Interesting

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by tw

If there to learn, then she would have used a silly headscarf.

Since when is diplomacy about learning? Diplomacy is about power. If she wanted to learn she could get on Wikipedia (glib answer,) or consult her many ambassadors and advisors (actual answer, which she no doubt did.)

[xoxoxoBruce]

The article doesn't say where they were to meet, I doubt it was in his Mosque but it's possible.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Since when is diplomacy about learning? Diplomacy is about power.

When diplomacy is about power, then destruction (ie war) is acceptable. Diplomacy is always about learning. Learning is why people best meet face to face. To learn.

Why did Churchill spend two weeks in the White House in 1942? FDR and Churchill had to teach each other the many relevant concepts and experiences so that informed decisions could be made. The most important was an entire purpose of WWII. Unconditional surrender.

Reagan and Gorbachev met in Iceland to learn from one another many facts that might make possible an end to a Cold War. In order to eliminate distracting 'power' issues, they met alone only with two translators and two security agents. They almost eliminated all nuclear weapons. They didn't. But what resulted was mostly in what was learned by diplomacy in Iceland. It ended the Cold War (even though wacko extremists like Cheney insisted otherwise).

That is even why all nations have ambassadors in other nations. Diplomacy. To learn from others.

Diplomacy is always about learning - when a diplomat is working for the people. And not by Hugo Chavez, Milosevic, Hitler, or Pol Pot. Even Lt Calley could have negotiated with those Vietnamese villagers. But he was only interested in using big guns - power. And so he (and his superiors) created a My Lai massacre. They did not learn by being diplomatic. They were driven by power.

Le Pen has no interest in diplomacy. Even refuses to wear a headscarf. She is an extremist - not diplomatic. She is driven by power. She wants to power those clerics into what to believe. She has no interest in learning what those religious leaders know. She demonstrates when diplomacy is corrupted by power. When a diplomat is not diplomatic; is an extremist - an enemy of humanity.

BTW, we have a president who cannot be diplomatic. He already knows more than the generals. He is driven by power and self serving gratification. He clearly is not and never was diplomatic. And so we have the Bowling Green massacre and murdering immigrants raging in the streets of Sweden. Had he been diplomatic, he would have never said those things. He worships power - not diplomacy.

When in Rome,do as the Romans do. He is not visiting her. She is visiting him. Diplomacy (in order to learn) requires a modicum of respect.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by tw

...

Diplomacy is always about learning. Learning is why people best meet face to face. To learn.

...

Reagan and Gorbachev met in Iceland to learn from one another many facts that might make possible an end to a Cold War. In order to eliminate distracting 'power' issues, they met alone only with two translators and two security agents. They almost eliminated all nuclear weapons. They didn't. But what resulted was mostly in what was learned by diplomacy in Iceland. It ended the Cold War (even though wacko extremists like Cheney insisted otherwise).

That is even why all nations have ambassadors in other nations. Diplomacy. To learn from others.
...

Wow. I have so much respect for this.

You know when learning-based diplomacy would NOT be considered effective? Only when "certain kinds of people" are not worthy of reciprocal respect. Diplomacy that says "I already know better than you" is NOT diplomacy. In the elegant, classical sense (so well put, here by tw).

The world has enough disrespect and lack of understanding. That's, actually, the whole problem. Putting ourselves at odds with billions of people by making grandstanding generalizations is what is going to get us all killed.

Both abroad, and at home, apparently.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The right wing power over diplomacy movement is happening in many countries, even if they claim it's better to negotiate from a position of power. They have no intention of negotiating at all, just dictating to weaker powers, welcome to the 19th century.

The real problem is the people who elect these clowns.