Quote:
Originally posted by Phaenx
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.
|
Well, now it seems you've twisted your argument so much that you've circled yourself.
What exactly are you claiming? Are liberals asking for diplomacy or not? First you claimed:
Quote:
|
Seriously though, I thought you guys were for diplomacy? Or is it that you just hate America? If they wanted much more than 12 years of diplomacy in Iraq, why do they want less than a few months in North Korea?
|
which indicates you are accusing liberals of *not* asking for diplomacy.
I responded with:
Quote:
|
The "liberals" have been criticizing the administration for *not* exorcising diplomacy for at least the past year. Where have you heard different?
|
in support of my assertion that liberals have, in fact, been consistently been requesting diplomacy in *both* Iraq and N.K. Then I followed it with a question--where have you heard otherwise?
Instead of answering, you instead accused the "liberals" of resorting to irrelevant points and non-sequitar (neither of which I did)--a situation I find
ironic.
Then you accused liberals of being ignorant to the definition of diplomacy. I responded with a defintion of diplomacy (surprise, the definition I found in my dictionary off the bookcase is similar to the one
here
Quote:
diplomacy_[d?'pl??m?s?] noun (plural: _-cies)
1_ the conduct of the relations of one state with another by peaceful means
2_ skill in the management of international relations
3_ tact, skill, or cunning in dealing with people [ETYMOLOGY: 18th Century: from French diplomatie, from diplomatique diplomatic]
|
Now you assert that the liberals are accusing the government of not exorcising diplomacy. Actually, throughout the last year we have been voicing our opinion that stonewalling a dangerous threat does not seem to meet the stated goals of long-term domestic security. Obviously, the current talks do not invalidate our claim that *past* refusals to meet were not diplomatic!
To answer your point that the administration has been using diplomatic measures all along directly: I already stated that time will have to illustrate the accuracy of your position. My claim is that what we've gotten (btw, the meeting consisted of confirmation of nuclear weapons and the threat to demonstrate them--hardly fitting the definition of positive relations!) does not seem to indicate all the discussants feel respected. Forcing a foreign power to capitulate through threats or outright force is *not* diplomacy--regardless of the defintion you subscribe to. That does describe our current foreign policy, however. Ruling via threat, fear, or force is, ultimately, the most unstable form of authority. If you haven't learned that, you haven't been reading your history books.