[Preechr]

Y'know, honestly, I can understand the unclean feeling you guys are associating with US "alliances" with people that are less than angelic. What's the option? Max, what's your feelings on Bush's refusal to talk with Syria as long as they support terrorism? Don't relate it to this and try to get out of the question by labeling it hypocrisy and jumping into the woods to hide. Just tell me straight out whether you think that's good policy on it's face.

In war torn regions, there really are no truly "good guys." Hell, Britain is our chief ally, and they used to be our own Imperial masters. France helped us defeat them in the revolution, but then helped the South in the Civil War. We helped them both in the World Wars against Germany, and so did Russia, but Germany wound up being our friend and Russia our enemy, at least for a while. China backed our enemies in Korea and Vietnam, yet now our economy hinges on peaceful trade with them.

In each of those situations, we have allied and called enemy those that have done terrible and unspeakable things. That's life. That's war.

In the War on Terror, we don't have the option of being too picky when it comes to backing local factions. Yes, it is incumbent upon us to a degree to pick the lesser of two evils in almost every situation, but surely you guys are recommending that we declare everyone in the region our enemy and supplant them all with American leaders that have never done anything wrong? Try to find one of those, while you're noodling this out, btw...

The goal here is to leave whatever leadership exists after stability and free government is established to the locals, not to establish colonies that we are in charge of.