Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Brezinski denounces Syrian war, recommends coalition

Posted 5 years ago on June 15, 2013, 5:44 p.m. EST by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Former U.S. National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter Admin—ed.) denounced the Obama administration policy on Syria as "propaganda" and warned that we could be headed to a "regional war" that could last for years because of it.

In an interview on the Morning Joe (Scarborough) program on MSNBC on June 14, Brzezinski was quick to denounce Obama's arming of the Syrian rebellion, and said that instead of this "chaotic" policy, "We should be building an international coalition that poses some sort of solution, seriously negotiating with the Chinese and the Russians, involve the Japanese as well...."

Bzezinski called the so-called intelligence assessment on chemical weapons, and the accusation that Syrian President Bashar al Assad killed 93,000 people "propaganda," and blasted Qatar and Saudi Arabi, ridiculing the idea that they are "fighting for democracy."

Brzezinski warned that we are sliding into a sectarian civil war that can "evolve into a larger regional war." This could mean the U.S. being "pitted against Iran," and then "getting involved in the another war in the region that could last for years."

"It all seems to me rather sporadic, chaotic, unstructured," Brzezinski charged. "I don't see any real strategic guidance to what were doing. I see a lot of rhetoric, a lot of emotion, a lot of propaganda, in fact."

Appearing seriously worried, Brzezinski countered the chatter that compares Syria to Bosnia and promises a quick success.

"What hasn't worked is Iraq, which was based on false assumptions ... [and] the intervention into Libya by the British and the French with our backing hasn't worked out too well.... we are now pointed to something similar but more dangerous in Syria....", because it interfaces with Iran, which causes problems for the world economy and also affects Japan, China.

"We should be building an international coalition that poses some sort of solution, seriously negotiating with the Chinese and the Russians, involve the Japanese as well.... that is the kind of response that could have some effect.

"Instead we're essentially engaging in mass propaganda portraying this as a democratic war," he asserted. "Who is fighting for democracy? Qatar and Saudi Arabia are fighting for democracy? This is a sectarian war waged with great brutality. And I repeat, the 93,000 were killed in a civil war, they were not just killed by the Syrian Regime.

"And why did the president issue that particular red line?" he continued. "On what basis? With what strategic concepts in mind? This what's so baffling about this whole thing. It's a tragedy and it's a mess in the making and one that can enlarge [to] involve Turkey, perhaps, also in this problem, and Turkey is having internal difficulties. I do not see what the United States right now is trying to accomplish."

He concluded by again saying that Obama should have a serious discussion inside the United States and stop this "propaganda."




Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

While Zbigniew Brzezinski almost always had insightful views of the international sociopolitical situations, there are ample reasons for the U.S. to become more involved in the Syrian conflict.

Russia had strengthened Assad with anti-aircraft defense missiles and started fleet-patrolling the Mediterranean Sea. Hezbollah fighters had joined the Syrian conflict on Assad's side, no doubt with Iran's backing and blessing. The Syrian conflict had already flared up far beyond a civil war with regional if not already global involvement. Although the U.S. had tried to keep to non-lethal involvement such as communication gears and medical supplies to the Syrian opposition and prevent the usage of chemical weapons by drawing the "red line," the policy has blatantly FAILED. Although Japan and China have vital interests of their own (namely Persian Gulf oil) to protect, they have not done much or even shown much interest in shoring up the global commons. There is not much choice for the U.S. but to get more deeply involved by supplying arms to the Syrian opposition.

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 5 years ago

People originally came to the US to stay out of foreign wars. Why should we risk getting entangled in a long term regional war, if not all out global nuclear war, destined to deplete our economy and defense systems, just to put Al Queda in power in Syria?

[-] 2 points by gameon (-51) 5 years ago

people came /come to the usa for a chance at a better life than what they had in their native countries.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 5 years ago

The original settlers of the US came here to stay out of foreign wars in Europe, so the policy of staying out of foreign wars and intrigues was written into our constitution.


[-] 2 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

It is rather simple if you think of yourself living in a house next to a cesspool that has been filled up with methane and threatens to explode. No matter how bad it stinks, you will want to find ways to stabilize the situation. You cannot really just bleed the methane because you need the methane to heat your house and cook foods.

The methane is the metaphor for the Middle Eastern oil that U.S. has a dependency on, not that directly but very much indirectly through the globalized oil market. Our major supplies of crude do not come from the Middle East but their prices change very much in tune with Middle Eastern conflicts, tensions, or perceptions of tensions within minutes. If we do not stabilize the situation there, we can look forward to even worse outcomes for our economy and defense systems because the potential mess will take far more and longer deployment of U.S. forces to return the Middle East to some semblance of stability.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 5 years ago

That sounds like the kind of argument that was made for getting us into a war with Iraq, to confiscate their non existent weapons of mass destruction.

[-] 2 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

They may sound alike but there is a major difference: the non-existent weapons of mass destruction could not be ascertained to exist or not until we had charged into Iraq but what have already happened in the Syrian conflict are ascertained facts.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 5 years ago

The existence of the non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was supposed to be a fact as well, as ascertained by British and US intelligence. Now, we are relying on the same source of intelligence for Syria. The civil war in Syria should be ended. But starting a bigger war is never the way to end a smaller war.

[-] 2 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

There were hints that the case for invading Iraq was bogus: aluminum (hello, soft-metal?) tubes for uranium enrichment, U.N. inspectors (actually on the ground there for years) found no evidence (in fact, another "patriot" akin to Ed Snowden tried to influence the U.S. populace so as to stop the whole mess from happening), story about Saddam Hussein hiding biological/chemical weapons under his palace (hey, U.S. homeowners do not even stash their lawn chemicals and pesticides in their basements so as to be able to sleep above them), and the uranium yellow-cake story in Niger did not hold water according to Valerie Plame (of the C.I.A. and later career-assassinated by the Bush'ite administration) and her ambassador husband.

It has been a decade since the U.S. charged into Iraq so you can expect that our intelligence agencies would have had time to improve their intelligence gathering. There is one thing that I frankly admire the U.S. for -- its propensity to close the barn door after the horse has bolted from the barn! Especially after the Libyan conflict.

Do not call the Syrian conflict a civil war any more. It looks far more like a sectarian conflict with regional and global involvements. The U.S. is not starting a bigger war because there is no longer a smaller war there. It may hark back to the Cold War days' very hot local wars.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 5 years ago

The assessment that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was no mistake, but simply propaganda to justify to the American people the necessity of a war with Iraq. The intelligence regarding chemical weapons in Syria is similar propaganda intended to justify a war.

The "bigger war" is the US war on terror, a war that's been going on for over a decade now, which has the intention of taking over all of Asia by the global financial oligarchy, as represented in the US by Wall Street.

There are regional and global interests in this war, just as there would be if Russia decided to bomb Mexico to end the civil strive there. Russia clearly recognizes that expanding the war in Syria will have grave implications extending over its own borders.

End the war through negotiation and coalition building as Brezinski recommended. Such a coalition would have the power to end the rule of the global financial oligarchy, and establish national banking systems to promote economic development worldwide.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

Think about why Israel struck at Syria which is right next to it. Do you believe that Israel made up the story about the chemical weapons being moved so as to be able to start up another border skirmish? Gasp! Israel has wanted to fly the old Texan flag of a rattlesnake with the motto, "Don't tread on me!" for a long time. It got pretty sick and tired of its neighborhood. It does not want another border war but it had to do what would be in its better interest -- trying to stop Syria's chemical weapons from moving into the hands of the Hezbollah (which would be a mortal threat to Israel).

I certainly hope that Mr. Brzezinski is correct. Perhaps coalition building should be a parallel effort but without the U.S. getting more involved, a looming defeat of the Syrian opposition may occur dispersing the people fighting the conflict elsewhere, a little bit like Afghanistan (9/11 | Al-Qaeda) or Chechnya (Boston Marathon | Tamerlan Tsarnaev).

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 5 years ago

All the better reason to end the war through coalition building.

[-] 2 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

The coalition building will probably not succeed before the Syrian opposition is overrun which may be imminent with Assad throwing everything he has at it, including chemical weapons and Hezbollah fighters.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 5 years ago

Such a coalition is necessary whether it effects Syria or not. The global financial situation is going to continue collapsing, unless Glass Steagall is reinstated. If it keeps collapsing, the expanding chaos will create increasing opportunity for wars. Certain branches of the western oligarchy want continued war as a way of destroying Asia, to prevent Asian people from assuming their fair share of power in the world.

The alternative is to reinstate Glass Steagall, bankrupt the global financiers and replace them with national banking systems to finance international economic development. We need projects like a Eurasian train route that would unite all the countries of Europe and Asia, bring modernization, and good jobs as an alternative to warfare and terrorism, the only alternative for many poor Asians today.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

I agree that it will be helpful to build a coalition with China and Japan to tackle global problems but I suspect that it will be too late for Syria because Japan is still geo-politically juvenile on the international scene and China is mostly just a regional power without any global vision aside from the dollars in its eyes.

Reinstating Glass-Steagall is something we can work on in the U.S. I do not see how a Eurasian train route will help because we already have the trans-Siberian railroad for example. The more links there are the more troubles there will be if the cultures on the ends of the links are antagonistic. There is so far a large amount of cultural antagonism between Europe and South Asia, for example. Linking them up can cause undesirable problems.

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 4 years ago

Interesting observations about the degeneration of our culture.

The British Empire, that I mentioned, is not really the country of England, but the international network of financiers that have their headquarters in the City of London financial district, of which Wall Street is the younger brother.

The empire took over the US through a massive campaign of "irregular warfare" which included a heavy component of cultural warfare. The unfortunate results, you see on your TV today.

[-] 3 points by grapes (5173) 4 years ago

There was insidious conquest of the U.S. by the financial Matrix with its linchpin in London.

It consolidates its power to steal unwitting people's money by front-running their financial trading transactions. China apparently knew the potential pitfall and got a DIRECT link to the U.S. Treasury bypassing the tentacles (mega-banks) of the financial Matrix, absolutely a historical FIRST for any country in the world.

As the Earth rotates to breaking dawns from East to West every morning, the tentacles of the financial Matrix spring into action, starting from Tokyo and later on Singapore. London is strategically situated time-zone-wise to mediate global financial transactions and allows making a quick and easy profit on them. The laws there are easy for the global financiers as witnessed by U.K.'s failure to join the euro area to protect its financial Matrix headquarters.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 5 years ago

The global financiers aren't really capitalists. "Capital" refers not just to money, but to the means of production. This includes public infrastructure such as transportation and energy productions systems, as well as private infrastructure such as factories. The global financiers are predatory, they want to break up the means of production and sell it off at a profit. This is why high tech US factories were broken up and re-established as low tech sweatshops in China.

That is what we call British free trade. Its opposite, American System capitalism, was established in the US by people like Alexander Hamilton, Henry Carey and Abraham Lincoln. It was based, not so much on money, but on the build up of increasingly high tech capital/infrastructure, by providing incentives for the reinvestment of profits into science driven high technology.

The American System resulted in factory workers, with no college education, being able to earn salaries of fifty grand a year, being able to buy homes and cars and send their kids to colleges. This was through their ability to use high technology.

Later examples are FDR who saved the US from financial suicide through the New Deal, which built up American infrastructure, made it rich and powerful, and able to defeat the Nazis in WW2. JFK is also an example, who created the greatest economic boom in history through the space program, which created all of what we call high technology and resulted in ten dollars worth of economic development for every dollar put into it.

[-] 3 points by grapes (5173) 4 years ago

You have been very observant. The U.S. has certainly been following the way of the British. Perhaps it is inevitable that when financiers have captured the political system and once the shakedown of the populace cannot continue much longer, the country cannot do anything great any more and simply stare helplessly at its infrastructures and its people "dry"-rotting away.

The U.S. has become very "soft" from its apparent "printing-press" wealth. Why is it that I can have so many channels of television through gigabit fiber optic network with NOTHING worthwhile to watch? Dry-rot of the culture! I feel like that marooned sailor on a desert-dry island surrounded by Pacific-Ocean's water. Water, water, everywhere around me for thousands of miles but not a single drop that I can drink!

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 5 years ago

So, do you thing that a quarter of the US should be broken off and given to the American Indians as well? That would only weaken those territories, as Tibet would be weakened if it were separated from China.

But that is precisely what the global financiers want, to break up nation states and weaken them, making them more easy to dominate. That's why they put up the big money to make the propagandized Hollywood films and books, portraying old Tibet as a spiritual paradise, when it was really a hell hole, run by men who thought they were gods.

[-] 2 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

You are sadly mistaken about the global financiers. Global financiers hate national borders. They want their capital to flow like mercury around the world chasing profits. They hate dealing with border checkpoints, national regulations, customs, tariffs, etc.

Five hundred nation states will surely make them pull their hair out if they have to deal with all of these different laws. Take a look at the people pushing for trade pacts and you will understand.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 5 years ago

I think Israel is quite a different situation than Tibet. In Tibet, 90% of the people were serfs or slaves. The Dalai Lama, for example, was supposed to have owned around 5,000 slaves. Now, at least they are free citizens with a growing economy.

Western investment in China has been a mixed blessing. Its mostly resulted in the development of a lot of sweat shops. The Chinese and Americans would have been much better off if we'd followed FDR's plan, which was to export high tech infrastructure to China. It would have created a lot of US manufacturing jobs and lifted China up towards first world status.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

They are at best second-class citizens in a growing economy that has these many problems with China in the last few paragraphs. It is your link.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 5 years ago

China has vision, its been building infrastructure for poor African nations in exchange for raw materials for quite a while. Its made a deal with Russia to cooperatively develop the immense natural resources of Siberia.

The trans-Siberian railroad is pretty miniscule compared to what is planned by some with vision:


Note the bridge or tunnel on the far right of the map that would unite the US via Alaska with Siberia with all of Asia. Besides increasing trade and travel, it would also allow us to exchange oil and gas, as well as allowing Asia to use unused US electricity at nigh time, and vice versa.

I think a train route would do more to create peace by facilitating trade and travel, rather than war. People are antagonistic when they don't know and understand each other.

By the way, why "grapes"?

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

The global financiers are not malevolent in nature but damn it they do chase single-mindedly after profits like flies chasing rotting meats. If their capital will turn first world into third world nations and yield good profits, they will do it. If their capital will turn third world into first world nations and yield good profits, they will do it. If there are no good profits, they move their capital away. Metaphorically, the stink of money must be there to attract the global financiers. They frankly do not care about environment, labor rights, financial ruins, ghettos, etc. unless these affect profits.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 5 years ago

The global financiers want to turn the first world into third world nations. Its happening in the US already, and can be clearly seen in big cities like Los Angeles.

They want to do whatever they can to prevent nations from developing, which is why we have a financial crisis in the west. Its also why they want to divide up China, and pass laws based on phony environmental data to keep it from developing.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

Trains are needed for hauling the raw materials to a port to be shipped to China so that China can make its dollars.

It is not true that a train route creates peace. Look at how well Europe was connected by train routes and yet it went through spasms of wars in the last century. In fact, Europe was probably the most squabbling continent in the world for many centuries.

You are the first one to ask about it. sweet grapes, g(ang) rapes, grapes to ferment, grapes meaning the people, grapes on vines taking sustenance from the Word, grapes to make wines, the blood of Jesus, the end-product of Jesus' first miracle, to remember with, to intoxicate, to celebrate, and the grapes of wrath of the people (to be gathered into the great winepress).

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 5 years ago

Yes it should be better off, in the 1950s Tibetans still lived under medieval conditions. Would you prefer to see the Chinese withdraw from Tibet, and take there hundreds of millions of yuan a year with them?

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

Let the Tibetans decide. From what I had gathered, that money from the so-called "civilizing" (as if Tibet were not civilized before China barged in there) efforts of China mostly benefits the Han Chinese in Tibet and that was why there was the strife. The Han Chinese are viewed by the Tibetans in the same way as the Palestinians on the West Bank view the Israeli settlers -- not very favorably.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 5 years ago

Yes, I realize there are significant problems in Tibet and throughout China. I hear Chinese people complaining about their government frequently. But I think its clear that Tibet is much better now off then it was under the Dalai Lama.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

You are comparing Tibet today with its former self more than half a century ago. It had better be far better off now than then. If you read to the end of your link, the author wrote that there would not be a good fit for Tibet in modern China. I vaguely remember some saying similar to: "It is far better to be the Lord of Hell than to be the underdog in Heaven."

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 5 years ago

The train route sure did help Tibet, I think it gets about 15% of its income now from tourists coming in on that train. China has invested $45.6 billion dollars into Tibet since 2001 according to Wikipedia.

Who else is going to put that kind of money into a backwards area like Tibet? The US? Europe? They don't even invest in their own economies.

I think you've probably read a lot of propaganda about China and Tibet. Consider what Michael Parenti, American Professor and prominent leftist, has to say about it:

Friendly Feudalism: the Tibet Myth http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

China did the sensible thing in Copenhagen. Green ideology preventing economic development is one of the greatest threats to the poor of the world these days.

Sure China's interested in money, that is, economic value. That's how it raised 100 million people out of poverty over the past few decades, by investing in economic growth.

How many people has the US brought out of poverty recently? From what I can see, increasing numbers of the US middle class are becoming poor.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

With that logic, we should really be singing paeans about Israel's settlements on the West Bank, the razing of U.S. houses to build a corporate headquarter, and the cutting of trees to build a shopping mall at Gezi Park in Istanbul. We should be asking which country BUT Israel would have invested so heavily in the West Bank bringing "advanced" civilization and modern living to the "backwards" people there.

There is a fundamental problem with that logic -- it is missing the consent of the people affected by the actions. Being "advanced" does not justify taking over the Lebensraum of the "backwards." If that were the basis, I could very well justify the U.S. taking over China. As for the last point, with the U.S. multinational corporations doing business in China, a huge chunk of that 100 million people lifted out of poverty should be credited to the U.S. indirectly through these corporations, the I.M.F., and the World Bank (all of which are institutions that the U.S. built as part of the post-WWII economic order which also helped Japan and Germany to become the third and fourth largest economy in the world, respectively).

Precisely because of the decades of heavy U.S. capital spending on China, the U.S. did not build up its people or renew its infrastructures. The oligarchs have instead undercut our people with very cheap and low-quality imports from China. When they do not have good-paying jobs for income, they have to shop Chinese from the "Walmarts." China (AND India) dumping hundreds of millions of new workers with extremely low labor costs onto the world labor market caused the great downfall of the U.S. middle class, upper middle class, and the professionals. Do not feel slighted if I did not mention the lower class because there is not much room for the lower class to sink before our social safety nets such as food stamps, perennially renewed unemployment insurance, social security disability payments, etc. kick in to help after the lower class has offered its leash to our great Obama who has "lifted" the lower class out of poverty by its leash.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 5 years ago

I've seen African leaders in videos on Youtube expressing their appreciation for what the Chinese have been doing in Africa, while denouncing World Monetary Fund style predatory financing.

Trains distribute prosperity if they are properly managed, they create jobs which would make terrorism a less attractive career opportunity. The train system within China is one of the best things its done for its own economy.

A lot of propaganda is published in the US about China which isn't true. I found that out first hand when I came here. It's the financial oligarchs pursuing their divide and conquer strategy.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

China's train route to Tibet did not work well in distributing prosperity. In fact, it created more domestic strife which China calls terrorism.

As for the global vision of China, we saw that too well in Copenhagen 2009 when China had crippled what could have been achieved in the wake of China and India having realized their water dependence on the Third Pole of the Earth, the Himalayas. What came out was a mumbo jumbo of 2-degree Celsius target. Although I cannot blame the devastating effects of Superstorm Sandy on China, I cannot help but to think that China's (in)actions have contributed and will cause more problems for the world.

I believe you if you tell me that China's global vision is actually a tunnel vision with a pile of gold at the end of the tunnel.

[-] -1 points by benjie (-13) 5 years ago

Brezinski, Schminski....Sarah P has the REAL solutuion:

Palin argued that the U.S. should not intervene in any Middle East conflict as long as President Obama remains in office.

“Until we have a commander in chief who knows what he is doing....let Allah sort it out!” she told the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

Sarah Palin's Middle-East policy of "Allahu Akbar!" would be far worse than our President's policies, even though some have already failed. U.S. credibility is at stake -- Obama having demanded Assad to leave, having drawn that "red line," and having told Israel not to build more settlements on the West Bank. Besides, Obama gave the Cairo speech that might very well have inspired the Arab Spring so he needs to follow through or he will lose his credibility as our President.

[-] 0 points by benjie (-13) 5 years ago

He could regain some "credibility" or at least some respect if he would admit to the world that he is not really a member of Democratic Party.....he is a lackey for the Muslim Brotherhood. Already gave them Egypt and Libya....and is screwing up their capture of Syria. An attack of conscience, perhaps?

[-] -1 points by benjie (-13) 5 years ago

AND, just what right does the POTUS have to "demand" any leader of any country "to leave"? Especially when our current Potus talks loudly but carries a soft stick?

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

There were leaders who had been asked to leave and decided not to who later incurred the wrath of their own people; Gadhafi (sodomized and shot) and Hussein (hanged) came to mind. POTUS may have been doing Assad a favor by demanding him to leave. Of course, absolutely no one needs to obey POTUS but we will all see the outcome for Assad from the Will of the Syrian people.

[-] -1 points by benjie (-13) 5 years ago

C'mon Grapes....do you really thing "their own people:" could ever have gotten to Gadhafi OR Sadam if the UNITED STATES HAD NOT INTERVENED??????

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 4 years ago

Precisely because NO ONE needs to obey any POTUS that it had made a big difference in the cases of Gadhafi and Hussein. It is called leading from behind by talking loudly while carrying a soft stick.

[-] -1 points by benjie (-13) 5 years ago

Oh, so Obama's "credibility" (uh, is that an oxymoron?) is more important than avoiding WWIII? He didn't even make his aid announcement himself.....not even Carney. He let his 2nd string pressers make the announcement and he is now off to Europe and Africa?

He should be indefinitely detained under his NDAA for giving aid to the terrorists. The only way to salvage the US' credibility is to impeach the PeacePrizePrez.

[-] 2 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

The U.S. had asked Russia not to supply anti-aircraft missiles to Assad but Russia refused by its action. Supplying arms to the Syrian opposition can be understood as a proportionate response to that as well as the Hezbollah fighters getting involved and chemical weapons having been used. Hopefully, the Syrian opposition will be getting a fighting chance.

[-] -1 points by benjie (-13) 5 years ago

The "Syrian opposition"? Try Pan Arab Sunni opposition. Jihadists from all over the Mideast have been fighting in Syria a lot longer than Hezbollah and Russian intervention. Russia is a Syrian ally, they are doing nothing more than we have done a dozen times post wwii. Supplying our sworn enemies arms is proportionate if we want another (50's era) Korea or Vietnam, When did Assad become such a 'bad guy" to us? You know damn well it's not humanitarian concerns guiding our policies. Iraq started the destabilizion process of the Mideast, but Obama has put the destabilization on steroids with the Arab Spring. What is going on in Turkey, btw? Have we decided Erdogan is a bad guy now?

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

Hezbollah and Russia were old enemies from the Cold War. If Russia decided to re-ignite Cold War tensions, the U.S. can certainly oblige in kind. The U.S. policy in Syria was to let the Arabs settle the matter themselves within some restraints. Once those restraints have been breached, the U.S. policy must change accordingly. The Will of the people is often very scary to behold but its scary version only comes into being in response to oppression. There are far too many rulers who treat their states as their personal piggy-banks, their private inheritance, or their private properties. Let the people decide and rule.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

There are far too many rulers who treat their states as their personal piggy-banks, their private inheritance, or their private properties. Let the people decide and rule.

Starting here in the USA would be helpful to the whole process. IMO.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

I have no problem at all to advance on ALL fronts. It is a global war, isn't it?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

It is a global war.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Sorry shills - It "IS" a global war.

[-] -2 points by benjie (-13) 5 years ago

Who the hell are you? One of PeacePrizes' low level intelligence advisors?

[-] 0 points by grapes (5173) 4 years ago

I am grapes, fully ripened clusters of the vines of the earth.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Satan's Spawn says stop propaganda?

How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen by Alexander Cockburn And Jeffrey St. Clair

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

  • There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

I think it is the interest of the weapons industry

to sell to perpetual war