Thomas F. Maher:

“And - OMG! - Ms/Mr I.Sage made a post without the usual “Obamessiah” slur! WHO has been hitting the sherry?”

Again, your irrational rant is unsupportable. “Obamessiah” does have a ring of truth but I haven’t used it a single time. Don’t be too concerned though, many leftists are delusional to some extent.

“But s/he can’t be all bad - after all, s/he has a sense of humor and must be a fan of “Monty Python And The Holy Grail,” whence her/his referencing The Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog with the phrase “…wild hare attack…””

I am a fan of Monty Python but I intended no tribute to The Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog in “Monty Python And The Holy Grail,” it was only a pejorative reference to the undomesticated Leporidae that invades the nether region of Swedish Socialists and other unstable political commentators.

Oh, and it’s “Mr. Iconoclastic Sage,” not that that’s ever made a difference in your amorous pursuits.

Tim Hogan:

“The reason Bush doesn’t talk to so many people and countries is Cheney won’t let him prove how much of a truly, deeply moronic imbecile Bush is and thereby invite immediate, devastating attacks upon the US and its allies.”

Your harsh appraisal of the President of the United States uses derogatory epithets based on misfortunes of people who have no control over their physical afflictions. I could do the same and say that Barack Obama is a liver-lipped blackamoor or that John Edwards overtly tantalizes some gender confused supporters with a saucy wiggle as he walks away from them. But I won’t.

Negotiation is what happens when you are being robbed. You tell the Guy that, “I won’t shoot and kill you if you if you surrender.” Appeasement is if he surrenders.

If he doesn’t, then dial 911, and ask tor the number for the local morgue.

That is the relationship between people, or countries. No Difference.

Appeasement is the result of trying to negotiate from a position of weakness and then giving in to superior force. When giving in allows what is going to be a fait accompli anyway and gives time for future resistance, what other choice is there. When playing poker if you don’t have the cards you can fold or bluff, but if your opponent knows you don’t have the cards, you are going to lose. Hitler knew England and France didn’t have the cards and that America was not even in the game. Hitler later overplayed his own hand and lost the game. Negotiation requires a strong position and also implies the willingness to give in on some points. There must be a quid pro quo. When one side refuses to offer anything worthwhile or one side insists on an unnegotiable demand, then a resort to force is necessary.The Rooosevelt Administration refused to agree to a Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere in Asia and the occupaton of China We know what happened.
In the case of the Palestinians v Israel there is room for negotiation even though one side has superior power. The destruction of either political entity is not negotiable. The question is what does Hamas want in return for ending attacks on Israel not including its destruction. What is Israel willing to give. If the U.S. wants Iran to stop its nuclear program, what leverage does it have? What diplomatic, economic and military cards are in our hands? If Iran takes the position that the nuclear progam is non-negotiable,the U.S. must either resort to force or use containment and deterrence of Iran. Has the Administration weighed the results that will come from either option and will it decide which is the lesser of two bad options. This is not a queston of appeasement. It is a high stakes game that both sides can continue to play or one side will try to make the other side fold.

MR. I. Sage -
Love it:
” Oh, and it’s “Mr. Iconoclastic Sage,” not that that’s ever made a difference in your amorous pursuits. ”
You are so sweet and clever, you naughty man! I bow to your wit!

I figured you meant “hair” in reference to the wabbit, but hoped you were just having a spelling-challenged moment.

You are writing better, though…

In case the OP actually wanted the question answered, and since I’ve not seen anyone else answer it, here goes:

Negotiation is two opposed sides coming to a mutually beneficial agreement.
Appeasement is one side giving up something valuable in the hopes that the other side will stop being a pain. Usually followed by the appeased side demanding even more.

Negotiation is the basis of capitalism. Appeasement is the basis of much foolishness.