Quote:
Originally posted by Phaenx
This process we've taken over the past few months has all been a part of an effort to achieve a dialogue with the North Korean fellows to see what they want. So on top of everything else, I can tack on "They don't know what diplomacy is," to my list.
Even still, liberals, like Freakasaurus (using you as an example sir =) before us continue to bash the United States leaders regardless of the fact that we are doing what they supposedly wanted us to do in Iraq. This has been going on for months, constantly during Iraqi war discussions. Often during those conversations someone will try and point out some sort of double-standard the Bush administration uses towards North Korea. I observe most often one of either of these excuses:
A. There's no oil in North Korea.
-or-
B. Bush doesn't want to go there because North Korea is a greater threat, and potentially a greater risk of recieving much larger casualties. Insinuating either he's soft, or doesn't want to lose the upcoming election due to a poor descision.
Both are BS, and this also is not criticizing for failure to exercise diplomacy (which in itself is BS as well, like I have pointed out), it's raging non-sequitor put in a burlap bag and beaten with a baseball bat kind of talk.
|
My example specifically related to N.k.'s demand to meet "knee to knee". I didn't resort to argument A or B. So how does my example equate to liberals not knowing what diplomacy is?
To humor you I checked the definition of "Diplomacy" in my dictionary. According to that, diplomacy is the act of building relations. Now, the initial response to stonewall the N.K. administration obviously failed that test. Our current response to denigrate a proud leader doesn't seem to be matching that description either. Whether you think someone is irrational, blackmailing, or demanding is irrelevant to the point that the act of diplomacy includes tact.
I posit that there is a tactful way to rebuff someone and our president doesn't seem to believe he needs to interact with various countries in such a manner. I think his paradigm is dangerous but only future events will either confirm or deny that--history has, anyway.