appeasement
Posted at 11:00pm on Jun. 10, 2008 The peace agreements between Pakistan and the Taliban (that you probably haven't heard of)
By Jeff Emanuel
An Erstwhile "Ally" in the War on Terror Sells its Soul for Thirty Pieces of Silver and an Agreement its Enemies will Never Live up to
On February 17, the Pakistani government and the Taliban jointly signed a peace treaty dealing with the North Waziristan region of the Afghan/Pakistani border area (see graphic at right, and click for more detailed map). The agreement was shrouded in secrecy, with its terms being kept under wraps by both parties.
This weekend, a Pakistani news organization, the Daily Times, managed to obtain a copy of the agreement, which they roughly outlined on their web site.
They report that the agreement, "inked between the government and the Utmanzai tribes on February 17 to fight Taliban-linked militancy through support from the local population," contains the following terms:
- • Sharing the agreement’s contents with the media violates the terms laid down in the document [Auth. note: There is no information available yet as to how this leaking of the peace agreement to the Daily Times will affect the overall agreement, given this requirement]
- • "Al Qaeda-linked militants" are allowed to live in North Waziristan "as long as they pledge to remain peaceful"
- • "All foreigners" are required to "leave the area"
- • No "parallel government of suspected Taliban militants" will be tolerated
- • There will be "no attacks on security personnel or government employees" and no "target killings" will be "initiated" [Auth. note: The Daily Times points out that "suspected Taliban militants continue to blow up CD shops in Miranshah and target killings have continued despite the February 17 peace deal"]
- • Any violator of the peace accord will be fined 50 million Pakistani Rupees [Auth. note: Approximately U.S. $742,000]
Posted in Al Qaeda | appeasement | Foreign Affairs | foreign policy | GWOT | Pakistan | Taliban | War — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 5:35pm on May 18, 2008 Has President Bush Learned the Lessons of Annapolis?
Last week's speech to the Knesset suggests that he has
By Jeff Emanuel
Last Thursday, President Bush marked the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel by speaking to the country's governing body, the Knesset. In his address, Bush sounded like a different man from the one who called Israel an "occupying force" at the Annapolis Conference on Palestinian Statehood last November, and demanded that the middle east's lone functioning democracy make unilateral concessions to its terrorist enemies as a show of "good faith."
Perhaps in hopes of bolstering his legacy by pushing the region toward a peace more lasting than any of his predecessors has been able to achieve, Bush invited Israel, the Fatah leadership of the Palestinian West Bank, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other regional players to the conference, and asked them to put their differences aside in order to work toward the best possible outcome for both the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The fact that the meeting took place at all was a demonstration of the administration's willingness to subjugate consistency and the keeping of its word to the fleeting hope of achieving a boost in ephemeral legacy -- for, in order to attract any states other than Israel to the meeting, the administration had to willingly drop several previously-required stipulations, including the most basic: that attendees simply recognize that Israel had a right to exist in the first place.
Not only was that most basic of requirements waived for attendance at the Annapolis, but President Bush used his address at the conference to betray not only his own word, but Israel's rights as the besieged lone free country in the region as well.
Read on.
Posted in appeasement | Foreign Affairs | Israel — Comments (24)/ Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 9:13am on May 18, 2008 MI Morning Update: US House Dems Can't Support Troops - Newt on "Appeasement" - Noonan Takes GOP to Task
By saul anuzis
170 Days until Election Day
May 18, 2008
MORNING UPDATE:
HOUSE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS…wouldn’t put up the votes to fund our troops overseas. As the majority party in Congress…the Democrats do not have the votes to support our troops. Republicans voted present on this vote to help make the point that the Democrat’s rhetoric once again doesn’t match reality.
OBAMA AND THE DEMS REACT…to President Bush’s speech in Israel which was thought by some to be provocative. Did the President hit a nerve? Some call it “appeasement”. I think Newt gave the best response…see below.
Posted in appeasement | Gingrich | Michigan Republican Party | Noonan | Republicans | Saul Anuzis | Troop Funding — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:42pm on May 15, 2008 Putting Bush's Words In Context: Barack Obama, Neville Chamberlain, and the Art of Appeasement
By Erick
Posted in 2008 | appeasement | Barack Obama | George Bush | Neville Chamberlain | War — Comments (109)/ Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:15pm on Jan. 24, 2008 You Seriously Could Not Make This Stuff Up
By Dan McLaughlin
A children’s story based on the tale of the Three Little Pigs was rejected for an award after judges became concerned that it would offend Muslims.
The animated virtual book for primary school children, The Three Little Cowboy Builders, was also criticised for its potential to offend builders.
The row centred on the Bett awards, which were supported by Becta, the Government’s technology agency for schools. The judges’ remarks, reported on the education technology website Merlin John Online, included: “Is it true that all builders are cowboys, builders get their work blown down, and builders are like pigs?
“The idea of taking a traditional tale and retelling a story is fine, but it should not alienate parts of the workforce. Judges would not recommend this product to the Muslim community in particular.”
Note that the story in question apparently wasn't even about pigs, it was just a retelling of a classic story in which the protagonists were pigs.
Posted at 8:01pm on Oct. 29, 2007 It’s Legacy Time Again
George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice seek their own Palestinian peace plan, and bring Carter and Clinton along for the ride
By Jeff Emanuel
If the dinner conversation at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is focused on a Palestinian state and a ‘Middle Eastern peace plan’ built on Israel’s giving away both land and sovereignty, then it’s a pretty safe guess that it is currently year seven or eight of a two-term American presidency. Like clockwork, as the time for him to leave office draws near, President Bush, like Bill Clinton before him, has turned a hopeful eye to the Levant as a solution to his “legacy” problem. This problem is namely the fact that, like his predecessor, Bush's presidency (short of a miracle solution to the myriad challenges currently facing America) stands to be remembered largely for its poor choices, bad policy, and abysmal public relations, rather than for any large successes in the domestic or foreign policy realms.
Read on . . .
Posted in appeasement | Foreign Affairs | Israel | Palestine — Comments (18)/ Email this page » / Read More »
