Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 09:40 AM by Bread and Circus
I believe Clinton stated last night she believed in "coercive diplomacy". It gave me pause.
Now I will admit I enjoyed both candidates last night and this the only comment that stuck in my craw. Something about coercion and diplomacy just doesn't go together. It reminds me of the joke "beatings will continue until morale improves". I'm not going on the warpath today against Clinton but did anyone else rubbed wrong by that statement? I understand carrots and sticks and all that but "coercive diplomacy" feels a little heavy handed.
4. I believe in coercion, I believe in diplomacy, and sometimes force..
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 09:56 AM by Bread and Circus
but to me they are 3 different things.
To call coercion "diplomacy" is like calling the Clean Skies Act the "Clean Skies Act". It's dressing up something to make it look like what it is not.
That's part of the problem with the US's image in the world. We try to take on the mantle of the Beacon of Light in the World but we resort to thuggery to do it. People know we aren't an honest participant as much as we'd like to be perceived.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.