Don't think that I underrate the very great debt we owe to the old diplomacy. Before the new system came into existence, diplomacy was the only protection we had against war; and its achievements were of the utmost importance and value to the human race. But perhaps it is natural that, with rare exceptions, the whole strength of this very powerful organization has been against the new ideas and new principles at Geneva. The old diplomat liked to move with deliberation, in secret, following well-established traditions and working through what he loved to describe as "the usual channels". To him, the open debate carried on, not by professional diplomats, but by politicians and statesmen having little regard for the use of the technical phraseology of diplomacy and intent merely on reaching results which would make diplomacy unnecessary, was offensive to all his instincts.
 
    
        Robert Cecil, 1st Viscount Cecil of Chelwood 
     
    
     
    Related topics 
            came 
            carry 
            debate 
            debt 
            following 
            geneva 
            great 
            having 
            human 
            move 
            natural 
            open 
            organization 
            perhaps 
            phraseology 
            professional 
            race 
            secret 
            strength 
            technical 
            think 
            use 
            utmost 
            value 
            war 
            working 
            channels 
        
    
                    Related quotes 
        
                    
                                        
                    
    
        Some scoffers have asked, "Where are the pre-Flood civilizations? If there was an entire civilization that was destroyed in the Flood of Noah, why don't we find their cities, highways or machines as we dig in the earth?” That's a fair question, but it is based on a false premise. What type of stuff would they need in a perfect world? If the weather was perfect and the animals were friendly and food was abundant and free and everyone was vegetarian, what would they need? They wouldn't need houses to be protected from weather, climate, or animals. I don't see why they would need buildings of any kind! If the earth was producing enormous quantities of food from pole to pole, they wouldn't need tractors, plows nor a highway system, nor vehicles to move food and goods from one region to another. They wouldn't need lots of things we need for survival and protection today. 
         
 
    Kent Hovind 
 
                 
            
        
     
    
    
                                        
                    
    
        I told him how we kept fewer forms between us and God; retaining, indeed, no more than, perhaps, the nature of mankind in the mass rendered necessary for due observance. I told him I could not look on flowers and tinsel, on wax- lights and embroidery, at such times and under such circumstances as should be devoted to lifting the secret vision to Him whose home is Infinity, and His being - Eternity. That when I thought of sin and sorrow, of earthly corruption, mortal depravity, weighty temporal woe - I could not care for chanting priests or mumming officials; that when the pains of existence and the terrors of dissolution pressed before me - when the mighty hope and measureless doubt of the future arose in view - _then_, even the scientific strain, or the prayer in a language learned and dead, harassed: with hindrance a heart which only longed to cry - "God be merciful to me, a sinner!" 
         
 
    Charlotte Brontë 
 
                 
            
        
     
    
    
                                        
                    
    
        Or indeed we may say again, it is in what I called Portrait-painting, delineating of men and things, especially of men, that Shakspeare is great. All the greatness of the man comes out decisively here. It is unexampled, I think, that calm creative perspicacity of Shakspeare. The thing he looks at reveals not this or that face of it, but its inmost heart and generic secret: it dissolves itself as in light before him, so that he discerns the perfect structure of it. Creative, we said: poetic creation, what is this too but seeing the thing sufficiently? The word that will describe the thing, follows of itself from such clear intense sight of the thing. And is not Shakspeare's morality, his valour, candour, tolerance, truthfulness; his whole victorious strength and greatness, which can triumph over such obstructions, visible there too? Great as the world! 
         
 
    Thomas Carlyle