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)

::::In history republicans have been at least as often isolationists as democrats. For example G.W.Bush before he became president. It might be that whoever is not in power favors isolationist positions, and they turn into intervetionists as soon as they come to power. [[User:Order]]

I don't presume anything about conservatives; the case is stated exactly as such: the US Govt declared a policy of regime change in Iraq to support long held US foreign policy objectives going back to Woodrow Wilson.  Extreme elements at that time who self-identifed as "liberal" opposed US policy.  Today, four years later, more self-identified "liberals" opposed US support for the democratic govt of Iraq.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

 

::In history republicans have been at least as often isolationists as democrats. For example G.W.Bush before he became president. It might be that whoever is not in power favors isolationist positions, and they turn into intervetionists as soon as they come to power. [[User:Order]]

:::::It is not liberal vs conservative, it is "liberal" vs US Govt foreign policy.  This indeed is not even ideological or a way of thinking; it refers to behavior, activism and contravention of a democaratically elected governments long standing policy that has had supporters from both major parties for at least three generations.  And that active opposition not only (a) remains today, it has (b) spread to more "moderate" elements, and (c) actively seeks to undermine support for a "liberal" ally--the democratically elected government of Iraq.  This is a milestone in politcal events.

It is not liberal vs conservative, it is "liberal" vs US Govt foreign policy.  This indeed is not even ideological or a way of thinking; it refers to behavior, activism and contravention of a democaratically elected governments long standing policy that has had supporters from both major parties for at least three generations.  And that active opposition not only (a) remains today, it has (b) spread to more "moderate" elements, and (c) actively seeks to undermine support for a "liberal" ally--the democratically elected government of Iraq.  This is a milestone in politcal events.

:::::What goes unstated in this historic retelling of the past four years, IMO is this: many who claim the label of "liberal" either (a) are not, or (b) do not know what the word means.

What goes unstated in this historic retelling of the past four years, IMO is this: many who claim the label of "liberal" either (a) are not, or (b) do not know what the word means.

:::::And a final observation: it is not critics of these sad events fault that so-called "liberalism", which is probably a misnomer to begin with, it's not thier fault this sorry state of affairs has come to what it is.  Here's another theory: perhaps now we know why neo-cons divorced themselves from the label "liberal".  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

And a final observation: it is not critics of these sad events fault that so-called "liberalism", which is probably a misnomer to begin with, it's not thier fault this sorry state of affairs has come to what it is.  Here's another theory: perhaps now we know why neo-cons divorced themselves from the label "liberal".  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Even if most liberals did not support such a foreign policy, one shouldn't use this to define the term "liberal" if a significant number of conservatives also have exhibited and continue to exhibit isolationism. [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 22:42, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Even if most liberals did not support such a foreign policy, one shouldn't use this to define the term "liberal" if a significant number of conservatives also have exhibited and continue to exhibit isolationism. [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 22:42, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::As stated, its not ideological or a "lberal v conservative' thing.  One hasn't seen conservative marching in the streets to oppose liberation of the Iraqi people.  Similiarly, isolationists like the [[America First]] Committee, were very often called fascists.  The leading isolationist in the GOP, Pat Buchanan, is routinely called anti-Semitic.  See below for further discussion.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

As stated, its not ideological or a "lberal v conservative' thing.  One hasn't seen conservative marching in the streets to oppose liberation of the Iraqi people.  Similiarly, isolationists like the [[America First]] Committee, were very often called fascists.  The leading isolationist in the GOP, Pat Buchanan, is routinely called anti-Semitic.  See below for further discussion.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I'm not saying it's a liberal vs. conservative thing.  I'm just saying that if a significant number of conservatives (who are generally ideologically opposed to liberals) agree with liberals on this one issue, it should not be used in the definition of "liberal". [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 23:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not saying it's a liberal vs. conservative thing.  I'm just saying that if a significant number of conservatives (who are generally ideologically opposed to liberals) agree with liberals on this one issue, it should not be used in the definition of "liberal". [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 23:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== '''Foreign Policy''' ==

== '''Foreign Policy''' ==