One of the more repulsive courtiers from the Carter Era, Zbigniew

[KlatooBNikto]

Brzesinski, a man cut from the same cloth as the evil toad Henry Kissinger used to boast how he was the one who engineered the Jihad against the Soviet Union by organizing all the Muslim countries in a coalition that brought together the Mujahideen from Pakistan,Chechnya,Saudi Arabia and others in the fight for Afghanistan.Now we are paying the price for that arrogant fool's pride in the terrorism that has been sparked by AlQaeda.Time and again we get dragged into wars by these socalled intellectuals only to pay a price in blood for their folly.I was repelled by this toad's appearance recently pontificating on how Bush is messing things up in Iraq.

I felt like yelling: You started it, you fool! And you boasted about what a great job you had done.

[jeff30997]

1. Arrogant foolish toad indeed !

:grr:

[indepat]

4. But a strikingly lovely media-daughter nonetheless?

[BootinUp]

2. Oh give me a break

The U.S. did the right thing opposing Russia's occupation of Afghanistan. It was after Brzezinski was no longer in office that the policy was fucked up. After Russia split we did too and left a vacuum. That was the mistake.

Say that we did not get involved there for the sake of argument. That would have prevented terrorism? How exactly.

And when Russia could no longer maintain control over Afghanistan which was inevitable anyways, then what would have happened there?

Your whole argument is full of crap.

[KlatooBNikto]

3. The arming and training of the Mujahideen by the CIA laid the

foundations of AlQaeda with Osama Bin Laden as one of the masterminds.
Your agument that the United States needed to get involved is the one that is full of crap.As someone who has lived in that part of the world for many years, take it from me.The Afghan people would have routed the Soviet Union on their own even if it had taken many more years. It is the bringing together of the many Mujahideen under the "Muslims are in Danger form Godless Communism" that has given rise to Terrorism.When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan it was just a simple transfer of the infidel label to America that has started this terrorism threat we see.I reject your premise that our interference is necessary in every event of the world as though these nations do not see what is and what is not an alien invasion.

[BootinUp]

8. Islamic fundamentalism would have still surfaced

I would accept the argument if it was related to us changing the timing of certain events, but the we did not cause the underlying motivations for Islamic fundamentalist states by our actions in Afghanistan.

Both Russia and the US are to blame for weapons and training of the 3rd world and terrorists.

[KlatooBNikto]

9. Islamic terrorism would have remained isolated and weak.The

coming together of all these countries and the training in advanced weapons like Stinger misslies made them more potent.

[BootinUp]

12. Let me ask one thing

Are you saying they would not have been in Afghansistan fighting the Soviet backed government if it wasn't for the CIA?

[KlatooBNikto]

13. No.But that possibility would have been a lot less because of the

rivalries among different Islamic groups.Also, without the US backing their training would have been ineffective and only the local Afghans would have carried the burden of fighting.

[htuttle]

20. Blame Reagan for the Stingers and the birth of 'Frankenstein'

When Reagan was elected, he pressured Pakistan to give the Afghans Stingers and increase the amount of covert aid by 1000%. Pakistan did NOT think this was a good idea.

You see, Carter & Co wanted to get the Soviets stuck in Afghanistan, while Reagan decided he wanted the Afghans to actually win. Problem is, he didn't look very closely as WHICH Afghans he was dealing with.

Former PM of Pakistan Bhutto warned the Reagan administration that by increasing aid to the mujahideen so much, and by providing them with advanced weapons, they were creating a Frankenstein.

She was right.

[H2O Man]

18. Jim4Wes:

I appreciate your logic, and agree with you. I think that people who want to understand the US role in Afghanistan should read "Imperial Hubris" by the "anonymous" CIA analysis Michael Schever. It's important that people have a basic foundation of facts to build an opinion on before they make judgements on complex issues. The truth is that there are no easy black and white issues involved in the USA's relationship with the Islamic world, with but one exception: the Bush administration has made the worst choices possible in almost every instance. What's funny is that this should be clear to every American -- democrat, republican, etc -- who studies the situation. The mistakes they are making will cost our nation for decades.

[KlatooBNikto]

23. That our misadventure in Afghanistan with a multitude of Islamic

countries contributing fighters against what we interpreted to them as Godless Communism against Islam has now spawned the Al Qaeda is a
fact.Like Brezinski and other ambitious toadies like him we have people who constantly go into areas of the world that they are totally ignorant of.In fact, I would venture to say if we had simply let the Soviets founder in their own equivalent of a Vietnam, we and the world would be better off today.People like Brezinski don't realize that among the Islamic countries we are one of the most detested countries in the world and no amount of sugar coating would change that.For him to arm and train those people to gain a short term advantage against the Soviets was not worth it, a result that is borne out everyday by events since then.

[H2O Man]

25. Though I had been speaking to Jim4Wes

I'll respond to your response. You advocate "do nothing" as the preferred strategy in Afghanistan. It would have been in our interest to let the USSR become stuck in a Vietnam-like war in Afghanistan. Interesting. It is true that Vietnam would have been extremely difficult for the USA to "win" under any circumstance, but was much more so with the aide in the form of weapons and training they received from the USSR. Hence, the USA aide to Afghanistan actually made it more like Vietnam.

Second, you don't explain how it would have benefitted the USA.How? Exactly what would have been better?

Third, you seem convinced that Al Qaeda is a US invention. That is simply not true. While there was some training, and a sharing of funds that went to Afghanistan, it is not accurate to say that Al Qaeda was "spawned" as a result of the US effort to aide the Afghan resistance. There is a significant difference between have a relationship to, and being the cause of a movement like Al Qaeda.

People like Brezinski do realize that the US is detested by Islamic countries. I'd venture that most rational people would agree that there is a significant difference between our relationship with the Islamic warriors in 1980 and in 2001. What changed?

A person can be pro-Israel and be pro-Palestinian. A person can say that the WMD-situation in Iran, Pakistan, India, and Israel is the most likely "hot spot" to spawn a nuclear world war, and that the USA can - and indeed MUST -- play a significant role in attempting to bring about discussions that result in stability there. In fact, the USA must deal with in order to hope to get the Islamic world to help resolve the horror that Bush has created in Iraq. And by no small coincidence, this is the position that Brezinski takes: he has stated that Bush lacks the moral authority or political capacity to do these things, and that it is vital for everyone around the globe to have Kerry elected.

[sweetheart]

5. Him and his mate, zalmay khalilzad (current afgan ambassador)

Here is an article where brezinski talks about that... some beef,
for your already strong beef stew. :-)

http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm

The article suggests even more than you, that the islamic extremist
terrorism has been supported all along by billions in US taxpayer
funds, and it STILl focused on the encirclement of russia, and
formenting revolution in the satellite states.

[KlatooBNikto]

6. The Law of Unintended Consequences with a vengeance.

Chalmers Johnson would love it!

[Eloriel]

21. AKA: Blowback

When will we learn to stop meddling in other nations' affairs?

Probably not until we're ruined as a nation, and that may not be long off.

[NWHarkness]

7. When in doubt, blame a Democrat!

Funny how that seems to be so common here of late.

[KlatooBNikto]

10. My intent was to show that the imperial ambitions of our ruling class

crosses the boundaries of party affiliations. Do you dispute it or do you simply don't like what I am saying?

[H2O Man]

19. Just curious:

What would you advocate, with the obvious advantage of hindsight, that the US policy should have been during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? There appear to be three basic choices -- support the Afghan rebels; support the USSR; or do nothing -- with several variations of helping one side or another. But if you take the stance that the USA erred in helping the rebels, then let's hear what you believe to have been a wiser strategy. I'm interested in the specifics of who your strategy would have benefitted, both in Afghanistan and in the USA.

[KlatooBNikto]

22. I believe we could have helped the Afghans without going to the extent of

putting together an Islamic Coalition that has now mutated into Al Qaeda.We could have easily foreseen that would be the result if and when the Soviets withdrew because to may of the Mujahideen the United States was the Geat Satan just waiting to be hit when the time was ripe. More than even the training and the arms we provided these Mujahideen we taught them how they had a common purpose in defeating the Soviet Infidel and that any enemy of Islam could be defeated if they banded together.

[H2O Man]

24. Would you then

conclude that the USA "taught them how they had a common purpose" as being something above and beyond {a} their history dating back far before the Soviet invasion, in which they proved themselves fully capable of defeating foreign invaders; and {b} their long-held interpretation of Islam? I agree that the US government played a significant role in arming and even training segments of what we know as Al Qaeda. Yet it seems to me that you believe we created Al Qaeda, which is at best a questionable view of what Al Qaeda is.

We didn't put together the coalition in Afghanistan. It was a confederation of tribal entities that did the actual fighting against the USSR. Perhaps our largest mistakes involved not getting to know and develop relationships with the tribal powers, because our government - democrat and republicans - have always attempted to create "leaders" in our own image. We pretend that the Northern Alliance is more than a very temporary movement based solely on the charismatic leadership of one man. Yet charismatic and even systematic leadership does not take full root in a nation where traditional (tribal) authority, deeply rooted in Islam, controls most of the country.

I tend to think that our inability to think outside of a few limited catagories has done us more harm than the aide we provided for the Afghan resistance.

[KlatooBNikto]

26. You forget the role of Pakistan, an "ally" ,in creating the Taliban and

harboring the 'Terrorists" (sorry, freedom fighters) from a mish mash of countries that infiltrated Afghanistan with the CIA's help.Once the Soviets withdrew the Taliban moved into power and the "Freedom Fighters" were given sancturaies by the Taliban to establish AlQaeda's training bases.There should be no question that AlQaeda's philosophical framework had the blessings of the CIA when it was still fashionable to call them Freedom Fighters or Mujahideen.

[H2O Man]

27. I'm not sure if you are serious....

when you write things such as "you forget the role of Pakistan..." Certainly we can go country by country, and have a detailed discussion. But I was concentrating on the role of the USA, and who they supported in Afghanistan circa 1978-1992. I'm interested in if you have an in-depth view of that circumstance, before we skip around the globe.

[KlatooBNikto]

28. I do remember the role of the US and it used pakistan not merely

as the gateway to Afghanistan but also as a mentor to the Taliban.We do not need to go country by country at all.If we concentrate on the role of Pakistan it would be more than adequate to understand the role of the US as the midwife of AlQaeda.

[H2O Man]

29. That's fine.

If you want to switch from a discussion of US policy in Afghanistan to "concentrat(ing) on the role of Pakistan," I understand. I think you've answered my question. Thanks!

[Vickers]

11. Yup...ain't that odd

:)

[sweetheart]

14. no, not a democrat... an asshole

Someone who instigates terrorism, for any cause, is an asshole,
and certianly no democrat. Those boys should be in prison for
treason. Why defend indefensible positions?

[AG78]

16. So a Republican

who wants empire is bad, but a Democrat who wants empire is good?

This is why we're never leaving Iraq/the MiddleEast/Central Asia/etc. We're there because we have to be. We are an empire, and empire's want to expand power. Kerry isn't going to get us out of there. He, as an individual, may want to leave, but the party/American system won't allow him to.

We have pipeline's going up over there. We can't leave Iraq, because we have to make sure the Kurds don't want to go their own way. If they do, the Turkish Kurds will want to go with them. That would throw Turkey into chaos, and we have a very important oil pipeline going through Turkey.

We also can't allow the Shiite's to go their own way. They may cozy up to Iran. The last thing we want is Iran gaining more geo-political power in the region.

We have to worry about Putin going crazy in Russia.

The EU, as it gains strength, will want more say.

China is always a power threat.

We're never leaving until we're forced to. That's because of people like Bzrezinski, Rumsfeld, Putin, Hussein, bin Laden, countless dictators in former Soviet Republics, and all the other military war gamers that play around with the lives of other people for empire.

[slojim240]

15. They are not merely "intellectuals." Look at who they really are, dear.

That will answer all your questions and should direct your anger in the right places.

[Cocoa]

17. Brzezinski looks like Beavis