Changes

****Let's return to this issue of Haiti one more time, not becuase it does anything whatsoever to prove your point (in fact it works against it) because I recall ''both'' the debate, and the issues under public discussion ''prior'' to the debate that lead to this question.  And I recall it all as if it were yesterday.  First off, the answer Bush gives has nothing to do with US foreign policy; it specifically references a post-Cold War era debate about the role of US "Peacekeepers".  In otherwords, the public debate in and outside that Presidential debate was about using the US military as social workers and not as soldiers.  While to my way of thinking, a discussion of this nature would be interesting regarding Iraq right now, neither you nor anyone else is doing  so.  And in MISQUOTING Bush with this text, you are not discussing that question either.  Secondly, now  you  are confusing "liberals" with the Democratic Party, and making a generalization which I do not beleive can be sustained.  Third, candidate Bush in a debate criticizing a past action is not "conservative opposition to the Haiti operation", and there is no way you can make it such.  Finally, you have repeatedly failed to express an understanding of how an Administration, any Administration, works, particularly in acticulating foreign policy.  You refer to military operations as "foreign policy"; you refer to military doctines as "foreign policy".  While the Department of Defense may play a role in implenting an Administration foreign policy, and helping to achieve it, the Department of Defense does not design, dicate or direct the policy.  It may be used to facilitate the policy, but in an ideal world, it's role is limited, and someday will be withdrawn, and the policy will stand on its own without assistance from the Pentagon.  When the military completes its task, that does not mean the policy has come to end.  It means the policy is now in place and can be sustained without military assistance.  In discussing some of this stuff with you, I get the impression you don't have a clue about the subject.  My impression is your arguements (as many liberals are) is driveen by two year election cycle electoral politics.  And whatever the popular cathwords and buzz phrases of the day are, dicated by marketing specialists and polsters, is all that matters.  So if you can string together a bunch of words and phrases that make complete sentences and maybe a paragraph or two, and they give the ''appearance'' of understanding what foreign policy is, your momentarily ahead of the game.  Cause your real objective has absolutely nothing to do with implementing or carrying out US foreign policy, it has everything to do with domestic electoral politics.  Therein is the problem; libs evidentally define themselves in terms of who their percieved enemies are.  So if an imaginary enemy carries a strong, high profile foreign policy--dread of all dreads--now libs have to pretend for at least a two year election cycle they (1) actually have some understanding of foreign policy (2) actually have an interest in foreign policy (3) actually have alternative foreign policy proposals.  The worst scenario of all is to openly admit you have no interest and/or qualifications in this area, cause then your conceeding the game to your imaginary opponent.  So this dictates taking all sorts of absolutley bizarre positions, ranging from justifying murder and murderers, to open sympathy for terrorists.  So, for as long as you wish to continue bringing citations like this Presidential debate, yes, I'll play this silly game with you.  

****Let's return to this issue of Haiti one more time, not becuase it does anything whatsoever to prove your point (in fact it works against it) because I recall ''both'' the debate, and the issues under public discussion ''prior'' to the debate that lead to this question.  And I recall it all as if it were yesterday.  First off, the answer Bush gives has nothing to do with US foreign policy; it specifically references a post-Cold War era debate about the role of US "Peacekeepers".  In otherwords, the public debate in and outside that Presidential debate was about using the US military as social workers and not as soldiers.  While to my way of thinking, a discussion of this nature would be interesting regarding Iraq right now, neither you nor anyone else is doing  so.  And in MISQUOTING Bush with this text, you are not discussing that question either.  Secondly, now  you  are confusing "liberals" with the Democratic Party, and making a generalization which I do not beleive can be sustained.  Third, candidate Bush in a debate criticizing a past action is not "conservative opposition to the Haiti operation", and there is no way you can make it such.  Finally, you have repeatedly failed to express an understanding of how an Administration, any Administration, works, particularly in acticulating foreign policy.  You refer to military operations as "foreign policy"; you refer to military doctines as "foreign policy".  While the Department of Defense may play a role in implenting an Administration foreign policy, and helping to achieve it, the Department of Defense does not design, dicate or direct the policy.  It may be used to facilitate the policy, but in an ideal world, it's role is limited, and someday will be withdrawn, and the policy will stand on its own without assistance from the Pentagon.  When the military completes its task, that does not mean the policy has come to end.  It means the policy is now in place and can be sustained without military assistance.  In discussing some of this stuff with you, I get the impression you don't have a clue about the subject.  My impression is your arguements (as many liberals are) is driveen by two year election cycle electoral politics.  And whatever the popular cathwords and buzz phrases of the day are, dicated by marketing specialists and polsters, is all that matters.  So if you can string together a bunch of words and phrases that make complete sentences and maybe a paragraph or two, and they give the ''appearance'' of understanding what foreign policy is, your momentarily ahead of the game.  Cause your real objective has absolutely nothing to do with implementing or carrying out US foreign policy, it has everything to do with domestic electoral politics.  Therein is the problem; libs evidentally define themselves in terms of who their percieved enemies are.  So if an imaginary enemy carries a strong, high profile foreign policy--dread of all dreads--now libs have to pretend for at least a two year election cycle they (1) actually have some understanding of foreign policy (2) actually have an interest in foreign policy (3) actually have alternative foreign policy proposals.  The worst scenario of all is to openly admit you have no interest and/or qualifications in this area, cause then your conceeding the game to your imaginary opponent.  So this dictates taking all sorts of absolutley bizarre positions, ranging from justifying murder and murderers, to open sympathy for terrorists.  So, for as long as you wish to continue bringing citations like this Presidential debate, yes, I'll play this silly game with you.  

:::::You assume somehow that describing how liberal positions compare to conservative positions is the same as advocating liberal positions. Tell me one point where the point I try to make is driven by the two-year election cycle? You try to win an imagined argument with scoring technical points, like that the military is just a tool (Did I say otherwise?), or that Liberal and Democrats are something different (That point has been repeated made by me an others again and again), and otherwise calling people liberal. The argument is imagined, because nobody here wants to discuss with you whether Bush's criticism on the intervention in Haiti was right or wrong. The article should describe current and historic policies, not propose an alternatives. This tries to be an encyclopedia, not a think tank. I am just interested that he criticized the intervention in Haiti, to get to the point that conservatives can hold isolationist positions, too. User:Order 12 April, 9:40 (AEST)

:::::You assume somehow that describing how liberal positions compare to conservative positions is the same as advocating liberal positions. Tell me one point where the point I try to make is driven by the two-year election cycle? You try to win an imagined argument with scoring technical points, like that the military is just a tool (Did I say otherwise?), or that Liberal and Democrats are something different (That point has been repeated made by me an others again and again), and otherwise calling people liberal. The argument is imagined, because nobody here wants to discuss with you whether Bush's criticism on the intervention in Haiti was right or wrong. The article should describe current and historic policies, not propose an alternatives. This tries to be an encyclopedia, not a think tank. I am just interested that he criticized the intervention in Haiti, to get to the point that conservatives can hold isolationist positions, too. [[User:Order]] 12 April, 9:40 (AEST)

::::::''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 political positions is not driven by the election cycle, but the positions that are observed are. If you observe positions and behavior of politicians, you have to live with the fact that they are driven by the election cycle.  Since, you didn't answer my question I'll ask again: Where did I change an observation because of the election cycle?[[User:Order] 12 April, 14:45 (AEST)   

:::::::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 political positions is not driven by the election cycle, but the positions that are observed are. If you observe positions and behavior of politicians, you have to live with the fact that they are driven by the election cycle.  Since, you didn't answer my question I'll ask again: 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)   

:::::::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.