Brzezinski o Iraku, im pozniej tym gorzej

[misterpee]

Zbyszek mowi ze wczesniesz wycofanie sie z Iraku bedzie zle, ale pozniejsze
bedzie gorsze.

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2806646

Wielki znawca, temu terroyzmowi

[josifek]

odpowiedzialny.
Moze juz zapomnial, kto minister spraw zagranicznych byl, jak Rosjanie
afganistan najechali i kto arabskim terroystom zaczal pomoc udzielac..
Widac ze nie tylko araby ale tez polscy emigranci bardzo krotka pamiec maja.

[franjo6]

Lepiej byś się nauczył historii zamiast głupoty wypisywać. Gdy ruski najechali
na Afganistan to Brzeziński był doradcą prezydenta Cartera ds. bezpieczeństwa
narodowego, a sekretarzem stanu czyli ministrem spraw zagranicznych był Cyrus
Vance.

A pozatym trzeba sie z Iraku wycofac.

[josifek]

glowny cel osiagniety jest, bo takie bylo tego haslo, "zwrocic wolnosc"..
przed 2001 mordowanie tam monopolem Saddama bylo, Bush tam demokracje wprowadzil
i teraz maja araby calkowita wolnosc( za ktora zawsze testnia i jedyna ktora
znaja) do wzajemnego sie mordowania, jak dlugo sie miedzy soba morduja tak dlugo
nie beda innych mordowac ( wystarczy na Sudan popatrzec)

[misterpee]

Josifku ty nie siej wiatru a idz do szkoly. Iranczycy sa indoeuropejczykami, a
nie arabami. Brzezinski ma racje, wszyscy sie obecnie zgadzaja ze Irak jest
kleska, powod do wojny byl waszym klamstwem. Swiat sie odwraca o 180 stopni.
Uwazaj na burze.

a tam. g.... prawda nie wszyscy

[aaki]

felusiak, doktor jot i krasula maja odmienne zdanie.
zbig brzeziński jak zwykle nie mówi prawdy albo conajmniej nie bywa na fś :-)

[josifek]

tak bo Brzezinski zasadzil i teraz wszyscy cierpia.

Biedny arabek temat zaczal

[josifek]

ale zapomnial jak zwykle sie poinformowac i zapomnial, ze ten caly balagan wlasnie sie za rzadow brzezinskiego zaczal-revolucja w Iranie, pomoc braterska USSR w Afganistanie....i nie tylko to...

[cygan37]

oni wszyscy dobrzy jak już są na emeryturze - gołąbki pokoju z oliwnymi
gałązkami, śtwa, śtwa jego mać;
a spuściłby już kto parę bombek na tych bandziorów, tych gołąbków pokoju i tych
durniów co ich tam wybierajo; może demokracja by zapanowała

[josifek]

nie mowiac juz o Henry....

[misterpee]

imperium mialo sie poszerzyc i stworzyc nowe supermocarstwo. Wyglada na to ze
Mezopotamia doprowadzila do upadku nietylko Rzym ale i obecne imperium . Co sie
stanie z malym panstwem? Czy Imperium zwali wine na to male panstwo, czy tez
male panstwo tak pomanipuluje wszystkich ze samo przejmie wladze nad swiatem?
Czy znajdzie ono poslusznych wykonawcow swojej ideologi w Rosji Putina,
zgnusnialej Europie, zbankrutowanej Ameryce czy tez w Chinach gdzie tyle
zainwestowalo w ostatnich latach. Ale imperium jeszcze jest silne, na tyle
silne zebby zniszczyc caly swiat lacznie ze zrodlem konfliktu. Czy Apokalipsa
nastapi wkrotce? Potrzebna technologia juz jest, trzeba tylko chetnych
wykonawcow proroctwa.

[josifek]

od kiedy Mezopotania Rzym do upadku doprowadzila, Rzym upadl,bo nie potrafil sie
odnawiac i za bardzo tzw biednym Gotyckim imigrantom wierzyl, ze im sie pozwolil
na Dunajem sie osiedlic, teraz ani UNIA ani tez USA ten blad nie popelnia...

[josifek]

a ty sie naucz czytac. to co Brzezinki razem z Carterem w Iranie zrobili, to
chyba skutki jeszcze po 100 lat bedziemy czuc.

[warmi2]

Brzezinski ... hehe , doradca najgorszego prezydenta USA w XX wieku.

Akurat tego faceta rady sa nikomu nie potrzebne.

[misterpee]

Robert Fisk: The Roman Empire is falling - so it turns to Iran and Syria
Published: 07 December 2006
The Roman Empire is falling. That, in a phrase, is what the Baker report says.
The legions cannot impose their rule on Mesopotamia.

Just as Crassus lost his legions' banners in the deserts of Syria-Iraq, so has
George W Bush. There is no Mark Antony to retrieve the honour of the empire.
The policy "is not working". "Collapse" and "catastrophe" - words heard in the
Roman senate many a time - were embedded in the text of the Baker report. Et
tu, James?

This is also the language of the Arab world, always waiting for the collapse of
empire, for the destruction of the safe Western world which has provided it
with money, weapons, political support. First, the Arabs trusted the British
Empire and Winston Churchill, and then they trusted the American Empire and
Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Truman and Eisenhower administrations and all
the other men who would give guns to the Israelis and billions to the Arabs -
Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Bush...

And now they are told that the Americans are not winning the war; that they are
losing. If you were an Arab, what would you do?

Be sure, they are not asking this question in Washington. The Middle East - so
all-important (supposedly) in the "war on terror" - in itself, a myth - doesn't
really matter in the White House. It is a district, a map, a region, every bit
as amorphous as the crescent of "crisis" which the Clinton administration
invented when it wanted to land its troops in Somalia. How to get out, how to
save face, that's the question. To hell with the people who live there: the
Arabs, the Iraqis, the men, women and children whom we kill - and whom the
Iraqis kill - every day.

Note how our "spokesmen" in Afghanistan now acknowledge the dead woman and
children of Nato airstrikes as if it is quite in order to slaughter these
innocents because we are at war with the horrid Taliban.

Some of the same mindset has arrived in Baghdad, where "coalition" spokesmen
also - from time to time - jump in front of the video-tape evidence by
accepting that they, too, kill women and children in their war
against "terror". But it is the sentences of impotence that doom empires. "The
ability of the United States to influence events within Iraq is diminishing."
There is a risk of a "slide towards chaos [sic] [that] could trigger the
collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe."

But hasn't that already happened? "Collapse" and "catastrophe" are daily
present in Iraq. America's ability "to influence events" has been absent for
years. And let's just re-read the following sentence: "Violence is increasing
in scope and lethality. It is fed by a Sunni Arab insurgency. Shiite [Shia]
militias, death squads, al-Qa'ida and widespread criminality. Sectarian
conflict is the principal challenge to stability."

Come again? Where was this "widespread criminality," this "sectarian conflict"
when Saddam, our favourite war criminal, was in power? What do the Iraqis think
about this? And how typical that the American media went at once to hear Bush's
view of the Baker report - rather than the reaction of the Iraqis, those who
are on the receiving end of our self-induced tragedy in Mesopotamia.

They will enjoy the idea that American troops should be "embedded" with Iraqi
forces - not so long ago, it was the press that had to be "embedded" with the
Americans! - as if the Romans were ready to put their legions amid the Goths,
Ostrogoths and Visigoths to ensure their loyalty.

What the Romans did do, of course - and what the Americans would never do - is
offer their subjects Roman citizenship. Every tribe - in Gaul or Bythinia or
Mesopotamia - who fell under Roman rule became a citizen of Rome. What could
Washington have done with Iraq if it had offered American citizenship to every
Iraqi? There would have been no insurrection, no violence, no collapse or
catastrophe, no Baker report. But no. We wanted to give these people the fruits
of our civilisation - not the civilisation itself. From this, they were banned.

And the result? The nations we supposedly hated - Iran and Syria - are now
expected to save us from ourselves. "Given the ability [sic] of Iran and Syria
to influence events and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United
States should try to engage [sic] them constructively."

I love those words. Especially "engage". Yes, the "influence of America" is
diminishing. The influence of Syria and Iran is growing. That just about sums
up the "war on terror". Any word yet, I wonder, from Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara?

The strategies

The Baker panel considered four options, all of which it rejected:

Cut And Run

Baker believes it would cause a humanitarian disaster, while al-Qa'ida would
expand further.

Stay The Course

Baker accepts that current US policy is not working. Nearly 100 Americans are
dying every month. The US is spending $2bn (£1bn) a week and has lost public
support.

Send In More Troops

Increases in US troop levels would not solve the cause of violence in Iraq.
Violence would simply rekindle as soon as US forces moved.

Regional Devolution

If the country broke up into its Shia, Sunni and Kurd regions, it would lead to
ethnic cleansing and mass population moves.

Baker outlines a fifth option - 'responsible transition' - in which the number
of US forces could be increased to shore up the Iraqi army while it takes over
primary responsibility for combat operations. US troops would then decrease
slowly.

The Roman Empire is falling. That, in a phrase, is what the Baker report says.
The legions cannot impose their rule on Mesopotamia.

Just as Crassus lost his legions' banners in the deserts of Syria-Iraq, so has
George W Bush. There is no Mark Antony to retrieve the honour of the empire.
The policy "is not working". "Collapse" and "catastrophe" - words heard in the
Roman senate many a time - were embedded in the text of the Baker report. Et
tu, James?

This is also the language of the Arab world, always waiting for the collapse of
empire, for the destruction of the safe Western world which has provided it
with money, weapons, political support. First, the Arabs trusted the British
Empire and Winston Churchill, and then they trusted the American Empire and
Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Truman and Eisenhower administrations and all
the other men who would give guns to the Israelis and billions to the Arabs -
Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Bush...

And now they are told that the Americans are not winning the war; that they are
losing. If you were an Arab, what would you do?

Be sure, they are not asking this question in Washington. The Middle East - so
all-important (supposedly) in the "war on terror" - in itself, a myth - doesn't
really matter in the White House. It is a district, a map, a region, every bit
as amorphous as the crescent of "crisis" which the Clinton administration
invented when it wanted to land its troops in Somalia. How to get out, how to
save face, that's the question. To hell with the people who live there: the
Arabs, the Iraqis, the men, women and children whom we kill - and whom the
Iraqis kill - every day.

Note how our "spokesmen" in Afghanistan now acknowledge the dead woman and
children of Nato airstrikes as if it is quite in order to slaughter these
innocents because we are at war with the horrid Taliban.

Some of the same mindset has arrived in Baghdad, where "coalition" spokesmen
also - from time to time - jump in front of the video-tape evidence by
accepting that they, too, kill women and children in their war
against "terror". But it is the sentences of impotence that doom empires. "The
ability of the United States to influence events within

[misterpee]

Just as Crassus lost his legions' banners in the deserts of Syria-Iraq, so has
George W Bush. There is no Mark Antony to retrieve the honour of the empire.
The policy "is not working". "Collapse" and "catastrophe" - words heard in the
Roman senate many a time - were embedded in the text of the Baker report. Et
tu, James?

Szkoda ze taki madry 30 lat temu nie

[josifek]

byl, to by tego gnoju teraz nie bylo, jest jednym z polwinnych tego gnoju...

Coraz lepiej, dzisiaj juz dwie auto bomby

[josifek]

i jeszcze dzien trwa.