2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 751:
Line 751: − + +
→Protection 2
::::::''Tell me one point where the point I try to make is driven by the two-year election cycle? ''
::::::''Tell me one point where the point I try to make is driven by the two-year election cycle? ''
::::::This is easy. Were the origin blanket statement was made "opposition to American foreign policy" was modified to "opposition to ''current'' American forieng policy"; now, in two years, rather than being a doctrinaire observation of liberal foreign policy since the Vietnam war, it will be just a moot point (assume libs win control of the Administration in two years). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::This is easy. Were the origin blanket statement was made "opposition to American foreign policy" was modified to "opposition to ''current'' American forieng policy"; now, in two years, rather than being a doctrinaire observation of liberal foreign policy since the Vietnam war, it will be just a moot point (assume libs win control of the Administration in two years). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I am not even sure if I added the "current", but it should indeed be there. Liberals oppose the "current" US foreign policy, but they didn't oppose US foreign policy a few years ago. The observation of the position is not driven by the election cycle, the positions that are observed are. If you observe positions and behavior of politicians, you have to live with the fact that they a driven by the election cycle. Since, you didn't address this point, where did I change an observation because of the election cycle?[[User:Order] 12 April, 14:45 (AEST)
:::::::Your other point. Do you suggest that Liberals oppose all foreign policy that claimed to further human rights since the Vietnam War? Carter and Clinton had quite some foreign policies, that they claimed furthered human rights, and I doubt that Liberals were generally opposed to all of it. Sure, it would be nice if you could make a general statement about Liberals, like they always oppose foreign interventions, but unfortunately its not true. That why you cannot put it into the article. [[User:Order] 12 April, 14:45 (AEST)
*Furthermore, Bush answered '''Absolutely not''' to the question if the US military should make nation building one of its core missions. That suggest firm opposition. That the word was invented in the late 90s doesn't matter. Call it interventionism, if you like it better.
*Furthermore, Bush answered '''Absolutely not''' to the question if the US military should make nation building one of its core missions. That suggest firm opposition. That the word was invented in the late 90s doesn't matter. Call it interventionism, if you like it better.
**"The US military". Duh, come on? does this even '''''need''''' a response?
**"The US military". Duh, come on? does this even '''''need''''' a response?