Charlie Rose

ShalomFreedman  10/29/2012 04:05 AM Report

These experts essentially argued for a less- interventionist approach in American foreign policy. Considering the results of Iraq and Afghanistan that certainly makes sense. However in doing so they consciously avoided mentioning the major foreign policy problem facing the U.S. today, the race by the fundamentalist revolutionary regime in Tehran to attain nuclear weapons. They did not mention it clearly because it is a test- case which disproves their main thesis. The U.S. may in fact have no choice but to intervene military to stop Iran. The U.S. has tried the sanctions route and has had success lining up a coalition of support, but it has not deterred Iran . The Iranians have been deceitful about their program for over ten years. They show no signs of becoming anything like a partner to a peaceful resolution of the problem. What happens to non- intervention when the U.S.judges the critical moment has come?

One more point. This panel of experts seemed to be a bit on the side of blaming the U.S. for the mess in the Middle East. This is wholly unfair. Brzezhinski may have been party to the Carter fiasco in enabling the Khomeini regime to take and establish power, but even that Administration was not to blame for Shiite Islamist fanaticism. The U.S. has not succeeded in Afghanistan in part because of the treachery of Pakistan. It is not responsible for thar regime either.

The one truth or rather truism or cliche this discussion has is in regard to the U.S. inability to solve all the world's problems. But there are problems vital to U.S. interests which may require U.S. intervention. That is common sense. There are also problems, perhaps the great majority where no matter what the U.S. does things will not be alright. The Sunni- Shiite strife which is now tearing apart the Middle East cannot be prevented or even contained by the U.S. The fact that the U.S. is more on the side of the Sunnis does not change the fact that among the Sunnis are backward, fanatical, anti- Western forces.

One more point. This discussion had foreign policy participants of a single stripe. They may have disagreed on Syria, but they all, with the perhaps exception of Ignatius, have a fairly similar overall view of foreign policy. They frequently mentioned Syria's neighbors without referring once to America's only reliable ally in the region, Israel. This shows where their hearts are, not only about Israel but on the value they give to democratic regimes in confronting and dealing with Terrorism.

This was on the whole then a woefully inadequate and misleading discussion of U.S. foreign policy.

ShalomFreedman  10/28/2012 04:57 PM Report

This discussion began with a theoretical proposal for transformation of American foreign policy. i.e. The U.S. has to understand that it by itself alone cannot police and order the world. It seems to me a straw man was taken on here.

It then became a discussion of what to do about Syria. Jones and Ignatius were for some kind of change in U.S. policy , some kind of intervention. Brzezinski was strongly against this.

The discussion was in effect worthless. There was not one real idea of what to do in regard to any specific problem.

quotes88  10/27/2012 08:43 AM Report

QUOTES&NOTES http://qnpress.blogspot.com.au/

A periodical of reading notes By James Farmer

Knowledge, while it is in aphorisms, is in growth. (Francis Bacon 1561-1626 ).

If you would like to support No-Commercial press, please

email this periodical to your close friends and work colleagues.Together, let's build a better civil society.

All rights @ James Farmer 2012.

Ricardo_Amaral  10/25/2012 07:20 PM Report

If Bishop Ayatollah Mitt Romney becomes God/President of the United States in November 2012

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=2980d18e31fa4ef6270f6f589be869fe&threadid=240772&perpa ge=6&pagenumber=519

*****

God/President of the United States at the White House getting in contact with the other Extra-terrestrial Gods – Mitt phone home!

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=2980d18e31fa4ef6270f6f589be869fe&threadid=240772&perpa ge=6&pagenumber=519

*****

Since many Americans believe on the separation of “church and state” it will be very interesting if Bishop Ayatollah Mitt Romney becomes...

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=7aa6ecf22781e95b3ec3f13b2a440f94&threadid=240772&perpa ge=6&pagenumber=522

*****

Since Bishop Ayatollah Mitt Romney and his wife already wear the “Magic Mormon Underwear” - I wonder if Bishop Ayatollah Mitt Romney will require that the American population also start wearing the “Magic Mormon Underwear”?

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=7aa6ecf22781e95b3ec3f13b2a440f94&threadid=240772&perpa ge=6&pagenumber=522

.

thirdlife  10/24/2012 09:25 PM Report

The Hillary disaster. Three guests on three different occasions have told you that the US is most to blame for the continuing crisis in Syria and not Russia yet you still you still go about your interviews like its Russia and China. Listen to your interviews with Prince Alwaleed, Lavrov and Kofi Anan.

tabs  10/24/2012 09:05 PM Report

Mao said that WW3 would be fought between the "Northern" developed world and the "Southern" Third World which one might add might very well be fundamentalist Islam.

The foundation of the Ameircan Empire in the Post WW2 world was its economic might, whose principles of western capitalism were proselytized across the globe with great success. The role of Americas foreign policy and military might in this world was to keep the peace, which promoted the stability that the world needed in order for the principles of capitalism to flourish.

Mr ZBig is quite wrong in his assumption that it was the Americans misguided adventurism is Iraq that caused America to lose credibility in the world. This viewpoint one might quip is due to the Blue tinted glasses that Mr ZBIg wears. For it never has been American military might that the world admired but the economic success that America achieved. So it was the financial abyss of 2008 that caused the world to pause and think about the veracity of Americas financial wisdom and leadership. In other words at that moment in 2008 the illusion of American infallibility and success cracked and fell like Humpty Dumpty.

Since that date what the world has seen is dissolution, disarray and dysfunction in American Politics, Economics and Foreign Policy. To this end we have seen rising chaos as America has lost credibility and is losing the power to shape events. Since power abhors a vacuum regional forces have been on the rise, in some cases challenging the established order that America had supported in the past. Some of these new forces are disquieting to American interests.

As Americas financial position grows more precarious due to deficit and debt so the level of disquiet and chaos in the world rises as America is still the lynch pin of the Global economy aka as the American Empire. To this end those forces are seeking equilibrium in a changing world order. Yet the determinate of the worlds fate lies in the resolution of Americas deficit and debt problem. If America succumbs to a debt crisis the havoc created across the world will make the question of the American Empire aka Global economy a mute point. There will be no cohesive Global economy but a number of camp fires left burning through out the world.

Ricardo_Amaral  10/24/2012 08:07 PM Report

Note: To clarify to the readers what the United States is doing on the Middle East and North Africa and so on...:

SouthAmerica: Now “Operation Clueless or Gulf War III” it has been underway.

The United States likes to give cute names for its military adventures around the world such as “Operation Desert Storm or Gulf War I” in 1990 – 1991. Then came "Operation Iraqi Freedom or

Gulf War II” in 2003 – 2012. And now “Operation Clueless or Gulf War III” it has been underway.

The name "Operation Clueless" is very important in this case, because it defines what the United States is trying to accomplish in the Middle East.

The name “Operation Clueless” is also important, because when you don't have a clue about what you are doing any result it will be O.K.

.

Ricardo_Amaral  10/24/2012 08:01 PM Report

Middle East Meltdown and US Foreign Policy

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=e26b6ed5f272edd4b95f859c5a6ab094&threadid=72712&perpag e=6&pagenumber=71

October 23, 2012

SouthAmerica: Here is another example of how "Operation Clueless" is going for the United States and NATO....

The head of the Pakistani Military just returned from a trip to Moscow to establish a better connection with the Russians, and the Foreign Minister of Pakistan followed up with another recent visit to Russia to coordinate their position regarding Syria.

It seems that Pakistan is moving away from being an ally of the United States to be a new ally of Russia/China.

Last week the Prime Minister of Iraq went to Russia and signed an arms agreement with the Russians worth US$ 5 billion dollars.

Corbett Report – October 22, 2012

NATO as Global Imperial Army - Rick Rozoff on GRTV

http://youtu.be/r0mD4npo-wU

.

EPatrickMosman  10/24/2012 04:23 PM Report

Two points,first after listening to Mr. Brzezinski ramble on that America shouldn't do this and shouldn't do that because it might do this or that with this one or that one he seems to have never decided on how America should act on the Syrian civil war or the Middle East in general. Secondly, this might be the correct course as the core of the problem is Islam and its two competing factions, Sunni vs Shia and their various branches and sub-sects' followers.Until the Muslim world settles its religious differences, rejects radical Islam and accepts Western values democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and Western culture there will be the clash of civilizations. The United States and its Western allies must be prepared to defend their democratic belief systems at all cost.

Dasein  10/24/2012 02:23 PM Report

And just what are the qualifications to 'listen' to Brzezinski? Perhaps Plato can answer...

Max83  10/24/2012 02:22 PM Report

A great group of great thinkers including my hero Mr. Brzezinski, what a great way to start the day :-)

The next stage of potential military forces use explained by Jim Channon:

Jim Channon Natural Security Future First Earth Battalion

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NcSDlLd3Po

''Jim presents yet more serious long term solutions to todays serious issues....

Can the military fuse it's departments,clean the ocean,the land,help replant trees?Yes...for a start....

and that's only the beginning of the good news.''

It would be great to see the military of the future be an Earth Defense Force, that does not just focus on National Security, but even more so on Natural Security, since the two in a world of growing populations and over-consumption are so closely linked.

Thank you for this great panel.

REMant  10/24/2012 02:03 PM Report

I think I dealt with all this adequately yesterday, and would have already posted it except for the website. The invention and deployment of missiles with nuclear warheads after WWII allowed Eisenhower to balance both power and budget. Atomic weapons had made traditional land war obsolete anyway. New technology has made the current structure vulnerable to even irregular forces. So some in the Pentagon have come up with a high-tech remote defense, which might also be lighter on the budget. It is also said that the current Navy can do as much as Reagan's 400-ship Navy. (And as well, that current plans put the Navy on track to be at Romney's suggested levels, which takes some more of the force away from Obama's bayonets and horses quip, even if the military hadn't in fact developed three or four new "Swiss Army" bayonets in the past few decades.)

Cheaper tho they may be these new ideas call into question how, or whether, we can continue to be the world's policemen as Kissinger put it. The answer to that, however, has to be found, as with all "crime," in dealing with the causes, not building Guantanamo's. Threats do not deter the irrational, and recidivism in such a regime is infinite. Economic power at the moment is out, not only because we are not in a position to use it, but because it has been the primary cause of the problem. So it would seem we will have to back out of this business, and that will no doubt be for the best. Democrats like Ignatius will have none of this, however, and frankly I would be interested in speaking with their children. I will reiterate, tho, that I think both of the major party candidates are more intelligent and sensible than their public personas indicate, but things nevertheless "happen." Yet there is no reason to believe Syria would turn out any better than Libya, or Afghanistan, or Vietnam. Just about a half-century ago LBJ phoned Richard Russell:

JOHNSON: What do you think about this Vietnam thing? What, what, I'd like to hear you talk a little bit.

RUSSELL: Frankly, Mr. President, if you were to tell me that I was authorized to settle it as I saw fit, I would respectfully decline and not take it.

JOHNSON: [chuckles]

RUSSELL: It's a, it's a, it's the damn worst mess I ever saw, and I don't like to brag. I never have been right many times in my life. But I knew we were going to get into this sort of mess when we went in there. And I don't see how we're going ever to get out without fighting a major war with the Chinese and all of them down there in those rice paddies and jungles [...] I just don't know what to do.

JOHNSON: Well, that's the way that I've been feeling for six months.

RUSSELL: It appears our position is deteriorating. And it looks like the more we try to do for them, the less that they're willing to do for themselves [...] It's a hell, a hell of a situation. It's a mess. And it's going to get worse. And I don't know what to do. I don't think that the American people are quite ready for us to send our troops in there to do the fighting. And if it came down to an option of just sending the Americans in there to do the fighting, which will, of course, eventually lead into a ground war and a conventional war with China [...] If it got down to that or just pulling out, I'd get out. But then I don't know. There's undoubtedly some middle ground somewhere [...]

JOHNSON: How important is it to us?

RUSSELL: It isn't important a damn bit, with all these new missile systems.

JOHNSON: Well, I guess it's important to us-

RUSSELL: From a psychological standpoint.

JOHNSON: I mean, yes, and from the standpoint that we are party to a treaty. And if we don't pay any attention to this treaty, why, I don't guess they think we pay attention to any of them.

RUSSELL: Yeah, but we're the only ones paying any attention to it.

JOHNSON: Yeah, I think that's right [...] I don't think the people of the country know much about Vietnam and I think they care a hell of a lot less.

RUSSELL: I know, but you go send a whole lot of our boys out there-

JOHNSON: Yeah, that's right. That's exactly right. That's what I'm talking about. You get a few. We had 35 killed-and we got enough hell over 35-this year [...] The Republicans are going to make a political issue out of it, every one of them, even Dirksen.

RUSSELL: It's the only issue they got [...] It's a tragic situation. It's just one of those places where you can't win. Anything you do is wrong [...]

JOHNSON: Now, the whole question, as I see it, do we, is it more dangerous for us to let things go as they're going now, deteriorating every day-

RUSSELL: I don't think we can let it go, Mr. President, indefinitely.

JOHNSON: Then it would be for us to move in?

RUSSELL: We either got to move in or move out. I -

JOHNSON: That's about what it is.

RUSSELL: You can make a tremendous case for moving out [...]

JOHNSON: Well, they'd impeach a President though that would run out, wouldn't they? I just don't believe that-outside Morse, everybody I talk to says you got to go in, including Hickenlooper, including all the Republicans none of them disagreed with him yesterday when he made the statement "we have to stand." And I don't know how in the hell you're gonna get out unless they tell you to get out.

RUSSELL: If we had a man running the government over there that told us to get out, we could sure-get out.

JOHNSON: That's right, but you can't do that …

RUSSELL: Of course you'd look pretty good, I guess, going in there with all the troops and sending them all in there, but I tell you it'll be the most expensive venture this country ever went into.

JOHNSON: I just haven't got the nerve to do it, and I don't see any other way out of it.

RUSSELL: It's one of these things where "heads I win, tails you lose."

JOHNSON: Well, think about it and I'll talk to you again. I hate to bother you, but I just-

RUSSELL: I wish I could help you. God knows I do 'cause it's a, it's a terrific quandary that we're in over there. We're just in the quicksand up to our very necks. And I just don't know what the hell is the best way to do about it.