Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
295,845
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 388:
Line 388: + + + +
→References: clarify the issue
::This article is not opposing foreign policy advancing human rights, it is opposing foreign policy which the article calims is to advance oil interests, dressed up as advancing human rights. That is Fisk's point, like it or not. [[User:Order]]
::This article is not opposing foreign policy advancing human rights, it is opposing foreign policy which the article calims is to advance oil interests, dressed up as advancing human rights. That is Fisk's point, like it or not. [[User:Order]]
:::Exactly. Bush, as the President, articulated US foreign policy in the same vein his predessors had going back to Wilson; hence, Bush's articulation of US foreign policy, in his role as the Chief Executive, '''is what American foreign policy is'''. Period. Fisk, whom nobody elected, questions the integrity of this claim. Fine. That is his free speech perogative. Many persons who self-identify as "liberal" signed on to this opinion. Fine. Hence we have the logical conclusion,
:::''"many persons who self-identify as 'liberal' oppose American foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy."'''
:::This is not my invention; it is thier own language and actions. And further evidence is added by the fact that while in 2003, extreme elements who may not have been ''real liberals'', initiated this opposition movement. Since then however, more moderate elements, many likewise claiming the mantle of "liberal", now actively advocate withdrawing support from a liberal democracy elected by universal suffarage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
===Discussion===
===Discussion===