[Paul_Denton]

But in point of fact, the president has to be diplomatic if he wants to keep the people safe. The duty of a diplomat is not to be nice for the sake of it, there is a motive and a goal behind most diplomatic action. The reality is, strong-arming people works less often (unless you are prepared to pay with lives) and when it does the rewards are less permanent. This shouldn't even be a point of contention, any idiot knows humans don't respond well to threats.

Since when did diplomacy work with people willing to blow themselves up? And those who lead/support those people willing to blow themselves up?

[Pelayo]

Since when did diplomacy work with people willing to blow themselves up? And those who lead/support those people willing to blow themselves up?

I never advocated the use of diplomacy (I assume by this you mean negotiations) with terrorists, or their patrons.

There is no room for neutrality in this war.

Philosophically your right, but your position is illogical from a practical standpoint, since it leads to the theory that we are at war with all nations not specifically backing us? It's also bad psychology to assume that someone who disagrees with you must agree with your enemy.