2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 695:
Line 695: + +
→Protection
:::I doubt that any editor here is a spokesperson of the liberals. Thats just wishfull thinking. On his side, and on your side. Currently, the entry shows an refreshing naivety about politics. It says that just because Bush says the aim of his foreign policy is to promote human rights, every American believes him, because he is a president. Since Wilson, all president have claimed to support human rights abroad, and I doubt that that you, [[User:RobS:RobS]] believe all of them. You cannot be so naive. You are just angry at some particular liberal, and the article shows it, by being unencyclopedic and rather naive about political reality. [[User:Order]] 10 April , 10:30 (AEST)
:::I doubt that any editor here is a spokesperson of the liberals. Thats just wishfull thinking. On his side, and on your side. Currently, the entry shows an refreshing naivety about politics. It says that just because Bush says the aim of his foreign policy is to promote human rights, every American believes him, because he is a president. Since Wilson, all president have claimed to support human rights abroad, and I doubt that that you, [[User:RobS:RobS]] believe all of them. You cannot be so naive. You are just angry at some particular liberal, and the article shows it, by being unencyclopedic and rather naive about political reality. [[User:Order]] 10 April , 10:30 (AEST)
The questions remain: Why did you remove the reference to Bush's pre-2000 anti-nation-building position? Why did you revert a good compromise on how liberals view current foreign policy? And why do you lock an article, but continue editing, which is an abuse of sysop privilege? [[User:Order|Order]] 10 April 10:50 (AEST)