As has been pointed out with Libya, the debate over Libya, sometimes we allow diplomatic relations with imperfect regimes because progress can best be made through engagement instead of isolation.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Diplomacy is fundamentally working with people, bringing people together to deal with difficult issues.
My proposal to re-establish diplomatic relations - not necessarily friendly relations, but diplomatic relations - is a sensible, simple, and straightforward approach that will finally get us off dead center.
Diplomacy is more than saying or doing the right things at the right time, it is avoiding saying or doing the wrong things at any time.
In the world of diplomacy, some things are better left unsaid.
It is hard to cement any relations with any country based on promises that may not be deliverable.
Of course, there is no question that Libya - and the world - will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.
Libya as a country is a relatively new concept. The period of Libya as a modern nation really starts after World War II.
Successful diplomacy is an alignment of objectives and means.
We always have hoped that American diplomacy deploys itself in dialogue and persuasion rather than by ultimatums. That is the path we want in international relations.
One of the things that has been very difficult in Libya is the sense of uncertainty - the sense that they haven't actually finished the revolution, that there was still a great deal of uncertainty. That uncertainty has made Libya harder for business in terms of oil and other things as well.
No opposing quotes found.