Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
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.
|
You didn't resort to either A nor B, but you did say liberals were criticizing the government for not flexing a diplomatic muscle or two. My argument demonstrated that by not agreeing to North Koreas knee to knee deal in favor of an alternative means of confrence, we were in fact using diplomacy. This is what I am looking at as far as definition goes:
diplomacy
n 1: negotiation between nations [syn: diplomatic negotiations] 2: subtly skillful handling of a situation [syn: delicacy, discreetness, finesse] 3: wisdom in the management of public affairs [syn: statesmanship, statecraft]
Multi-Lateral is what we're getting, by assuming they will continue to seek dialogue with us (as they have) we have fulfilled the latter two over the past months, and will fulfill the first soon. There hasn't been, nor will be a lack of diplomacy.