[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: Brzezinski Warns of Pretext for War With Iran (UPDATE) Brzezinski Warns of Pretext for War With Iran (UPDATE) Submitted by Reprehensor on Fri, 02/02/2007 - 7:55am. brzezinski UPDATE: A reporter from the World Socialist Web Site questioned Brzezinski immediately after the hearing; http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f02_prn.shtml Following the hearing, this reporter asked Brzezinski directly if he was suggesting that the source of a possible provocation might be the US government itself. The former national security adviser was evasive. The following exchange took place: Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation? A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous. Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself? A: I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace. Continued... http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f02_prn.shtml Congressman Ron Paul has some big-name company joining his warning of a pretext for war with Iran. (Of course, Paul was more direct.) Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) rock-star Zbigniew Brzezinski met with a different CFR yesterday, the US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations. He had some blood-chilling things to say; "A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq, or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II." - PDF Now, someone just walking into the room, having no priors with Brzezinski, might take this at face value. This is not recommended. Brzezinski's relationship with the CFR goes back years, his relationship with other big name power brokers as an adviser goes back further. However, if there is one Machiavellian insider who knows, what it is, that he is talking about when it comes to a pretext for war, it's Brzezinksi. Let's look at some other things Brzezinski has said; First, about the CIA intervention in Afghanistan; 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? B: 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 fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists? B: 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? - 1998 Here, he drops hints about a catalyzing event to solidify American hegemony in the 21st century; The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997, pp. 24–25) America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997, pp. 35–36) Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. (Emphasis added) (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997, p. 211) Brzezinski, in my opinion, is letting us know what the sickest minds in Washington think-tanks are cooking up. I get the feeling that Brzezinski himself is feeling a "sudden threat or challenge to [his] sense of domestic well-being." And that ain't good. This post inspired by "autorank" at DemocraticUnderground. The Grand Chessboard quotes are from Diana Ralph's brilliant essay in "The Hidden History of 9-11-2001", ISLAMOPHOBIA AND THE ‘‘WAR ON TERROR’’: THE CONTINUING PRETEXT FOR U.S. IMPERIAL CONQUEST
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: Kamala (#0)
Is Zbig telling us that only "angry old white men" are in favor of empire for empire's sake?
#2. To: Sam Houston (#1)
Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. (Emphasis added) (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997, p. 211) Is Zbig telling us that only "angry old white men" are in favor of empire for empire's sake? Perhaps that but for sure that a "new Pearl Harbor" (AKA truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat) beat into the sheeple's heads helps to guide the multi-cultural populace. With 09/11, PNAC/AIPAC/Bush cabal played it/US perfectly.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||