This thoughtful and well-documented opinion piece describes in a reasonable manner how the conservative movement has typically shunned negotiations with regimes it viewed as 'evil' - from the Soviet Union during the Cold War to Iran in our current 'war on terror.' As the author points out, this belligerent 'tough guy' attitude has not served us particularly well in the past. In hindsight, negotiation has generally proven to be more effective in resolving conflicts to the satisfaction of both sides. This insightful argument offers a useful perspective on the recent comments by President Bush about Senator Obama's willingness to talk unconditionally with hostile states.

There's nothing like historical fact to show philosophical inconsistencies and what works or doesn't. True appeasement has a poor record. However, as this article ably argues, negotiation on the basis of enlightened self-interest for both parties can and does work. Heated rhetoric aside, it doesn't indicate weakness, but reasonableness.

Scoblic presents an excellent historical tour of history of negotiation talks that were called appeasement by those who deem bombs and bullets as the only form of negotiation. He brings history and common sense into the current "appeasement" blathering that is only stupidity that panders to the fearful and war-crazed.

This opinion piece not only has some merit, it calls in a lot of historical facts that help sharpen his point and then jabs it into the Bush bubble. Splat - one more bubble dispensed with!

Excellent historical summary of ultra conservatives' version of diplomacy down through the years. There's nothing like history to provide factual evidence of the failure of ultra conservatism. What the data reveal is that neocons would rather bomb Hell out of Syria and Iran than negotiate with them. So talk is weak. Kill is strength. No wonder America is in so much trouble.

Bush in his speech to the Knesset stated that talking to terrorists and radicals is appeasement as in talking to Hitler and Germany to prevent WWII. Scobic in his article argues that not every enemy we have is Adolp Hitler and negotiations do not constitute appeasement? Talking will not lead to a Holocaust (or experience that is a similar). The history of the modern conservative movement is discussed. Conservatives see meetings and negotiations with communists as in SALT I and SALT II as surrender and appeasement.

This opinion piece has some merit. Where it falls short is in not quoting sufficiently from President Bush's speech. The context of the speech is missing, and the "swipe at Barack Obama" is inaccurate once you read the complete speech. This is otherwise a reasonable presentation of the author's viewpoint with facts chosen, somewhat selectively, to support his position.