PS:
Main Entry: di·plo·ma·cy (Embedded image moved to file: pic16941.gif)
Pronunciation: d&-'plO-m&-sE
Function: noun
1 : the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2 : skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : TACT
Unfortunately, I do not have access to my Oxford dictionary which is what I
prefer, but this is what I found on Mirriam-Webster online.
How you would marry diplomacy and this:
2 : suggesting the principles of conduct laid down by Machiavelli; specifically : marked by
cunning, duplicity, or bad faith
is suspect.
It is my opinion that Bush doesn't believe in "negotiation." His skill in
handling affairs without arousing hostility is something I would protest as
well. In terms of "WMD" (let's just say it shall we? - nukes, chemical
weapons), Iraq had none. Bush's laughable response to this finding is
"well, he [Sadam] was THINKING about it!"
I suppose that's justification for invading any nation we feel like.
Any worthwhile head of state would have called into question any and all
evidence pointing at Iraq's possession of any weapons of mass destruction,
given that the lead inspector didn't find anything before we went to war.
Let's face facts: Bush wanted to go to war, and he did. Tony Blair, as
far as I'm concerned, is a yes-man, and he's paying for that right now.
Regardless, I believe war is a last resort, just as I believe violence of
any sort in any situation is a last resort. I don't think we have leaders
in place who share those opinions.
And frankly, if you're curious, I'm voting for Kerry because he's not Bush.
If I were voting my conscience, I'd vote libertarian.
John Testa
SLPS Homewood
708-647-4346
[log in to unmask]
Brice Yokem
<[log in to unmask] To: [log in to unmask]
> cc:
Sent by: HP-3000 Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: US Politics
Systems
Discussion
<[log in to unmask]
TC.EDU>
10/21/2004 01:42
PM
Please respond to
Brice Yokem
Mr Testa -
I'm not sure why you're addressing this to me specifically.
-------------------
I addressed it to you because it has to do with this concept of diplomacy
that you congratulate John Kerry on.
-------------------
My point is that Kerry understand the word diplomacy and has practiced it
throughout his career. He has also been exposed to the use of it, since
his father was a career diplomat. Look the word up in the dictionary.
-------------------
Ok, I looked it up. I did not find a distinction between diplomacy used
to better relations between other countries, and diplomacy used to
manipulate other people into doing what works to ones advantage.
-------------------
Bush has no concept of how to interact with the leaders of other nations or
how to formulate a foreign policy that would benefit our country, even in
these trying times.
-------------------
This is questionable. Certianly his manner is more blunt and aggressive
than John Kerry, but so was Winston Churchill compare to Neville
Chamberlain.
-------------------
Invading countries "cuz we dern well feel like it" -- sorry, that just
doesn't pass muster with me. Anyone who thinks Bush or any of his aides
presented good reasons to go to war is fooling him or herself. You might
as well go back to reading the bible.
--------------------
John Kerry voted in favor of invading Iraq. So he must have 'dern well
felt like it, also'
--------------------
That one changes one's mind (I change mine all the time at work, based on
my understanding or misunderstanding of facts, or new evidence presented to
me) is the natural result of having an open and intelligent mind.
--------------------
There is a difference between using the facts to decide what you want
to do, and deciding what you want to do then using the facts to support
it.
--------------------
Regardless, what you just said below could be applied to Mr. Bush or any
politician. Personally, I find Kerry's ability to use language, express
his thoughts intelligently (whether I happen to agree with them or not),
appealing, at least compared to Bush's miserable misuse of language and
"faith-based" style of governance. I don't trust ANYONE, not even anyone
at work, who invents evidence to support their courses of action, and that
is precisely what this president has done. There is much evidence for this
and very little against it except the word of a man who can't pronounce the
word "nuclear" properly.
--------------------
This 'inventing' evidence is not as clearly true as you are trying to make
it. The evidence of WMD, which I assume we are talking about, was from
the head of a department which was a carry over from an administration
of the other party. UK evidence supported the same thing, and Tony Blair
is certianly not a Republican, his party is further left as a rule than
the Democrats. So I would have to say the situatin is confused.
--------------------
If I had my choice, neither of those people would be president. I would
elect Meryll Streep. Or maybe Carl Sagan (although that would prove to be
difficult these days).
--------------------
From subsequent posts, Iassume you are joking about Streep, but Carl Sagan?
As in Nuclear Winter Carl Sagan? Be serious...
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
