A Quote by Otto von Bismarck

Be polite; write diplomatically; even in a declaration of war one observes the rules of politeness. — © Otto von Bismarck
Be polite; write diplomatically; even in a declaration of war one observes the rules of politeness.
Politeness is a desire to be treated politely, and to be esteemed polite oneself.
When politeness is used to show up other people, it is reclassified as rudeness. Thus it is technically impossible to be too polite.
It seems to me an utterly futile task to prescribe rules and limitations for the conduct of war. War is not a game; hence one cannot wage war by rules as one would in playing games. Our fight must be against war itself. The masses of people can most effectively fight the institution of war by establishing an organization for the absolute refusal of military service.
The threat today is not that of the 1930s. It's not big powers going to war with each other. The ravages which fundamentalist political ideology inflicted on the 20th century are memories. The Cold war is over. Europe is at peace, if not always diplomatically.
If men make war in slavish observance of rules, they will fail. No rules will apply to conditions of war as different as those which exist in Europe and America...War is progressive, because all the instruments and elements of war are progressive.
Nobody thanks a witty man for politeness when he puts himself on a par with a society in which it would not be polite to show one's wit.
The Iraq war can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically, and the president needs to come to that realization.
There are people who observe the rules of honor as one observes the stars, from a great distance.
World War I was not inevitable, as many historians say. It could have been avoided, and it was a diplomatically botched negotiation.
In the absence of an engaged, diplomatically energized America, others will set the agenda, shape the rules and dominate international institutions - and probably not in ways that advance our interests or values.
You recalled the 1956 declaration, and this declaration established the rules that should be followed by both sides and that should be put into the foundation of a peace treaty. If you carefully read the text of this document, you will see that the declaration will take effect after we sign a peace treaty and the two islands [Kunashir and Shikotan] are transferred to Japan. It does not say on what terms they should be transferred and what side will exercise sovereignty over them.
The twentieth century had dispensed with the formal declaration of war and introduced the fifth column, sabotage, cold war, and war by proxy, but that was only the begining. Summit meetings for disarmament pursued mutual understanding and a balance of power but were also held to learn the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy. The world of the war-or-peace alternative became a world in which war was peace and peace war.
What is not conservative about saying, 'Don't go to war unless we go to war properly with a full declaration of war and no other way?'
When the President decides to go to war, he no longer needs a declaration of war from congress.
I was standing next to a famed geo-politician when the first news of the Argentine attack [on the Faulkland Islands] was received, and heard him muse incredulously: "An old-fashioned naval battle. A war between two civilized nations, perhaps with even a declaration of war, and later a peace conference. Wow." No hostages, no nukes, no ideologies, no religious fanaticism; just a fair-and-square war over national interests - hard to believe, in this day and age.
Was the Vietnam conflict a war which should have, as a matter of constitutional law, required a declaration of war by Congress?
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!