Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
AEON said:
so ... you all set to march into Pyongyang, guns-a-blazin'?
The Path to 9/11 - docudrama or propaganda?
- Thread starter Bono's shades
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
so ... you all set to march into Pyongyang, guns-a-blazin'?
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Scarletwine said:
Lot of good we've done. Looks like Bush and the Saudi Prince.
Juan Cole translated it differently. I've seen it both ways.
Saddam had no ability to deliver of his threats.
Who in the world is Juan Cole?
Are we suppose to ignore all these threats from these leaders of nations, leaders of entire armies? It seems that as soon as the means meet with the ideology - these threats will be realized unless they are dealt with.
We can either "wait and see" if they really would use nukes (or any WMD), or make certain that such leaders never get access to them.
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Irvine511 said:
I think we are hoping that China can take care of this. But I certainly think it is possible that we may have to remove good ol Mr Kim.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
What will happen to our friends in South Korea? Oh yea, collateral damage.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Not to mention the dangers to millions form radiation exposure if it comes to that.
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I didn't say we should nuke them.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
AEON said:
so we take out bad people no matter what the consequence? Lil' Kim should go, even if a nuke gets tossed at Seoul?
as the cliche goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat, and i think Iraq has proved that military removal is absolutely the worst option.
it's this cowboy mentality -- you hit me, i'll shoot you -- that the terrorists have absolutely banked upon and it has paid off dividens for them. they knew we'd overreact, and we have thusly given them the legitimacy that they never deserved but have always craved.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
AEON said:
Well the word "threat" has been abused quite a bit as of late. So until that's defined, I'm not going to answer.
But Irvine's doing a pretty good job showing you how this black and white umbrella approach doesn't work.
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
BonoVoxSupastar said:
What do YOU consider a threat? Why don't you take a tab at defining it so I can clearly understand your position?
Who is attempting a black and white umbrella approach to the war on terror? We are fighting the Taliban differently than we are fighting the terrorist in Iraq. We would fight Iran differently than we would fight internal enemies.
The only thing about this war that I think is black and white is that all radical Islamic regimes should either be removed or made completely powerless.
Last edited:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
AEON said:
well, putting aside the side affects of removing a "radical Islamic regime" and assuming that you, unlike GWB, have a post-war plan, what about containment? is that not an option?
also, what do you say about the fact that wherever democracy has been practiced in the Middle East -- Lebanon, Palestinian Territories -- it's the terrorist organizations -- Hezbullah, Hamas -- that have won significant seats, if not outright majorities, in their respective parliments?
for our own safety, is democracy the best alternative?
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
deep said:
Please tell me this a joke.
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Irvine511 said:
Containment can work - for awhile. It is a difficult long term strategy. I think "containment" is what led to Vietnam. However, some could say that the policy was an overall success because communism was essentially contained until it finally collapsed. It might be an option...
But I think that radical Islam is too widespread to allow it.
a
Irvine511 said:
That's a really good question. It is an age old problem with democracy. After all, Hitler was elected. In my opinion, if non-democratic candidates take power of a democracy and change it - then it ceases to become a democracy. So I think the goal is a "stable" democracy, and just democracy.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
AEON said:
A threat is NOT, "well he could obtain WMDs" that's for fucking sure. First of all our intelligence needs revamped. But a threat has to be real. A threat is someone who can and has the motive to impede on our rights. Yes the Taliban was a true threat.
AEON said:
You didn't say the war on terror. You just said any regime...
Scarletwine
New Yorker
An excellent plan and assessment of current policy.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14942.htm
Spiegel Interview With Zbigniew Brzezinski
"Victory Would Be A Fata Morgana"
By Hans Hoyng and Georg Mascolo
09/12/06 "Spiegel" --- - - Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski discusses the errors committed by the Bush administration in its war on terror, the disastrous campaign in Iraq, and the risks of a global uprising against inequality.
SPIEGEL: Dr. Brzezinski, President Bush compares the dangers of terrorism with the dangers of the Cold War. He has even spoken repeatedly of a "nation at war" and will only accept "complete victory." Is he right or is he using exaggerated rhetoric?
Brzezinski: He is fundamentally wrong. Whether that is deliberate demagoguery or simply historical ignorance, I do not know. For four years I was responsible for coordinating the U.S. response in the event of a nuclear attack. And I can assure you that a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union on a comprehensive scale would have killed 160 to 180 million people within 24 hours.
No terrorist threat is comparable to that in the foreseeable future. Moreover, terrorism is essentially a technique of killing people and not the enemy as such. If one wages war on an invisible, unidentifiable phantom, one gets into a state of mind that virtually promotes dangerous exaggerations and distortions of reality.
SPIEGEL: What are these distortions?
Brzezinski: After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States was energetic and determined, and during the 40 years of the Cold War it was patient and deliberate. In neither case did any U.S. president intentionally preach fear as the major message to the people - on the contrary.
With his very loose formulations, the president is now creating a climate of fear that is destructive for American morale and distorting of American policy.
SPIEGEL: Is fear, as at the thought of a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists, not something very natural?
Brzezinski: Certainly, such a notion is not entirely unrealistic, but on the other hand we are not confronted with the Soviet nuclear weapons arsenal. I do not wish to minimize the danger of a single or even multiple terrorist acts, but their scale is simply not comparable.
SPIEGEL: Yet sometimes the discussions, in the United States but also in Europe, create the impression that radical Islam has taken the place of the former Soviet Union and that some form of Cold War is continuing.
Brzezinski: Radical Islam is such an anonymous phenomenon that has arisen in some countries and not in others. It has to be taken seriously, but it is still only a regional danger most prevalent in the Middle East and somewhat east of the Middle East. And even in those regions, Islamic fundamentalists are not in the majority.
SPIEGEL: Fear-mongering is therefore not a valid response?
Brzezinski: We have to formulate a policy for this region which helps us to mobilize our potential friends. Only if we cooperate with them can we contain and eventually eliminate this phenomenon. It is a paradox: During the Cold War, our policy was directed at uniting our friends and dividing our enemies. Unfortunately our tactics today, including occasional Islamphobic language, have the tendency of unifying our enemies and alienating our friends.
SPIEGEL: So it is exaggerated rhetoric which ensures that Osama bin Laden is elevated to the level of a Mao or Stalin?
Brzezinski: Correct. And that is of course a distortion of reality - notwithstanding the fact that bin Laden is a killer. He is a criminal and should be presented as such, and not intentionally elevated into a globally significant leader of a transnational, quasi-religious movement.
SPIEGEL: Has there been any progress at all in the fight against terrorism for the past five years?
Brzezinski: Yes and no. Knock on wood. So far, there has been no repetition of a terrorist attack in the United States, and that - as was the case with the recent plot in London - is probably partly due to preventive measures we have taken.
Also, there is a growing realization among the modern elites in the Moslem world that Islamic terrorism is a threat to them as well - but it is a slow process. Moreover, this process has been handicapped, as with our invasion of Iraq, which has galvanized a lot of hostility in the Islamic world towards the United States. Our insensitive and ambiguous posture in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is also a very important reason for the hostility towards us. All this helps terrorism.
SPIEGEL: Is complete victory, as demanded by the president, actually possible?
Brzezinski: That depends on your definition of victory. If we act intelligently and form the necessary coalitions, the appeal of terrorism may diminish and limit its capacity to find sympathizers or even would-be martyrs. Then it will probably gradually fade away. If, however, we envision victory as the equivalent of a Hitler shooting himself in the bunker, that will not happen. This is precisely why the whole analogy with the war is so misleading. It is not helpful for making the public understand that we are dealing with a long-term problem in a very volatile region, the solution of which depends on mobilizing moderate forces and isolating fanatics.
SPIEGEL: What advantages does President Bush see in his war rhetoric?
Brzezinski: First of all it helped him get reelected - a nation at war does not dismiss its commander in chief. Secondly it enhances his ability to exercise his executive powers on a scale no other president before him has done. This of course brings risks with it, such as the infringement of civil rights. And, it gives him the claim that he can use the U.S. Armed Forces as he wishes, even without congressional sanction involving a declaration of war.
SPIEGEL: Is there an inherent danger for democracy?
Brzezinski: In the long run, yes. However, democracy is ingrained so deeply in the psyche and fabric of American society that such a threat could only arise if such a president were able to implement such policies over a prolonged period of time. But Bush cannot be reelected. Therefore it will all be over in two and a half years.
SPIEGEL: European politicians have never accepted the concept of a war on terror. Furthermore, there are fierce differences concerning interrogation techniques or prison camps such as Guantanamo. Given such diverse opinions, how can the United States and Europe cooperate at all?
Brzezinski: This is exactly what makes it so difficult to deal with the problem collectively. However, realistically one also has to take into consideration that there is, in a quiet way, extensive cooperation, especially among our police forces. But precisely this cooperation reflects the realization that fighting terrorism is ultimately an operation against criminal behavior. Although I share Europe's criticism about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the mistreatment and even torture of prisoners, Europeans should in their indignation not lose sight of their own past - not the Germans, but also not the French, who have had extensive experience in the Algerian war.
SPIEGEL: The U.S. administration has declared Iraq the central front in the war on terror, but instead of disseminating democracy, Iraq today serves as a magnet for new terrorists. How can the United States extricate itself from its own trap?
Brzezinski: We should neither run nor should we seek a victory, which essentially would be a fata morgana. We have to talk seriously with the Iraqis about a jointly set withdrawal date for the occupation forces and then announce the date jointly. After all, the presence of these forces fuels the insurgency. We will then find that those Iraqi leaders who agree to a withdrawal within a year or so are the politicians who will stay there. Those who will plead with us, please, don't go, are probably the ones who will leave with us when we leave. That says everything we need to know about the true support Iraqi politicians have.
SPIEGEL: Would such a rapid withdrawal not leave chaos behind?
Brzezinski: The Iraqi government would have to invite all Islamic neighbors, as far as Pakistan and Morocco, for a stabilization conference. Most are willing to help. And when the United States leaves, it will have to convene a conference of those donor countries that have a stake in the economic recovery of Iraq, in particular the oil production. That is foremost a concern of Europe and the Far East.
SPIEGEL: The donor conference will take place in the fall anyway.
Brzezinski: Yes, but I doubt that it will create much enthusiasm as long as U.S. soldiers are in the country indefinitely. Incidentally, this is not just my argument. All this corresponds almost verbatim with the proposals of the new Iraqi security advisor.
SPIEGEL: Opponents of a rapid withdrawal make the case that the sectarian war between Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis would become even more violent than it is already.
Brzezinski: Everyone who knows the history of occupying armies knows that foreign armed forces are not very effective in repressing armed resistance, insurgencies, national liberation movements, whatever one wants to call it. They are after all foreigners, do not understand the country and do not have access to the intelligence needed. That is the situation we are in. Moreover, there is this vicious circle inasmuch as even professional occupying armies become demoralized in time, which leads to acts of violence against the civilian population and thus strengthens resistance. Iraqis can deal with religiously motivated violence in their country much better than Americans from several thousand kilometers away.
SPIEGEL: So there is no alternative to troop withdrawal, even if there is an initial escalation of violence?
Brzezinski: Iraqis are not primitive people who need American colonial tutelage to resolve their problems.
SPIEGEL: In reality, isn't the president worried that Iraq will fail to become the model democracy he envisages after the Americans have left?
Brzezinski: That's for sure, and therefore any attempt to seek his definition of victory is pure fantasy. Still, there will be a government dominated by Kurds and Shiites, and some Sunni elements. That in itself is already an improvement compared to the regime of Saddam Hussein and therefore at least a partial success.
SPIEGEL: Are you sure that a religious civil war can still be prevented?
Brzezinski: Of course I cannot be sure. But was de Gaulle sure when he decided that it would be fine for France to end the Algerian war? Everybody around him warned him of the terrible consequences of his decision.
SPIEGEL: Are you not afraid that such a religious conflict could ignite the whole region?
Brzezinski: Quite the contrary. The longer we stay the more likely it will ignite. The fact is that we have been there for three years and the situation today is a lot worse than it was then. At least logically, there is some evidence to support my proposition.
SPIEGEL: Bush presented the "axis of evil" to the world. Did he not make it all too easy for himself by simply attacking the least dangerous part of this axis?
Brzezinski: Yes, Iraq was not dangerous. North Korea and Iran seem to presently be very calculating. However, Iran is a genuinely historic nation that has to play an important role in the region. My guess is that Iran will find some form of accommodation with the rest of the world, at least easier to achieve than for North Korea.
SPIEGEL: If negotiations with Iran fail, will America intervene militarily?
Brzezinski: There are some members of the administration who favor that. However, in view of the experiences in Iraq I consider it more likely that the government, together with its allies, will impose significant sanctions, which then have to be given a few years to show effects, which makes it highly unlikely that Bush will be the one to undertake such a dangerous course of action.
SPIEGEL: What would be the consequences of such an attack?
Brzezinski: The Iranians have a number of options open to them. Among them is the destabilization of Iraq and the western part of Afghanistan as well as the everpresent option of activating Hezbollah in Lebanon. They could cut down oil production, damage the Saudi oil production and threaten the passage of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz - with all the devastating consequences for the world economy. They could of course also accelerate the production of weapons of mass destruction, which then quite possibly would lead to renewed and more comprehensive military attacks - a vicious circle.
SPIEGEL: You said that the United States needs solid European counsel to avoid an unrealistic view of the world. Is Europe even in the position to give such counsel?
Brzezinski: In the Middle East, the United States is unintentionally slipping into the role of a colonial power, repetitive of extensive European experiences. A combination of self-interest, a sense of mission and an arrogant ignorance resulted in Americans doing what they do right now. Because Britain and France have had the same experiences in the past, they have a better sense for the fact that the American course in the Middle East is a political mistake and, in the long run, also dangerous for America. In the short run, it damages America's principles and its international legitimacy.
SPIEGEL: Do you really believe that this is the kind of advice the British Prime Minister Tony Blair delivers to Bush?
Brzezinski: It is what he should deliver. But I think the British made a decision after the Suez crisis in 1956 to never again collide with the United States and to achieve an alternative source of global influence by becoming America's closest partner.
SPIEGEL: There is fear in Europe that Bush could return to unilateralism should he regain his freedom of action in foreign policy.
Brzezinski: For that, he would miraculously have to achieve his phantom-like victory. But that recedes ever farther. It is exactly like it was with the Soviets, who used to insist that the victory of socialism was just over the horizon, overlooking the fact that the horizon is an imaginary line which recedes farther as you walk towards it. Moreover, in two and a half years he will no longer be president, and no successor will want to embrace the slogans and demagoguery of the past three years.
SPIEGEL: Are there any conditions under which America could lose its current political supremacy?
Brzezinski: One would only have to continue the current policies and, also, in future not give a serious response to increasingly louder complaints of global inequality. We are now dealing with a far more politically active mankind that demands a collective response to their grievances from the West.
SPIEGEL: Is your demand to eradicate global inequality not as illusionary as Bush's demand that America free the world from evil?
Brzezinski: Achieving equality would indeed be an illusionary goal. Reducing inequality in the age of television and Internet may well become a political necessity. We are entering a historic stage in which people in China and India, but also in Nepal, in Bolivia or Venezuela will no longer tolerate the enormous disparities in the human condition. That could well be the collective danger we will have to face in the next decades.
SPIEGEL: You call it a "global political awakening."
Brzezinski: Yes, and it is essentially a repetition, but now on a global scale, of the societal and political awakening that occurred in France at the time of the revolution. During the 19th century it spread through Europe and parts of the Western hemisphere, in the 20th century it reached Japan and finally China. Now it is sweeping the rest of the world.
SPIEGEL: The Islamic countries as well?
Brzezinski: Not really in the same way. It is a turbulent, multi-directional process which, however, is a challenge to global stability. If the United States, Europe and Japan, but also China, Russia and India cannot find a mechanism for effective global collaboration, we will slide into a growing global chaos, which will be fatal to American leadership. Therefore I consider the American leadership role vulnerable, but irreplaceable in the foreseeable future.
SPIEGEL: Dr. Brzezinski, thank you for speaking with us
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14942.htm
Spiegel Interview With Zbigniew Brzezinski
"Victory Would Be A Fata Morgana"
By Hans Hoyng and Georg Mascolo
09/12/06 "Spiegel" --- - - Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski discusses the errors committed by the Bush administration in its war on terror, the disastrous campaign in Iraq, and the risks of a global uprising against inequality.
SPIEGEL: Dr. Brzezinski, President Bush compares the dangers of terrorism with the dangers of the Cold War. He has even spoken repeatedly of a "nation at war" and will only accept "complete victory." Is he right or is he using exaggerated rhetoric?
Brzezinski: He is fundamentally wrong. Whether that is deliberate demagoguery or simply historical ignorance, I do not know. For four years I was responsible for coordinating the U.S. response in the event of a nuclear attack. And I can assure you that a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union on a comprehensive scale would have killed 160 to 180 million people within 24 hours.
No terrorist threat is comparable to that in the foreseeable future. Moreover, terrorism is essentially a technique of killing people and not the enemy as such. If one wages war on an invisible, unidentifiable phantom, one gets into a state of mind that virtually promotes dangerous exaggerations and distortions of reality.
SPIEGEL: What are these distortions?
Brzezinski: After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States was energetic and determined, and during the 40 years of the Cold War it was patient and deliberate. In neither case did any U.S. president intentionally preach fear as the major message to the people - on the contrary.
With his very loose formulations, the president is now creating a climate of fear that is destructive for American morale and distorting of American policy.
SPIEGEL: Is fear, as at the thought of a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists, not something very natural?
Brzezinski: Certainly, such a notion is not entirely unrealistic, but on the other hand we are not confronted with the Soviet nuclear weapons arsenal. I do not wish to minimize the danger of a single or even multiple terrorist acts, but their scale is simply not comparable.
SPIEGEL: Yet sometimes the discussions, in the United States but also in Europe, create the impression that radical Islam has taken the place of the former Soviet Union and that some form of Cold War is continuing.
Brzezinski: Radical Islam is such an anonymous phenomenon that has arisen in some countries and not in others. It has to be taken seriously, but it is still only a regional danger most prevalent in the Middle East and somewhat east of the Middle East. And even in those regions, Islamic fundamentalists are not in the majority.
SPIEGEL: Fear-mongering is therefore not a valid response?
Brzezinski: We have to formulate a policy for this region which helps us to mobilize our potential friends. Only if we cooperate with them can we contain and eventually eliminate this phenomenon. It is a paradox: During the Cold War, our policy was directed at uniting our friends and dividing our enemies. Unfortunately our tactics today, including occasional Islamphobic language, have the tendency of unifying our enemies and alienating our friends.
SPIEGEL: So it is exaggerated rhetoric which ensures that Osama bin Laden is elevated to the level of a Mao or Stalin?
Brzezinski: Correct. And that is of course a distortion of reality - notwithstanding the fact that bin Laden is a killer. He is a criminal and should be presented as such, and not intentionally elevated into a globally significant leader of a transnational, quasi-religious movement.
SPIEGEL: Has there been any progress at all in the fight against terrorism for the past five years?
Brzezinski: Yes and no. Knock on wood. So far, there has been no repetition of a terrorist attack in the United States, and that - as was the case with the recent plot in London - is probably partly due to preventive measures we have taken.
Also, there is a growing realization among the modern elites in the Moslem world that Islamic terrorism is a threat to them as well - but it is a slow process. Moreover, this process has been handicapped, as with our invasion of Iraq, which has galvanized a lot of hostility in the Islamic world towards the United States. Our insensitive and ambiguous posture in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is also a very important reason for the hostility towards us. All this helps terrorism.
SPIEGEL: Is complete victory, as demanded by the president, actually possible?
Brzezinski: That depends on your definition of victory. If we act intelligently and form the necessary coalitions, the appeal of terrorism may diminish and limit its capacity to find sympathizers or even would-be martyrs. Then it will probably gradually fade away. If, however, we envision victory as the equivalent of a Hitler shooting himself in the bunker, that will not happen. This is precisely why the whole analogy with the war is so misleading. It is not helpful for making the public understand that we are dealing with a long-term problem in a very volatile region, the solution of which depends on mobilizing moderate forces and isolating fanatics.
SPIEGEL: What advantages does President Bush see in his war rhetoric?
Brzezinski: First of all it helped him get reelected - a nation at war does not dismiss its commander in chief. Secondly it enhances his ability to exercise his executive powers on a scale no other president before him has done. This of course brings risks with it, such as the infringement of civil rights. And, it gives him the claim that he can use the U.S. Armed Forces as he wishes, even without congressional sanction involving a declaration of war.
SPIEGEL: Is there an inherent danger for democracy?
Brzezinski: In the long run, yes. However, democracy is ingrained so deeply in the psyche and fabric of American society that such a threat could only arise if such a president were able to implement such policies over a prolonged period of time. But Bush cannot be reelected. Therefore it will all be over in two and a half years.
SPIEGEL: European politicians have never accepted the concept of a war on terror. Furthermore, there are fierce differences concerning interrogation techniques or prison camps such as Guantanamo. Given such diverse opinions, how can the United States and Europe cooperate at all?
Brzezinski: This is exactly what makes it so difficult to deal with the problem collectively. However, realistically one also has to take into consideration that there is, in a quiet way, extensive cooperation, especially among our police forces. But precisely this cooperation reflects the realization that fighting terrorism is ultimately an operation against criminal behavior. Although I share Europe's criticism about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the mistreatment and even torture of prisoners, Europeans should in their indignation not lose sight of their own past - not the Germans, but also not the French, who have had extensive experience in the Algerian war.
SPIEGEL: The U.S. administration has declared Iraq the central front in the war on terror, but instead of disseminating democracy, Iraq today serves as a magnet for new terrorists. How can the United States extricate itself from its own trap?
Brzezinski: We should neither run nor should we seek a victory, which essentially would be a fata morgana. We have to talk seriously with the Iraqis about a jointly set withdrawal date for the occupation forces and then announce the date jointly. After all, the presence of these forces fuels the insurgency. We will then find that those Iraqi leaders who agree to a withdrawal within a year or so are the politicians who will stay there. Those who will plead with us, please, don't go, are probably the ones who will leave with us when we leave. That says everything we need to know about the true support Iraqi politicians have.
SPIEGEL: Would such a rapid withdrawal not leave chaos behind?
Brzezinski: The Iraqi government would have to invite all Islamic neighbors, as far as Pakistan and Morocco, for a stabilization conference. Most are willing to help. And when the United States leaves, it will have to convene a conference of those donor countries that have a stake in the economic recovery of Iraq, in particular the oil production. That is foremost a concern of Europe and the Far East.
SPIEGEL: The donor conference will take place in the fall anyway.
Brzezinski: Yes, but I doubt that it will create much enthusiasm as long as U.S. soldiers are in the country indefinitely. Incidentally, this is not just my argument. All this corresponds almost verbatim with the proposals of the new Iraqi security advisor.
SPIEGEL: Opponents of a rapid withdrawal make the case that the sectarian war between Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis would become even more violent than it is already.
Brzezinski: Everyone who knows the history of occupying armies knows that foreign armed forces are not very effective in repressing armed resistance, insurgencies, national liberation movements, whatever one wants to call it. They are after all foreigners, do not understand the country and do not have access to the intelligence needed. That is the situation we are in. Moreover, there is this vicious circle inasmuch as even professional occupying armies become demoralized in time, which leads to acts of violence against the civilian population and thus strengthens resistance. Iraqis can deal with religiously motivated violence in their country much better than Americans from several thousand kilometers away.
SPIEGEL: So there is no alternative to troop withdrawal, even if there is an initial escalation of violence?
Brzezinski: Iraqis are not primitive people who need American colonial tutelage to resolve their problems.
SPIEGEL: In reality, isn't the president worried that Iraq will fail to become the model democracy he envisages after the Americans have left?
Brzezinski: That's for sure, and therefore any attempt to seek his definition of victory is pure fantasy. Still, there will be a government dominated by Kurds and Shiites, and some Sunni elements. That in itself is already an improvement compared to the regime of Saddam Hussein and therefore at least a partial success.
SPIEGEL: Are you sure that a religious civil war can still be prevented?
Brzezinski: Of course I cannot be sure. But was de Gaulle sure when he decided that it would be fine for France to end the Algerian war? Everybody around him warned him of the terrible consequences of his decision.
SPIEGEL: Are you not afraid that such a religious conflict could ignite the whole region?
Brzezinski: Quite the contrary. The longer we stay the more likely it will ignite. The fact is that we have been there for three years and the situation today is a lot worse than it was then. At least logically, there is some evidence to support my proposition.
SPIEGEL: Bush presented the "axis of evil" to the world. Did he not make it all too easy for himself by simply attacking the least dangerous part of this axis?
Brzezinski: Yes, Iraq was not dangerous. North Korea and Iran seem to presently be very calculating. However, Iran is a genuinely historic nation that has to play an important role in the region. My guess is that Iran will find some form of accommodation with the rest of the world, at least easier to achieve than for North Korea.
SPIEGEL: If negotiations with Iran fail, will America intervene militarily?
Brzezinski: There are some members of the administration who favor that. However, in view of the experiences in Iraq I consider it more likely that the government, together with its allies, will impose significant sanctions, which then have to be given a few years to show effects, which makes it highly unlikely that Bush will be the one to undertake such a dangerous course of action.
SPIEGEL: What would be the consequences of such an attack?
Brzezinski: The Iranians have a number of options open to them. Among them is the destabilization of Iraq and the western part of Afghanistan as well as the everpresent option of activating Hezbollah in Lebanon. They could cut down oil production, damage the Saudi oil production and threaten the passage of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz - with all the devastating consequences for the world economy. They could of course also accelerate the production of weapons of mass destruction, which then quite possibly would lead to renewed and more comprehensive military attacks - a vicious circle.
SPIEGEL: You said that the United States needs solid European counsel to avoid an unrealistic view of the world. Is Europe even in the position to give such counsel?
Brzezinski: In the Middle East, the United States is unintentionally slipping into the role of a colonial power, repetitive of extensive European experiences. A combination of self-interest, a sense of mission and an arrogant ignorance resulted in Americans doing what they do right now. Because Britain and France have had the same experiences in the past, they have a better sense for the fact that the American course in the Middle East is a political mistake and, in the long run, also dangerous for America. In the short run, it damages America's principles and its international legitimacy.
SPIEGEL: Do you really believe that this is the kind of advice the British Prime Minister Tony Blair delivers to Bush?
Brzezinski: It is what he should deliver. But I think the British made a decision after the Suez crisis in 1956 to never again collide with the United States and to achieve an alternative source of global influence by becoming America's closest partner.
SPIEGEL: There is fear in Europe that Bush could return to unilateralism should he regain his freedom of action in foreign policy.
Brzezinski: For that, he would miraculously have to achieve his phantom-like victory. But that recedes ever farther. It is exactly like it was with the Soviets, who used to insist that the victory of socialism was just over the horizon, overlooking the fact that the horizon is an imaginary line which recedes farther as you walk towards it. Moreover, in two and a half years he will no longer be president, and no successor will want to embrace the slogans and demagoguery of the past three years.
SPIEGEL: Are there any conditions under which America could lose its current political supremacy?
Brzezinski: One would only have to continue the current policies and, also, in future not give a serious response to increasingly louder complaints of global inequality. We are now dealing with a far more politically active mankind that demands a collective response to their grievances from the West.
SPIEGEL: Is your demand to eradicate global inequality not as illusionary as Bush's demand that America free the world from evil?
Brzezinski: Achieving equality would indeed be an illusionary goal. Reducing inequality in the age of television and Internet may well become a political necessity. We are entering a historic stage in which people in China and India, but also in Nepal, in Bolivia or Venezuela will no longer tolerate the enormous disparities in the human condition. That could well be the collective danger we will have to face in the next decades.
SPIEGEL: You call it a "global political awakening."
Brzezinski: Yes, and it is essentially a repetition, but now on a global scale, of the societal and political awakening that occurred in France at the time of the revolution. During the 19th century it spread through Europe and parts of the Western hemisphere, in the 20th century it reached Japan and finally China. Now it is sweeping the rest of the world.
SPIEGEL: The Islamic countries as well?
Brzezinski: Not really in the same way. It is a turbulent, multi-directional process which, however, is a challenge to global stability. If the United States, Europe and Japan, but also China, Russia and India cannot find a mechanism for effective global collaboration, we will slide into a growing global chaos, which will be fatal to American leadership. Therefore I consider the American leadership role vulnerable, but irreplaceable in the foreseeable future.
SPIEGEL: Dr. Brzezinski, thank you for speaking with us
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński
He served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981
That is about all that needs to be said.
He served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981
That is about all that needs to be said.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
AEON said:
What is your point?
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
BonoVoxSupastar said:
That he is obviously biased and was on watch while the jihadist took over Iran.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
It seems they actually got a peace treaty in the Middle East and that is not the outcome he wants.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
AEON said:
I'm still not sure where this fits in the context of the discussion, maybe I missed something.
But he was quite hawkish for a Dem and criticized them quite a bit for being so dovish. Yeah he's made some mistakes but show me a Security Advisor who hasn't.
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
BonoVoxSupastar said:
The reason I posted information about him was in reply to scarlet's post. I thought it was important to note that the interview was from someone from a Democrat Adminsitration, therefore biased.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
AEON said:
But I guess it escaped your mind that he was very critical of both sides, especailly Clinton. And it may have also escaped your mind that he served under Reagan, who he also criticized his black and white approach to foreign policy.
So to say he has bias is pretty short sighted.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
AEON said:
Why is being a Democrat automatically biased? I was for the Afghan war & so were many other. It's this jihad of Islam and the terrorism hype that seeks to undermine our democracy that he's disagreeing with.
Read the bill Bush sent to cover torture, secret trials, unilateral executive (not unitarian) privliges. It basically gives Bush and any future President the authority to do as he/she sees best. It castrates Congress and the Supreme Court. Stalin would be proud.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Scarletwine said:
Scarletwine
New Yorker
The Senat Armed Service Committee just voted down Bush's bill.
Senator Warner, McCain, & Graham, & Collins voted with the 11 Dems. They have paased to the floor thier own bill about Tribunals without the redefinition of Geneva 3, nor immunity for past war crimes.
Senator Warner, McCain, & Graham, & Collins voted with the 11 Dems. They have paased to the floor thier own bill about Tribunals without the redefinition of Geneva 3, nor immunity for past war crimes.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Scarletwine said:The Senat Armed Service Committee just voted down Bush's bill.
Senator Warner, McCain, & Graham, & Collins voted with the 11 Dems. They have paased to the floor thier own bill about Tribunals without the redefinition of Geneva 3, nor immunity for past war crimes.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
This was the first time in his presidency that Bush went to Capital Hill to plead for a bill. Methinks he's afraid of war crimes himself.
kellyahern
Blue Crack Supplier
Scarletwine said:The Senat Armed Service Committee just voted down Bush's bill.
Senator Warner, McCain, & Graham, & Collins voted with the 11 Dems. They have paased to the floor thier own bill about Tribunals without the redefinition of Geneva 3, nor immunity for past war crimes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_go_co/bush_congress
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
ETA: thanks to ^ (sorry, we posted at the same time!)
[q]Bush lobbies Congress on terror suspects
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 10 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, parting company with President Bush, came out against harsh interrogations of terror suspects even as the president lobbied personally for it on Capitol Hill Thursday.
"I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity," Bush told reporters back at the White House after his meeting with lawmakers."
White House spokesman Tony Snow, asked if Powell was confused about the White House's goals, said "Yes." Later, Snow said he probably shouldn't have used the word "confused."
"I know that Colin Powell wants to beat the terrorists too," he said.
The latest sign of GOP division over White House security policy came Thursday in a letter that Powell sent to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of three rebellious senators taking on the White House. Powell said Congress must not pass Bush's proposal to redefine U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions, a treaty that sets international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.
The campaign-season development accompanied Bush's visit to Capitol Hill, where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans. His plan would narrow the U.S. legal interpretation of the Geneva Conventions treaty in a bid to allow tougher interrogations and shield U.S. personnel from being prosecuted for war crimes.
"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," said Powell, who served under Bush and is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."
[/q]
[q]Bush lobbies Congress on terror suspects
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 10 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, parting company with President Bush, came out against harsh interrogations of terror suspects even as the president lobbied personally for it on Capitol Hill Thursday.
"I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity," Bush told reporters back at the White House after his meeting with lawmakers."
White House spokesman Tony Snow, asked if Powell was confused about the White House's goals, said "Yes." Later, Snow said he probably shouldn't have used the word "confused."
"I know that Colin Powell wants to beat the terrorists too," he said.
The latest sign of GOP division over White House security policy came Thursday in a letter that Powell sent to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of three rebellious senators taking on the White House. Powell said Congress must not pass Bush's proposal to redefine U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions, a treaty that sets international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.
The campaign-season development accompanied Bush's visit to Capitol Hill, where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans. His plan would narrow the U.S. legal interpretation of the Geneva Conventions treaty in a bid to allow tougher interrogations and shield U.S. personnel from being prosecuted for war crimes.
"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," said Powell, who served under Bush and is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."
[/q]
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Sen. Graham: White House Held Military Lawyers In 5 Hour Meeting and ‘Tried To Force Them To Sign A Prepared Statement’
This morning, President Bush was questioned about Gen. Colin Powell’s letter criticizing White House legislation that would authorize torture. Bush tried to downplay Powell’s letter by pointing to another letter signed by the military’s top uniformed lawyers saying they supported Bush’s plan:
BUSH: There’s all kinds of letters coming out — and today, by the way, active duty personnel in the Pentagon, the JAG, supported the concept that I have just outlined to you.
But during today’s White House press conference, a reporter cited comments by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — a former JAG and an opponent of the Bush’s detainee policies — claiming that the White House had placed extreme pressure on the military lawyers to sign a statement, and that the lawyers had refused to sign the initial statement crafted for them by the White House:
REPORTER: Sen. Graham is telling reporters on Capitol Hill that the White House had them in a meeting for five hours last night and tried to force them to sign a prepared statement and he said reading this JAG letter they ended up writing leaves total ambiguity on interpretation, this is Sen. Lindsey Graham. What’s your response to that?
Snow acknowledged “they were asked to write a letter” but said, “if you start going into who asked whom to write letters, I don’t know.”
This morning, President Bush was questioned about Gen. Colin Powell’s letter criticizing White House legislation that would authorize torture. Bush tried to downplay Powell’s letter by pointing to another letter signed by the military’s top uniformed lawyers saying they supported Bush’s plan:
BUSH: There’s all kinds of letters coming out — and today, by the way, active duty personnel in the Pentagon, the JAG, supported the concept that I have just outlined to you.
But during today’s White House press conference, a reporter cited comments by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — a former JAG and an opponent of the Bush’s detainee policies — claiming that the White House had placed extreme pressure on the military lawyers to sign a statement, and that the lawyers had refused to sign the initial statement crafted for them by the White House:
REPORTER: Sen. Graham is telling reporters on Capitol Hill that the White House had them in a meeting for five hours last night and tried to force them to sign a prepared statement and he said reading this JAG letter they ended up writing leaves total ambiguity on interpretation, this is Sen. Lindsey Graham. What’s your response to that?
Snow acknowledged “they were asked to write a letter” but said, “if you start going into who asked whom to write letters, I don’t know.”
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
AEON said:
If we assume such a clash is possible the key aggressors must surely be the US, Britain and Israel. They have already managed to land Shia and Sunni Muslims on the same side of the fence, no mean feat!
Significant control of the Middle East was sacrificed and Iran's position was strengthened not inconsiderably by our having to place European troops in a region where they can turn up the heat whenever they want.
So America plays a pivotal role in strengthening an opponent, they then hand them a few additional aces for negotiating with European diplomats, and then they call for Europe to rally around their cause in countering that opponent.
Utter insanity, only the unholy gaggle of interventionist Trotskyites, 'reformed' Marxists and cowardly bed-wetting chickenhawk armchair warriors that call themselves 'neo-cons' could dream up this shit.
Cheers,
Financeguy
(A TRUE conservative)
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
