Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,640
edits
Changes
→Protection 2: Haiti, again
**No. forget George W. Bush. George W. Bush is a lame duck and will be ancient history in less than two years. We want to know what the eternal values of Liberals are. We want to know what these values will be in the year 2010 (when G.W. Bush will be chewing dip on the front porch in Crawford). We want to know what the enduring values of liberals will be in the year 2525. And "opposition to their opponents" defines nothing.
**No. forget George W. Bush. George W. Bush is a lame duck and will be ancient history in less than two years. We want to know what the eternal values of Liberals are. We want to know what these values will be in the year 2010 (when G.W. Bush will be chewing dip on the front porch in Crawford). We want to know what the enduring values of liberals will be in the year 2525. And "opposition to their opponents" defines nothing.
***In 2525 people want to know if interventionism was a core liberal belief at the turn of the millenium. They look at the Democrats and say: Hm, they supported intervention in Afghanistan, and supported it in Iraq, before they were vocally against it. No, its not a core liberal belief. Was it a core conservative belief? No, tconservatives opposed in Haiti, but supported it in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Its not a core conservative belief either. [[User:Order]] 11 April 16:50 (AEST)
***In 2525 people want to know if interventionism was a core liberal belief at the turn of the millenium. They look at the Democrats and say: Hm, they supported intervention in Afghanistan, and supported it in Iraq, before they were vocally against it. No, its not a core liberal belief. Was it a core conservative belief? No, tconservatives opposed in Haiti, but supported it in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Its not a core conservative belief either. [[User:Order]] 11 April 16:50 (AEST)
****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 was specifically references a post-Cold War era debate about what the roll of US "Peacekeepers" is. 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 nowm 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, particulalry 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, the Department of Defense does not design, dicate or direct the policy. It may 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 with 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 election cycle electoral politics. And whatever the popular cacthwords and buzz phrases of the day 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, that give the ''appearance'' of understanding what foreign policy is, your momentarily ahead of the game. Cause your objective has absolutely nothing to do with implementing or carrying out US foreign policy, it has everything to doe with domestic electoral politics. Therein is the problem; libs evidentally define themselves in terms of who thier percieved enemies are. So if an imaginary enemy carries a strong and 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 concededing the game to your imaginary opponent. So this dictates taking all sorts of absolutley bizarre postions, ranging from justifying murder and murderers, to open sympathy for terrorists. So as long as you wish to continue bringing citations like this Presidential debate, yes, I'll play this silly game with you.
*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.
**"The US military". Duh, come on? does this even '''''need''''' a response?
**"The US military". Duh, come on? does this even '''''need''''' a response?