A Quote by Dean Acheson

Negotiation in the classic diplomatic sense assumes parties more anxious to agree than to disagree. — © Dean Acheson
Negotiation in the classic diplomatic sense assumes parties more anxious to agree than to disagree.
Negotiating in the classic diplomatic sense assumes parties more anxious to agree than to disagree.
The key is that when we disagree, we really hear the other one out and agree that there is a more elegant solution than one of us 'winning.'
Many times, disagreements between the two political parties in Washington get all the headlines. What's not reported is the fact that Republicans and Democrats agree on where we want to go, but we disagree on how we're going to get there.
Certainly we disagree with the Communist Party, as we disagree with other political parties who are trying to maintain the American way of life.
It is frankly a mistake of amateurs to believe you can gain the upper hand in a diplomatic negotiation.
No problem is so deep that it cannot be overcome, given the will of all parties, through discussion and negotiation rather than force and violence.
Whether in conversation we generally agree or disagree with others is largely a matter of habit: the one tendency makes as much sense as the other.
I think that's part of the creative process to disagree about certain ideas. But we also agree just as much as we disagree, I would say.
I think that's part of the creative process to disagree about certain ideas. But we also agree just as much as we disagree, in the band, I would say.
Well football teams are perhaps easier to control than political parties, I'm sure the Prime Minister would agree with me, but yeah I think every team needs discipline and a sense of self-belief and that's important, that's what leadership's all about.
Walsall have given City more than one anxious moment amongst many anxious moments
I agree and I disagree in the sense that I think that he [Donald Trump] has a fondness for autocrats, but at the same time, isn't he talking about like perception of defending your country.
Do you know people on the Right who are tolerant of people who are for gay marriage and are pro-choice? I actually do, plenty of them. When there is a disagreement, I see way more people on the Right... more often willing to agree to disagree rather than to de-friend or to smear.
A classic liberal is more like a libertarian. I'm sorry. Classic liberal, actually, from the 1800s has a totally different meaning than a liberal who is [modern] classic.
If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with
Friends don't always agree on things. I think you can disagree without being venomous about it. You don't stop being friends just because you disagree.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!