faith based government

Fighting terrorism was always the job of the espionage, not the military. I didn't say violence can be avoided, it's more the matter of scale, precision and wisdom how to use it.

>I'm assured by the fact that you will never be personally responsible for dealing with Islamo-facists.

I have voted at home for the guys who now have to deal with them, while disputing the status of Kosovo. Oh, but those were the good islamo-fascists.

>Also, the US foreign policy is what is it precisely because it starts with the assumption: the West promotes a good soceity, the best society in existence today, in a world where genocide, gender inequality, theocracy, and dictators oppress the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of human beings.

Do you really think that one size fits all? And don't you think there may be others starting with the same assumptions, that their societies are the best in existence today? Does that give them the right to export their model to others? If so, why or why not?