Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski

[sanman]

I also read that interview years ago when Brzezinski gave it. When I read his words I felt sick inside. The Soviet invasion and the war that followed did not have to happen - but they wanted it to happen. They wanted to give the Soviets "their Vietnam".

And likewise with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, Brzezinski got China to build and support them, because the Americans had just been defeated in Vietnam, and thus he tried to give the Vietnamese "their Vietnam".


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US...US_PolPot.html


Just like he later gave Soviets "their Vietnam".

But it's important to remember that his own country, Poland, suffered terribly because it was situated between 2 large powers, Germany and the Soviet Union, and got crushed in between. To me, this painful history is the reason why Brzezinksi became such a predatory man, who sought to defeat the Soviets at all costs.


Cambodia - Return to the Killing Fields 1-5 - YouTube

[randolph85]

he was no different than any other reagan era hawk, none of these thousands of others had a polish sob story. they, just like zb, wanted america to rule the world.

[sanman]

But he wasn't from Reagan's republican camp. He was with the Democrats, and was even an advisor to JFK, before becoming Carter's National Security Advisor - some called him "the Democratic Party's counterpart to Kissinger"
Remember, the Democrats are the party which caters to minorities - including even minorities from Europe.







He also famously co-founded the Trilateral Commission with the powerful banker Rockefeller:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/On...ssion_TBG.html


Not only that, but he helped negotiate the Camp David Peace Accords between Israel and Egypt. So he's been quite an influential person on the world.

[randolph85]

and joe lieberman was a democrat lol the democratic/republican divide is nonsense, especially considering foreign policy. today, obama is one of the most pro israel presidents in history, hell, even bush 1 had a shorter leash on those kikes than mr hope and change obama. as if there are no democratic hawks, l to the ol.

[khushal]

Dear Khushel - but it is obvious that he isn't saying that things.
Stay at the serious!
He isn't even something special - he is doing what zionists are doing their whole life - planing to crush other peoples one to the other for their own interests, even Rome was doning same, Stalin too.
That is nod God, exactly the opposite - God is ib strong, light and trouthfull - were did You see in what Sanman says any quality that makes You do tht conclusions?

What he is saying is non sense. I am not a believer in Zionist conspiracy theories. I believe Capitalist and communists were ideologues divided on how the world community should move forward. Both sides thought their ideas were better for the world community. Capitalism and Communism were ideas on opposing sides and one had to fall.

The Americans were doing everything they could to make the soviet union fall including burning eastern Europe if they had to. Remember thousands of nuclear war heads were pointing at eastern and western Europe. The red
Army and NATO's army were trained to fight in Europe because the belief was who ever controls Europe controls the world.

In the 70's the American policy makers were very nervous of socialism/communism spreading in Latin America, South East Asia, and Africa. They thought capitalism was on the defensive. People like Kissenger and Brezinski were very instrumental in convincing American policy makers that Soviet expansion was good. The idea was to make the soviets expand until its economy could not sustain its expansion and let it fall within without firing a single shot at them. Afghanistan was just one piece of the whole puzzle. The only reason the soviets left Afghanistan was because it's economy could not sustain the war anymore otherwise they would still be there today. Russia has been fighting the Chechens since 1991, for 20 years. The reason they are still fighting them is because Russia is not all over the globe spending resources on empire expansion. their economy can sustain the Chechen conflict for another 200 years as long as they don't spend resources on empire expansion.

Afghans fought the Soviets not because Brezinski or the Americans told them to. They fought because their own rights were infringed upon. Their own way of life was threatened. The Afghans are fighting the American today for the same reason as they fought against all invaders before them for thousands of years. They fought against invaders before Islam came to the region. The Majahadeen were fighting the Afghan government since 1973 way before a single Arab came to the region. The only reason any Arab came to Afghanistan and NW Pakistan is because Abdul Azzam was kicked out from Southern Lebanon by Israels invasion. He needed a new base to train Palistinians against Israel.
People like him are promoting the pakistani and NATO narrative of saying that foreign Arabs are the ones fighting int FATA and Afghanistan because they fear a Pashtun backlash against Pakistan and against the Afghan government.

[khushal]

and joe lieberman was a democrat lol the democratic/republican divide is nonsense, especially considering foreign policy. today, obama is one of the most pro israel presidents in history, hell, even bush 1 had a shorter leash on those kikes than mr hope and change obama. as if there are no democratic hawks, l to the ol.

Mr hope and change is enforcing the same policies that bush had. Its an illusion that Americans have a choice and they laugh at Iran having a one party system.

[khushal]

Khushal is confused and emotional.
The whole world has come to terms with why the West,Zionists, Muslim world used Afghanistan as a proxy state to prevent communism from turning their villas,harems and capitalistic models into land for the masses, by doing so, its a fact, these people used Islamist ideology to defame Islam and the Afghan people, those who used Islamist ideology were Arabs,Pakistanis and the West.
Khushal, thinks those warlords that destroyed Afghanistan, loooted Afghan banks, burnt down schools and killed many intellectuals as heros!
If he disagrees with you, he gives you an instant disapproval of your Pashtuness and calls you "not even a Pashtun", especially in my case, whereby he said it to make a Non Pashtun members here happy(Al-Arab).
Afghanistan should never be used as a proxy state for any country.
If people think, that a bunch of losers, who slaughered girls in Herat and destroyed bridges, and then started killing themselves as heros, they should get their mind re-examined.
America/Arab and Pakistan got its victory when the Afghan government was destroyed and its only ally fled, and the Pashtun/Afghans became the losers not the victors!
As they returned to their homes while we endured another 30 years of war.
Hekmatyar and co, need to be brought to the courts and punished.
One for treason and secondly for killing their own people!

It is you who is an idiot, knows no pashto and has never been to pashtun land.
I am not here to make anyone happy. I will speak the truth and if a Pashtun, Arab or anyone else is upset by the truth, so be it.

The afghan government fell because they made the wrong decision of siding with the soviets and not protecting its people from foreign slaughter. Afghanistan was used as a proxy war because the Afghan government was incompetent. It is the governments responsibility to protect its citizens, not to invite foreign armies to bomb them.

[khushal]

He does not want to be serious, because he is pro-Pakistan, and for Pakistan a man like Brzezinski was a very useful ally who helped get lots of aid and support for Pak military and Zia-ul-Haq. So naturally he will not be happy if Pak's friend Brzezinski is criticized or examined.

It is you who is pro pakistan. you are promoting the pakistani and NATO narrative of saying that foreign Arabs have taken over pashtun land and the Pak Army and NATO are helping the pashtuns free up their land of foreign arabs. you need 160,000 American troops and 100,000+ PAkistani troops just to handle a few hundred Super Arabs. you are promoting their narrative so as to prevent a pashtun backlash against the Pakistani state and Afghan Government and NATO forces.
I have news for you, its not working.

[sanman]

What he is saying is non sense. I am not a believer in Zionist conspiracy theories. I believe Capitalist and communists were ideologues divided on how the world community should move forward. Both sides thought their ideas were better for the world community. Capitalism and Communism were ideas on opposing sides and one had to fall.

Free market system (falsely referred to as "capitalism") did not suddenly start with birth of Marx and rise of USSR. It's an age-old practice. Perhaps you could say that defenders of the free market became ideologues as a result of the onset and onslaught of communist ideology.

The Americans were doing everything they could to make the soviet union fall including burning eastern Europe if they had to. Remember thousands of nuclear war heads were pointing at eastern and western Europe. The red
Army and NATO's army were trained to fight in Europe because the belief was who ever controls Europe controls the world.

But it was Brzezinski who staunchly promoted the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) to reduce the number of missiles aimed at Europe. He also pursued détente, so that the superpower tensions over Europe would be relaxed and the threat of war in Europe reduced, and meanwhile he pursued war elsewhere along the Soviet periphery. It was alright to him to make war on the Soviets, as long as it was done far enough away from his precious homeland, to keep it from being hurt.

In the 70's the American policy makers were very nervous of socialism/communism spreading in Latin America, South East Asia, and Africa. They thought capitalism was on the defensive. People like Kissenger and Brezinski were very instrumental in convincing American policy makers that Soviet expansion was good. The idea was to make the soviets expand until its economy could not sustain its expansion and let it fall within without firing a single shot at them.

Ridiculous - Brzezinski and Kissinger passionately opposed Soviet expansion, and resulting dominance over strategically important natural resources. Opposing your enemy's expansion is a lot older than the Cold War - it's kind of basic.

Afghanistan was just one piece of the whole puzzle. The only reason the soviets left Afghanistan was because it's economy could not sustain the war anymore otherwise they would still be there today.

Well, the Afghan War put an overall strain on the Soviets, not just economically but also militarily. Your point only reinforces my case, that Brzezinski meant to inflict an attrition war against the Soviets conveniently far from his homeland. He wanted to give the Soviets "their Vietnam" and he himself has said so, in his own words.

Yes, Afghanistan was one example, and I gave Cambodia as another.
Look at how they cleverly forced the Vietnamese to invade, by attacking villages on the border. That's how they gave the Vietnamese "their Vietnam".

Russia has been fighting the Chechens since 1991, for 20 years. The reason they are still fighting them is because Russia is not all over the globe spending resources on empire expansion. their economy can sustain the Chechen conflict for another 200 years as long as they don't spend resources on empire expansion.

But Putin is announcing his desire to re-form a new bloc, I'm sure you've heard. The bigger you are, the stronger you are.

One thing's for sure - Pakistan can't afford to keep fighting. But then again, it's not economists or politicians who are in charge of that country - it's the generals. War is their priority, and their answer to everything. It's a great way to rally the masses to their side.

Afghans fought the Soviets not because Brezinski or the Americans told them to. They fought because their own rights were infringed upon. Their own way of life was threatened.

But the Soviets were lured into invading! Of course they knew that Afghans would resist and fight the Soviets. That was the whole point of luring the Soviets into that trap, to give them "their Vietnam". Letting your enemy expand in any old way is not the way to exhaust them - luring them to expand/invade a particular place where you can set up a resistance war against them, is the way to exhaust somebody. That's what Brzezinski showed in Cambodia, and later Afghanistan.

The Afghans are fighting the American today for the same reason as they fought against all invaders before them for thousands of years. They fought against invaders before Islam came to the region. The Majahadeen were fighting the Afghan government since 1973 way before a single Arab came to the region. The only reason any Arab came to Afghanistan and NW Pakistan is because Abdul Azzam was kicked out from Southern Lebanon by Israels invasion. He needed a new base to train Palistinians against Israel.

I agree that Brzezinski & Co were so focused on bleeding the Soviets that they didn't care to foresee the possibility of other follow-on effects, such as the Pak-supported fanatics including Arabs, who would inject their own foreign agendas in the name of Islam, and cause 9-11. Remember, to him, liberating Europe was more important than a "bunch of stirred up Muslims" - his own words.

People like him are promoting the pakistani and NATO narrative of saying that foreign Arabs are the ones fighting int FATA and Afghanistan because they fear a Pashtun backlash against Pakistan and against the Afghan government.

Brzezinski is scrambling to regain credibility for himself, after being criticized for creating the jihadi problem. He still hews to his agenda of trying to preserve local fanatics in Central Asia for his own anti-Moscow needs, while trying to expediently dislodge the Arabs from there who hijacked his Euro-jihad and made it theirs.

[khushal]

look at this sanman idiot. he thinks marxs came up with capitalism.
then he contradicts himself that brezinski opposed soviet expansion but lured the soviets into afghanistan so they can expand into afghanistan.
you are about one of the stupidest person or just a drunk. you cant keep a coherent debate. your spitting out a bunch of non sense.

[sanman]

You idiot - that's not what I meant. I was pointing out that free market ideologues did not exist prior to the arrival of communist ideologues. Prior to communism, free markets were simply the traditional norm. Those you call "capitalist ideologues" only emerged as a result of the attacks of communist ideologues.

Meanwhile, since you're such a comedian, here's an entertaining scene from the movie "Dr Strangelove" (aka. How I Learned to Love the Brzezinski)




I think a re-make of this movie should be made, and he should be shown talking on the phone with Zbigniew Brzezinski.

[khushal]

you just came up with a dumber answer than before. how could capitalistic ideologues come up after communism ideologues when you admit that capitalism is older than communism. I have not see such stupidity. Dont tell people you are Tajik because you are shaming a people that are far smarter than you.

I think a remake of you should be made, but the remake should be given a chance to learn islam so as to avoid alcohol and be of coherent mind.

[sanman]

I already answered your question, pointing out that free markets did not come about because of ideology or ideologues, but rather evolved naturally and become the traditional norm. It was communism which came about through ideology and ideologues, such as Marx, Lenin, etc.

[khushal]

you answered nothing. your just revealing you own stupidity. If capitalism was before communism. one would conclude that communism emerged as an opposition to the norm which was capitalism.
your saying that capitalism emerged as an opposition to communism even though you admit that capitalism is older. how does that make sense. sober up man.

[sanman]

you answered nothing. your just revealing you own stupidity. If capitalism was before communism. one would conclude that communism emerged as an opposition to the norm which was capitalism.

Yes, that is what I said.

your saying that capitalism emerged as an opposition to communism even though you admit that capitalism is older. how does that make sense. sober up man.

No, I'm saying that free markets were always naturally practiced as a normal thing, without any ideologues preaching ideology. You go to a bazaar, you buy/sell stuff. Where does anyone preach to you about capitalist ideology?

But once communism emerged, with its ideologues preaching ideology, then those who opposed communism had to start preaching "capitalism" as an ideology.

You're just nitpicking and trying to split hairs. Typical Pakistani gamesmanship.

Here's more on your friend China's puppet, Pol Pot. His real name was Saloth Sar, and his Khmer Rouge followers referred to him as "Brother Number One" - but when the Chinese started giving him arms and support, the Chinese authorities started referring to him as their "political experiment". This phrase was translated into French (Cambodia's colonial language) as "Politique Potentielle" - or Pol Pot, for short. And of course, that's what his reign became - a giant political experiment, carried out on helpless people.

Pol Pot - Inside Evil (Part 1) - YouTube


But it could also be said that this was all part of Dr Brzezinski's big experiment. He's quite a clever scientist, you know. But as you yourself would recognize, Khushal, while science can give you knowledge, it doesn't automatically give you wisdom. It can give you power, but not morals.

"I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. I encouraged the Thai to help the Khmer Rouge. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him. But China could."
-Zbigniew Brzezinski

"We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war."
-Zbigniew 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?"
-Zbigniew Brzezinski