Dutiful Trita Parsi!!!
Trita Parsi is at it again; rearing his ugly goatee:
This entity and his mentor, Brzezinski never cease to amaze me. Former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski giving a speech on "National Insecurity and Global Security," asked Israel to give up its nuclear weapons:
Brzezinski questioned Israel's need for nuclear weapons and suggested that the country abandon its nukes to create a nuclear-free Middle East, in order to keep Iran from building its own nuclear arsenal.
"If Israel's nuclear arsenal, some 200 weapons, capable of destroying Iran if Iran were to attack Israel, is not a sufficient and credible deterrent, than what is it for? Against whom is it to be used, against someone who doesn't have nuclear weapons?" he asked the crowd at a Century Foundation/Center for American Progress conference. The latter is headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff to Bill Clinton.
Brzezinski acknowledged that "one can understand that people traumatized by the Holocaust would be concerned about security," but said Israel's policies created "a collision between the legitimately felt sense of national insecurity and the security of others."
In this view, he said, Israel supported the invasion of Iraq by the United States and now "doesn't hide" its desire for US action in Iran.
Brzezinski, whose address was greeted by rousing applause, also descried the "obscene rhetoric" and "insensitivity to history" exhibited by Iran and urged the Islamic republic to prove that it was only seeking that to which it was legally entitled - civilian nuclear power - and not nuclear weapons.
ABF, for the promotion of human rights and democracy in Iran
11 comments:
The immediate effect of reigniting the let's-bomb-Iran discussions is the undercutting of the recently initiated US-Iran talks over Iraq, which in turn will cause the military confrontation with Iran to be viewed in a new light.
Undercutting the talks? Is he referring to the hostage negotiations? This guy has me very confused. Does he actually believe that there is some way to resolve the current situation with Iran by "talking" or is he just saying something he knows to be untrue?
believe he is either privy to some inside information from his employers or he is deliberately trying to present a straw man argument to his target audience, "useful idiots" of the left and the uninformed Iranians with the liberal/left leaning.
I have several posts in regards to asking Iran to "help" us in Iraq as 'feeding the hand that bites you'. I'm sick of these idiots who think we're all stupid....I'll try to find the links in my archives and post it as an update...Brezinski is a lunatic who has no credibility to give advice on how we need to deal with radical Islam because he was the one who helped creat it in the first place.
He might also be a "radical pacifist". "The problem is that for many, an aggressive radical pacifism - not a contradiction in terms at all - is the ideal, where no threats may be made whatsoever and any sort of military conflict is viewed as an abject failure of politics, preferably ours.
But what it means is that anyone, literally anyone, who dares to contradict this radical, utopian pacifism - in a perfect world no one goes to war - is automagically transformed into a bloodthirsty maniac warmonger, lusting for the destruction of peaceful activists whose goal, of course, is only to stop the killing.
It makes me sick to think of the thousands that have been sacrificed to their altar of pacifism: their goal is not conflict resolution in the original sense, but rather conflict avoidance. The only problem is when they run into the international equivalence of a bully: someone who will push and push and push just to see how far they can push someone.
But by giving in, by backing off, by refusing to be baited, the radical pacifists actually generate the scenario where the aggressor is encouraged by their actions, and they profess outrage and amazement when someone finally stands up to the bully, bloodies noses and stops aggression in its tracks.
The goal cannot be conflict avoidance: the goal must be conflict resolution. The problem for the radical pacifists is that conflict resolution is best rendered by killing everyone who stands in the way of ending the conflict on our terms.
And the mere idea that violence never settled anything shows a tremendous ignorance of history. Tell it to the city fathers of Carthage and the millions of dead civilians in the world wars: wars are best fought viciously and with the sole desire to destroy the enemy’s will to resist ruthlessly. If the enemy doesn’t understand it, then destroy the enemy.
It’s all actually rather straight-forward: war is sometimes the solution. But no radical pacifist will eve, ever agree to that idea, and the soldiers who keep the peace and prevent the aggressors of this world from disrupting their peace activism
In reality it is the radical pacifists who, by meddling and crying wolf, create the conditions for aggressors to make their mistakes and fall on their faces by misjudging western societies at the end of the day."
From:http://neoneocon.com/2007/06/11/what-it-takes-to-get-the-appelation-warmonger-these-days/#comments
I think what's happening is that the Mullahcracy desperately needs to delay the inevitable direct military confrontation with the United States, so it directs its hirelings to push for "dialogue".
There are two reasons for this:
a) The regime needs time to build enough nuclear weapons to act as a significant deterrent.
b) The regime likes to prolong its proxy war against the west in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon thereby draining the U.S. of blood, treasury and resolve.
To call Brezinski a peace-nik is nonsense.
If he's against this war it only means that some people have an interest in not alienated the rest of the world.
Hey, Serindip, followed you here from Angry Arab. Interesting blog you got here!
Serendip, thanks for pasting that comment, it was very good even if I'm not 100% on board with it.
tribalecho,
To call Brezinski a peace-nik is nonsense.
No, he's not a peace-nik. He's a duplicitous cold war relic.
If he's against this war it only means that some people have an interest in not alienated the rest of the world.
I think it's more likely to mean that he has changed masters. Serendip is right in stating that Brezinki was an original architect of much of the chaos and misery that is wracking the middle-east. Either he made his past mistakes honestly of he is an evil SOB. Either way, it doesn't seem very sensible to listen to the ideas of a guy whose past actions contributed so directly to the current mess. Whatever the solution is, we won't get it from him.
I just keep reminding myself that we made it out of those years alive, we may do that again with Bush. (Amnesty, grrrr)
What an arse.
Dear Serendip,
Dang, lady. You should post your comment as an article! That was good. :)
Almost everyone had something really thoughtful to say. I feel so inadequate. I just called him a putz. lol
Anti-Defamation League Director Abe Foxman took strong exception to Brzezinski's remarks.
"It's a biased perversion of reality," he said of the comparison made between Iranian and Israeli national security policies. "Iran is publicly and continuously threatening the annihilation of the state of Israel," while Israel has made no such threat.
He said that Brzezinski's references to Lieberman - a Jewish congressman - as opposed to Bush administration figures who have made similar remarks, "broadens the conspiratorial view of Israel and the Jews."
Trita is an Iranian and has the right to lie so that he can save his bossess,the terrorit Mullas, but what is the agenda of Berzeniski and others like him? Why do they want to destroy the U.S?
Mullahs pay them every month and therefore they are paid agents of the islamic regime of iran
Post a Comment