Zbigniew speaks ...

[bluedove]

Zbigniew Brzezinski in his Washington Post article calls the war in Iraq a "tragick misadventure."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010601482.html

[Delphius]

bluedove - thanks for posting.

There are certainly some truthful statements being made in this Washington Post article, especially with respect to the black-white "victory or defeat" rhetoric being pushed by the establishment, and the delusional belief that American forces can crush anti-American sentiment in this part of the world, thereby making it "safe" for "democracy".

Was this change agenda the Bush administration's idea of "liberation" or the will of the Iraqi people? I don't recall an Iraqi outcry for intervention in the days leading up to the massive attack nearly three years ago. Judging by the force required to "win the hearts and minds" of these people, it doesn't seem they are too keen on all the efforts and sacrifices made by our men in uniform. I guess this means we just haven't been working hard enough.

What we must also realize - in addition to what has been stated in this article - is that the paradigm of "democrats vs. republicans" is a false dichotomy, and a way to polarize the people using superficial hot-button issues - a classic divide and conquer tactic. This two-headed republicrat beast answers to the same master and shuts out any real voice of dissention. Notice, the democrats equivocate at every juncture, as they neither take a solid stance on executive power, nor a course of action with regard to ending the bloodshed. Should any solid stance be taken, there is the fear of being labelled "unpatriotic".

We also need to redefine these concepts of "patriotism" and "victory", or better yet, put them aside as they serve no good purpose in the case of this war. "Victory", coming from the Latin word vicere, means to conquer, subdue, or take control over another. Who and what is this administration trying to control here? The threat of "terrorism"? If so, I don't think anyone is convinced that war brings an end to terror. In this case, "victory" will take the form of conquest over resources, personal freedoms, national sovereignty.

What is "patriotism"? It has been described as the love of one's country to the point of making sacrifices for it. What must be sacrificed to demonstrate devotion to a country that resorts to warfare as means to world domination? I love the land, the people, and the unalienable rights to which we have all been endowed, but I hold no love and care to make no sacrifices for a system that exists solely to serve itself.

What Bush fails to mention is the disrupted balance of power that resulted from our military involvement. The administration's "all or nothing" policy fails to recognize the futility and contradiction inherent to waging war as a means to peace as an ends. So long as force is the modus operandi, a lasting peace really cannot be achieved - violence will always, and only, magnify violence.

When Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", the accomplishment was complete economic upheaval, civil unrest, bloodshed, and increased hatred - all of the necessary ingredients for a culture of terrorism. It escapes me how our government intends to solve a supposed problem by adding fuel to the fire - and I hope I'm not alone in this quandary.

http://www.serendipity.li/iraqwar.htm

[noahsark]

First and foremost Zbigniew Brzezinski is a servant of the new world order, point blank. This washington post article has nothing to do with how he "sees things in Iraq" it is a pure propaganda piece, but to what end? This artilce could be just that, mere propaganda and it ends at that. Yet, it could also be a shift in planning for the NWO, seeing that the approach taken in Iraq is not working for them. It could also be an announcment to the bush cartel that there contribution to the nwo is not working and that they are getting cut and they will someone else to replace "him", someone who will serve them better. This is a sly announcment towards Impeachment day for Bush, maybe? But the man or woman they bring in is not going to be any better because it will all be engineered by the NWO elite.

Now here are some qoutes from some of Brzezinski's books to give you an idea and who the man really is. These are statements he would not make in any "news" peice like this washington post article.

“Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces will be appraised…Techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm.”
Illuminati strategist and front man Zbigniew Brzezinski writing in “Between Two Ages” 1970.(1)

Maybe this is what he invisions in Iraq, I know alittel bit about these types of weapons , because i had them used on me here in America. The same type of techs that can be used to control the weather ( see the inner resources section of this site) are the same kind of techs that can be used to "influence " the mind and behavior. There would be no need for troops when you have a small group hidding out with techs like these.

"The Farmer's Plan for his Cattle--Cow them into Submission and then Cull the Herd. Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski's book, THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives published in 1997, laid out his analysis and strategy for a Global American Empire.

"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. (pp 24-5)

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. (p.30)

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

It is also a fact that 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. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)

"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)

"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

"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 circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997(2)

All that was just said here is the exact oppposite of what was said in that wash. post article , exactly how the agents of the new world order work - spit pure shit in the face of the public. They are well practiced in the "art" of speaking with a doulbe tongue.

"While seconded from the German defense ministry to NATO in the late 1970s, Dr. Johannes Koeppl traveled to Washington on more than one occasion. He also met with Zbigniew Brzezinski in the White House on more than one occasion. His other Washington contacts included Steve Larabee from the CFR, John J. McCloy, former CIA Director, economist Milton Friedman, and officials from Carter's Office of Management and Budget. He is the first person I have ever interviewed who has made a direct presentation at a Bilderberger conference and he has also made numerous presentations to sub-groups of the Trilateral Commission. That was before he spoke out against them.

His fall was rapid after he realized that Brzezinski was part of a group intending to impose a world dictatorship. "In 1983/4 I warned of a take-over of world governments being orchestrated by these people. There was an obvious plan to subvert true democracies and selected leaders were not being chosen based upon character but upon their loyalty to an economic system run by the elites and dedicated to preserving their power.

"All we have now are pseudo-democracies."(3)

In the end if we don't pull the weeds up by there roots they continue to grow. Democracy in Iraq , you know i would laugh if it wasn't so tragic, but does Brzezinski think it is tragic, i am sure he does but not in the way that any normal person who knows what is really going on does. If it was a "tragic misadventure" it is because it set the global agenda off coarse in some way.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is a servant of the elitist clan.


1. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1385
2. + 3. http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/NWO.htm

[Delphius]

noah - this is an important revelation you bring forward.


Certainly, Brzezinski appears to be an agent of disinformation. His track record speaks for itself. He and others like him tell the people what they want to hear. They pull out facts that have basis in truth, but manipulate these facts to redirect the attention of the observer - and to further the causes they support. The masters of propaganda present us with information that will appeal to our emotions, but fail to be clear and straightfoward with their intentions or ultimate objectives, so as to steer the observer's consciousness away from the fact that he/she is being manipulated.

Brzezinski, in this case, is attempting to appeal to those who, in their right minds, condemn this war. I'm one of these people. The question, however, is what lies at the heart of this discussion. Like noah has accurately noted, Brzezinski and the masters he serves realize the futility of this war as it has been waged, and they speak of it condemningly as if to say they're on our side. But what Brzezinski fails to mention is the ultimate futility of war in general as a means to engaging in peaceful relations. This important act of omission condones violence, gives silent consent to the use of war to achieve global dominance (even if this particular war has not met its objective as yet), and it does nothing to help those who are aware of Brzenzinski's stance and NWO affiliation to think of him any differently. It is as if to say peace is not the ends Brzezinski really has in mind.

The final sentence of this piece reads, "America needs a real choice regarding its tragic misadventure in Iraq." The title of this piece summarizes this sentence. But nowhere is a viable option even suggested. Brzezinski simply suggests we consult the political acumen of his fellow establishmentarians, but never risks blazing the trail for a peaceful solution - I think he is the one who most fears being labeled "unpatriotic".

Anymore, it is important to get to the heart of the matter - to reveal one's true intent - if we are to understand the truth and expose the NWO agenda for what it is.

How can we be more aware when it comes to discerning the difference between truth and disinformation? It comes down to checking the facts, consulting one's intuition, and putting 2 and 2 together!

Nonetheless, thank you bluedove for contributing this piece, as it has inspired some necessary conversation.

[bluedove]

Yes, it certainly is interesting to read what is being said. The old CFR publications by Dr. Kissinger are rather interesting reading as well. Henry was a big advocate of using nukes in Vietnam. By the way, I was listening to Zbigniew on a recent radio show and he clearly opposed the policy of pre-emptive war and generally conveyed his feelings that America was in decline. I think from the trilateralist viewpoint, the war in Iraq is not really a war, but a police action. The USA it seems has been elected to be the policeman in Iraq. If Iraq is such a threat to the world then why isn't NATO getting involved like they are in Afghanistan?

As far as the war in Iraq, it seems strange to me that the Bush administration was not able to work with the Bath party. I mean they at least were secular, Saddam was in fact the elected President of Iraq, he had a strong army, sided with the U.S. against Iran (which I’m beginning to believe is where the Iraq war will be leading), apologized for invading Kuwait & opened up his country to U.N. inspectors. After all, it wouldn’t be the first time the U.S. allied itself with a ruthless leader.

The British/Americans have been trying to make Iraq safe for Standard Oil since the beginning of the LAST century. From what I’ve heard, the pentagon is planning on keeping a significant presence there for 10 to 15 years.