Omg, Bush's bestest buds are appeasers!

To refresh memories:

Appeasement:
to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

So what do you call this?

PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN -- Pakistani authorities announced Wednesday that they had struck a truce with a militant faction that moved last year to impose Taliban-style rule in a once-popular tourist area.

The deal between government officials and Islamic militants in the scenic Swat valley could presage broader accords with militants in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

The 15-point pact was signed despite explicit expressions of concern from the United States about such truces -- the latest warning delivered only a day earlier by Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte in Washington.

Pakistan's new coalition government, which took office seven weeks ago after winning parliamentary elections in February, has said it is willing to talk with extremists who are prepared to renounce violence. But the Bush administration and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization say they believe that Islamic militants will use respites to strengthen and rearm themselves and resume attacks when it suits them. They also say cross-border strikes aimed at Western troops in Afghanistan have edged up since negotiations began.

[snip]

Under the pact, the government appeared to have made significant concessions. It agreed to begin pulling back troops, provided that attacks against the military cease. The government suggested that Fazlullah, previously one of the country's most wanted men, would not be actively pursued. It also agreed that the Swat valley would come under a system of Sharia, or Islamic law, with Islamic clerics and scholars advising civil judges.

In return, the militants softened some of the harsher measures they had taken to enforce their stringent form of Islam. They agreed to stop their campaign against polio vaccinations, which they have denounced as a Western plot, and girls' schooling. They also promised to stop terrorizing barbers who shaved men's beards and blowing up music and video stores.

As part of the agreement, Fazlullah's followers pledged not to display weapons in public, though they did not agree to disarm. The group's former heavily fortified headquarters is to be turned into a university, both sides said.

Pakistan's last consession allowed the Taliban to reorganize and gain strength. What is this going to do?

And, clutch those pearls, Mabel, Israel is an appeaser, too!:

JERUSALEM -- In February 2007, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, met privately for more than two hours in Turkey.

The two leaders concluded that the time was ripe for Turkey to mediate indirect peace negotiations between longtime enemies Israel and Syria.

The existence and extent of those negotiations were acknowledged by all sides Wednesday, prompting speculation as to the timing, goals and prospects for success.

Syrian President Bashar Assad disclosed the negotiations last month, saying Turkish mediators had informed him that Israel was willing to return the disputed Golan Heights to Syria.

Israel declined to confirm the talks at the time, but an Israeli official said Wednesday's coordinated statements out of Jerusalem, Damascus and Ankara were a sign that "the discussions had advanced" to a more serious level.

The Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the U.S. government had been "fully briefed" from the start on the initiative.

Georgie, you knew about these dangerous diplomatic appeasement-related program activities for a year? And didn't tell us?

I thought talking to the enemy was evil and bad?

crossposted at Rants from the Rookery

People say I'm crazy, doing what I'm doing.

As our Tonstant Weaders know, I frequently cross-post between here and VidiotSpeak.

But this is the first time I've ever quoted and linked to a VS post I was not the soul (sic) author on.

And it's because I and my co-bloggers over there all contributed to creating this and I, in my egocentric way, think it's important to share with SteveAudio's crowd:

Let's not muddy the waters…
posted by Bill Arnett

Updates below

This latest "incident" involving, allegedly, five Iranian patrol boats almost being fired upon by the U.S. Navy begs the question: If the American ships were in international waters available for passage by all ships, why aren't the Iranians allowed to be in international waters just like anyone else?

Why should the Navy have fired on boats in international waters just because they didn't like fellow boaters from Iran tailing their ships?

And, lastly, if the U.S. Navy HAD fired on the Iranian boats would they not themselves be in violation of international law, the laws of the sea, treaty and have, once more, taken aggressive, provocative action against a peaceful nation in order to provoke a defensive reaction as a prelude to another illegal American war?

So, again, we hear all this bellicosity from bushco's navy about boats being where they were lawfully entitled to be and we're supposed to take bushco's representation that the Iranians somehow violated any treaties or obligations by being lawfully within international waters?

Sailor, you probably know more about this than I, but aren't international waters open to all, without regard to political affiliation or country? Hence the name, "International waters?"

Why can't the MSM figure stuff like this out on their own?

Update by The Sailor:The encounter lasted 20 minutes and the US edited it to 4 minutes. The audio and video were recorded separately, edited, allegedly 'synched' and released by the Pentagon.Here's a link to to the heavily edited video.

From the original reports I thought the navy was talking about fast attack boats, (AKA Swiftboats or PT boats), but the Iranian's boats are no bigger than speedboats on my lake. So we're talking about a boat maybe 30 feet long vs a ship 500 feet long that has guns, torpedoes and helicopters!

International waters are open to all, but that doesn't mean you can harass anyone and 200 yards is harassment to a naval warship in international waters, (in addition to all of the Right Of Way Rules that I teach my students is the unlisted 'Law of Tonnage', especially if they have guns;-).

OTOH, according to the Navy, according to the AP

The confrontation with the Iranian boats happened at the eastern end of the Straits, about three miles outside Iran's territorial waters, according to the Navy.

Now that's harassment!

Just think if a hostile country put 3 of the most advanced warships in the world 15 miles from America? And all we responded with were 5 speedboats without armor or heavy weapons.

Jeebus, look at the boat, it's 2 guys sitting in a glorified bassboat with an outboard! And they're not 'dressed in orange' as the AP article says, they're wearing PFDs (life preservers.) As every motor boater should according to the US Coast Guard.

The AP article also states that the US Navy 'faced down' the Iranians.
Pfft. I can 'face down' anyone who shows up to a gunfight with a knife.

So who has the most to gain from this 'confrontation?'

Iran, who could only respond with 5 unarmed speedboats to 3 heavily armed US warships within striking distance of their shores?

Or bush, about to embark on a Middle East 'mission' who insists, despite all evidence, that Iran is a nukular (sic) threat?

Bump & Update II by The Sailor: Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?

The list of those who are less than fully confident in the Pentagon’s video/audio mashup of aggressive maneuvers by Iranian boats near American warships in the Strait of Hormuz now includes the Pentagon itself.

Read the whole thing, seriously, even the comments are interesting.

And The Vidiot noted something I missed on a letter board she reads:

The voice from the 'speedboat' does not appear to include background engine or wind noise - WHY? Outboards are noisy, fast moving craft on open sea have wind noise and what about the crashing sound when a small craft hits a wave? FAKE"

The letter writer is absolutely correct and as a sailor and former sound engineer I should have caught it.