Changes

The repeated edits and reverts of the "support of/opposition to an American foreign policy that supports ..." are annoying. Mostly because this is more a difference of opinion between ''isolationists'' and ''interventionists'', and not between liberals and conservatives. You can find isolationists and interventionists on both sides of the political divide. [[User:Order]] 24 March 13:30

The repeated edits and reverts of the "support of/opposition to an American foreign policy that supports ..." are annoying. Mostly because this is more a difference of opinion between ''isolationists'' and ''interventionists'', and not between liberals and conservatives. You can find isolationists and interventionists on both sides of the political divide. [[User:Order]] 24 March 13:30

:What this does is deny that liberals openly opposed the stated war aims in 2003, and denies that today they are actively seeking for the US to abandon the democratically elected govenrnment of Iraq.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:What this does is deny that liberals openly opposed the stated war aims in 2003, and denies that today they are actively seeking for the US to abandon the democratically elected govenrnment of Iraq.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:You presume that all conservatives support the war, while that is demonstrably not the case.  On the other hand, how many liberals support American intervention in Darfur?  Support or disapproval of one solitary front amongst a plethora of foreign policy actions does not an isolationist policy make.  --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 21:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::You presume that all conservatives support the war, while that is demonstrably not the case.  On the other hand, how many liberals support American intervention in Darfur?  Support or disapproval of one solitary front amongst a plethora of foreign policy actions does not an isolationist policy make.  --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 21:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)