Talk:Zbigniew Brzezinski/Archive 1

Work for Obama
Please stop editing this article to read that he is Obama's national security advisor -- he is not by any means.

"I do not share his views with respect to Israel. I have said so clearly and unequivocally," Obama said. "He's not one of my key advisers. I've had lunch with him once. I've exchanged e-mails with him maybe three times. He came to Iowa to introduce ... for a speech on Iraq."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/02/sweet_column_before_jewish_gro.html

--38.106.173.82 (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Zbigniew Brzezinski is Senator Obama's foreign policy adviser. Here are the lists of Obama's foreign policy advisers in: Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/40772 Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/documents/the-war-over-the-wonks.html

This wikipedia article fails to mention that Brzezinski is Obama's foreign policy adviser. Why is this information missing from the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.251.88 (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Shah of Iran
In 1979 when Zbigniew Brzezinski was National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, why did he depose the Shah of Iran(1), and install a radical Islamic regime that rules Iran today?

(1)Ernst Schroeder, "What Really Happened to the Shah of Iran," www.informationliberation.com/?id=7883 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andelocks (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So, Khomeini was a British agent. Who'd have thought? You know, sometimes there's a reason why you're not supposed to know 'The news you're not supposed to know...'. You can contact Brzezinski at Johns Hopkins University.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I object to the phrase "The shah was pro-american and thus domestically oppressive". It does not necessarily follow in aligning a country's interests with those of the United States that domestic oppression will result. That the Shah was a tyrant is true; that his regime was tyrannical was not a direct result of his pro-American sympathies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.242.223 (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Mental disease: fighting for Ahmadinejad
This guy has lost his mind. Could someone please write a section about his psychiatric disorder?

Brzezinski said that after the currently planned Israeli attack against Iranian nuclear research and military targets, the U.S. should shoot down the Israeli aircraft(s) i.e. to join the war on the Ahmadinejad's side. I kid you not. --Lumidek (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are those who think advocates of bombing Iran also are insane. Either way, making such Soapbox/POV statements just makes others question the NPOV of the editor. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is biased
Carters presidency is generally seen as a big failure in foreign affairs. Yet in this article this guy is only associated with positive stuff. This motherfucker tries to make himself look good on Wikipedia.

I totally agree. Wikipedia is going downhill, big time! Just like the Dow! Zbigniew page has no criticism what so ever? How about his constant ravings about population reduction? The man is a god damn war criminal! His policies always push people on the edge of starvation off. The man is one of the highest of the elite. ahhhhh I'm ranting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.182.36.161 (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell me his support for Pol Pot went completely without notable criticism? I mean COME ON. That kinda jumps out at people. Commissarusa (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Too much unsourced info
I cleaned up a few obvious problems but this article is filled with unsourced info, per tag I put on it. Any of that can be removed, especially if it is in the least big controversial. Hopefully I'll back soon to the nuclear/arms control sections which need some work and are important.

Also the academic section (which needs to be shortened as wp:undue, someone's POV) and public life sections could be integrated into the early bio sections - even though most of its pretty much unsourced. But FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, why no mention of his ties to Obama's campaign?
From a mediamatters.org article,

[Mika] Brzezinski has previously informed viewers that her brother Ian works for the McCain campaign and that her father, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, and another brother, Mark, advise Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (IL). On the January 3 edition of Morning Joe, after co-host Joe Scarborough said, "And by the way, your dad involved, once again, very much so, in the Obama campaign," Brzezinski responded, "And my other brother an adviser to McCain. I feel like I need to say that."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802070004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.133.153.3 (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Diacritical Mark on the 'N'
I've removed the diacritical mark. It may be the correct Polish spelling, but it is not used in English-speaking countries. The overwhelmingly predominant usage, in the United States especially, throughout Dr. Brzezinski's career has been without the diacritical. As far as I can tell, from Dr. Brzezinski's op-eds and TV appearances and books, he does not use the diacritical either. I've not gotten ahold of any of his books in their Polish translations, but it is possible that they use the diacritical&mdash;I'm not sure. In any case, I'm inclined to keep his name plain on the english version of the wikipedia entry for Brzezinski. &mdash;thames 04:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, the name is witten with the diacritical mark in Polish. I know he's better known internationally as Brzezinski but perhaps it should be written somewhere in the article that back in Poland he's known as Brzeziński? (Compare Nicolas Copernicus and Mikołaj Kopernik.) --Kpalion 10:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps then you'd like to add to the intro blurb a small bit on proper pronunciation and the Polish spelling, distinguishing between the proper Polish and the American spelling/pronunciation which is used commonly (Zbig-new Bruh-zhin-ski vs zbeeg-niev brzheh-zeeń-ski). &mdash;thames 13:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I added Polish spelling and pronunciation. I'm not sure about what pronunciation is most common in English so I'll leave it to someone else. --Kpalion 15:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Unless ZB had his name legally changed, I think we should refer to him as Brzeziński. Appleseed 15:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * His legal name in the United States, when he got his citizenship in 1958, is Brzezinski, with no diacritical mark. Every government document available to the public bearing his name spells it without the diacritical.  In all of his published op-eds and articles in newspapers, magazines, and journals he uses his name without the diacritical.  This article will not use the diacritical&mdash;it would be patently absurd to do otherwise.   &mdash;thames 16:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Does the American administration accept diacrites in personal names at all? Halibutt 09:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * People can have whatever diacritics they like in their names. It's a free country.  Just go to Amazon and look at his book covers.  Not a single one uses the diacritic, even ones published recently when putting diacritics on letters was made easier by computers.  He just doesn't use it.   &mdash;thames 13:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Did you check it or is it just your assumption? I'm asking because, frankly, I never-ever saw any American name written with any diacritics. It seems that perhaps the American administration simply does not support it. In that case all name changes might in fact be done by the authorities and not by the people themselves. Halibutt 18:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, there is no official government policy on diacritics. I wouldn't even know where to look for for such a policy.  There is, however, no policy on the official language of the United States, and as such, it is unlikely that there are any restrictions on writing one's name with the appropriate alphabet characters.  In any case, the point is moot since Brzezinski does not ever use a diacritical.  Here is an image of a letter he wrote on his official stationary:.  Note that there is no diacritic either in his typed or signed name.  Here is an image of his latest book (pub. 2003) in its Czech translation (Czech uses diacritical marks):.  Note the diacritical marks used in the title, but not on Brzezinski's name.  Again, the cover of the French translation:  -- no diacritics.  The Turkish cover:  -- no diacritics.  Compare his page  on the CSIS website to Fred Ikle's page  on the CSIS website: Ikle's page uses accents, Brzezinski's doesn't.  If the man used diacritics on his name, don't you think there might be one example of him using it that way?  None of his articles, none of his books, nothing uses the diacritic marks.  Only the Polish use the spelling Brzeziński, simply because that's how the name is traditionally spelled there--but it is _not_ how he spells his name.  &mdash;thames 20:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry to disappoint you after you spent so much time researching the matter, but I believed in your version from the beginning :) . I was simply curious as to what is the legal status of diacrites in the US of A.
 * So, is there no official language in the US? Do citizens of the US have a right to request that the local administration contacted them in their native languages? And is the US obliged by any international conventions to obey non-English diacritics in names of its citizens? I'm asking because there is a huge problem, for instance, with Polish diacrites in most of European states, and especially in the UK (which does not permit them at all) and in Lithuania (which officially does permit the local Poles to bear Polish names yet does not put them properly in the documents). Halibutt 00:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hopefully this will lay the issue to rest, with prejudice. I think the answer to your question about official languages in the U.S. may be answered here: Languages_in_the_United_States (apparently while there's no federal language policy, individual states can set their own official languages).  Strange about the EU&mdash;I was under the impression that every member's language was an "official language" according to the acquis communitaire.  Perhaps it's a problem in implementation of the acquis.  All the best.   &mdash;thames 02:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Infoboxes
There is no Wikipedia article policy to put small infoboxes to the right of text that say "For more information on...see..." This is rather distracting and defeats the purpose of wikilinking in the main text.

I think that the infoboxes should be removed.--Mcattell 22:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotations
The list of quotations has grown excessively long. We should make sure they are all in Wikiquotes and then remove all of them or perhaps leave a few of the most famous/important. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Political endorsements
What is the Wikipedia policy on reporting political endorsements? I ask this because I know that articles for prominent figures that have endorsed candidates do have those endorsements, such as [Madeleine Albright]'s article:


 * She has endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) for the President of the United States and supports her campaign for the White House. Albright has been a close personal friend of Sen. Clinton and serves as her top informal advisor on foreign policy matters.

However, I noticed that this section was removed from this article:


 * Brzezinski announced on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt" that he was supporting Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois for president. (see).

It was removed by Milkbreath with the following rationale: "removed political ad from "Public life"--not on a par with other items"

What I'm wondering is how the content from Albright's article passes but the content from Brzezinski doesn't. Both of them have clearly endorsed their respective candidates. I don't see how including that information constitutes a political ad unless it is in the form that one apparent Obama supporter originally added near the front of the article:


 * On Aug 24th, 2007, Brzezinski threw his support behind Barack Obama's presidential candidacy, saying the Illinois senator has a better global grasp than his chief rival, Hillary Clinton.


 * Obama ``recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America's role in the world, Brzezinski said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt.


 * ``Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand, he said. ``He has a sense of what is historically relevant, and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world.


 * Brzezinski, 79, dismissed the notion that Clinton, 59, a New York senator and the wife of former President Bill Clinton, is more seasoned than Obama, 46. ``Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president,'' Brzezinski said.


 * Clinton's foreign-policy approach is ``very conventional, Brzezinski said. ``I don't think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago.


 * ``There is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs, he added. ``And Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to change the nature of America's relationship with the world.

Obviously, Milkbreath was correct to remove this, because it is a political ad, but it is not clear that the section removed from Public life was. I think that it would be good to discuss this. Alethiareg 00:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's Milkbreath. The first undo had been put in by an unlogged-in user and was, as you say, an obvious transgression. The second, similar, more subtle one came later that same day and was put in by a certain Deuscapturus. I looked at his user pages, and this was the only edit he had ever made. I decided that it was the same person trying to slip a political endorsement past us, so I whacked it, too. I stand by that, and I'll do it again if anybody tries that again. I have no idea about the Albright thing, but I'll go look at it now, and I might remove it, too.


 * I'm surprised that the brief explanation accompanying the undo was insufficient. Here is the section as it stands:


 * "Public life
 * Brzezinski is a past member of the board of directors of Amnesty International, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Atlantic Council, and the National Endowment for Democracy.


 * He was formerly a director of the Trilateral Commission (see[1]), now serving only on the executive committee, and was formerly a boardmember of Freedom House.


 * He is currently a trustee and counselor for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a board member for the American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus (see [2]), on the advisory board of America Abroad Media (see [3]), and on the advisory board of Partnership for a Secure America (see[4])."


 * And here is what Deuscapturus put in:


 * "Brzezinski announced on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt" that he was supporting Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois for president. (see[5])."


 * This factiod was incongruous with the others, at the very least. Start a new section called "Brzenzinski's endorsements of Democratic candidates for the upcoming presidential conventions and elections", and put that single item in there. See if that flies. --Milkbreath 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Me, again. I got to wondering whether there was a Wikipedia policy on political boosterism as such, and the closest thing to that I could find was "What Wikipedia is not." It is not a soapbox, evidently:
 * "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia content is not:


 * Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1]
 * Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete."


 * It seems I followed this policy without knowing it. The pertinent part is "put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective." As for the entry on the Albright page, I left it there after reading it in situ because the writer ties Albright's endorsement to her ongoing involvement with Clinton the distaff. This does put it in a reasonable perspective. I don't like it much, and I still think it is the work of a Clinton campaigner, but I must assume good faith like the good Wikipedian I try ever so hard to be. --Milkbreath 13:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Is it possible to update his picture? He's alive and the last time I saw him on T.V., he actually looked better than in this High School yearbook depiction. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * AFAIK that's his White House picture. If you can find a free image please do add it.&mdash;Perceval 01:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy on Afghanistan
It suggests in the Afghanistan section that Brzezinski and Carter supported the Mujahedeen in reaction to the Soviet incursion. This is not true, and in soviet war in afghanistan article, it states this. The US support for the Mujahedeen began on July 3, 1978. There is a quote from Brzezinski regarding this fact. The relevant text from the article is as follows:


 * Like many other anti-communist movements at that time, the rebels quickly garnered support from the United States. As stated by the former director of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs From the Shadows, the American intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1978, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime.

Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting U.S. policy, which, unbeknownst even to the mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled:

We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap...The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War.[18]''

There is a problem, however, as the source #18 does not seem to work. Either the server is busted, or the page is restricted. Can we find some more sources to back this up for the improvement of both articles? I'm gonna keep my eye out for more evidence. Thanks.72.78.23.18 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This was in Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
 * The url for a translation to English is http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
 * cooperative research has quite a bit including this on Zbigniew Brzezinski

Wmb1957 (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

More on his work for Obama?
The section on him being a foreign policy advisor for Obama is very slim, has he announced in any proper way what positions he will be pushing? I have read that his position is that Iraq is a failure and unnecessary, and he wants to push more into Afghanistan again, and to take some action in Pakistan, as it is the autonomous mountain regions joining them where it is believed that much of the terror is originating from. I have not seen him make these statements himself though, at least not in a manner where it can be linked that this will be the policy he will take if Obama makes it into office. Zbigniewwho (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

NM

Farfalina (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Farfalina

GIZ-BEEG-NYEF ??
Zbigniew appearing on the March 14 edition of the daily show w/ Jon Stewart pronounces his own name to correct Jon and it sounds like GIZ-BEEG-NYEF. A way that I've never heard it pronounced and which contradicts the pronunciation on this page (I think). --Deglr6328 06:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Polish pronunciation would be Z-big-nyef b-zhe-zhi-nye-ski. Without the diacritical mark on the N in his last name it changes to b-zhe-zhin-ski. This is fine, and would only appear to sound odd to a Pole. --Anonymous 19:02, 15 November 2008 (PST)

Come on, ń is not pronounced "nye". It's a palatalized version of "n", similar to the "n" in the English word "new". As for the rest - it's correct (as far as possible for an English speaker). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.41.190 (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There are Russian claims suggesting that Brzezinski is a Russophobe
And these are serious enough to warrant their inclusion under a section called criticism. This article also lacks some rather disturbing facts on the former secretary of state -- including his involvement in the "Peace in the Caucasus" organization that attempts to shift the blame from the actual perpetrators of events like Beslan to the Russian government. Zbig also opposes congressional recognition of the Armenian genocide -- rendering any "neutrality" he may bring to the Caucasus lacking in credibility. The lack of a criticism section in this piece makes it less useful than it could be. Jackkalpakian 00:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)--Jackkalpakian 00:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the leading Russophobe and Revanchist figure of the 21st century gets no mention in this article at all. His idea of seperating russia into four areas and causing political instability with countries on her borders is well known, "The Brezinski Plan" Abraxas72 (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Nojeh Coup
Moving this hidden text here and note info on more references. In case someone wants to explore this more, with hopefully shorter text:
 * Failed Nojeh Coup In July 1980, Brzezinski met Jordan's King Hussein in Amman to discuss detailed plans for Saddam Hussein to sponsor a coup in Iran against Khomeini. King Hussein was Saddam's closest confidant in the Arab world, and served as an intermediary during the planning.  The Iraqi invasion of Iran would be launched under the pretext of a call for aid from Iranian loyalist officers plotting their own uprising on July 9, 1980, (codenamed Nojeh after Shahrokhi/Nojeh air base in Hamedan).  The Iranian officers were organized by Shapour Bakhtiar, who had fled to France when Khomeini seized power, but was operating from Baghdad and Sulimaniyah at the time of Brzezinski's meeting with Hussein.  However, Khomeini learned of the Nojeh Coup plan from Soviet agents in France and Latin America.  Shortly after Brzezinski's meeting with Hussein, the President of Iran, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr quietly rounded up 600 of the loyalist plotters within Iran, putting an effective end to the Nojeh Coup. REF:Nojeh Nevis, The Iranian, Anatomy of a coup, July 23, 2004. Retrieved 1/1/2007. Saddam decided to invade without the Iranian officers' assistance, beginning the Iran-Iraq war on 22 September 1980.'' Note attached: **Source not reliable**

Only WP:RS I found were these two refs to a 1996 article from Washington Post whose content not entirely clear. And this footnote which alleges what that content was and alleged Jack Anderson wrote about this here but I couldn't find anything in the books.google version. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cambodia
This entire section has to be removed as libelous. The source cited is John Pilger, who had to pay “very substantial” libel damages for making the claim. See: The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to that article. But I do have access to a newspaper headline from the same day: "Pilger pays for SAS libel". What does the SAS have to do with Cambodia and Brzezinski? One of the cited articles, "The Long Secret Alliance: Uncle Sam and Pol Pot", is dated 1997, six years after the libel case. Brzezinski's letter to the NYT doesn't mention any libel case. Could you be confusing two different cases?   Will Beback    talk    21:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I found out the 1991 libel case concerned an allegation that two members of the SAS had helped the Khmer Rouge. I don't see how that concerns Brzezinski. Pilger may have lost a libel trial or two (the law in the UK is very strict), but he's also won awards. I don't think we can discount him as an unreliable source since he is still employed as a journalist and his articles are published in mainstream outlets.    Will Beback    talk    21:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Pilger's "How Thatcher Gave Pol Pot a Hand" was the source cited in this article to "prove" that the US and UK financed the Khmer Rouge from 1979 on to counter the influence of Vietnam. Pilger is forced to pay libel damages for a simple reason: he's dishonest. TheTimesAreAChanging —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC).
 * The libel case involved a filmed documentary, didn't it? We aren't using that as a source. Has anyone questioned the accuracy of "How Thatcher Gave Pol Pot a Hand"?   Will Beback    talk    00:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like I was right. As Cambodia specialist Nate Thayer wrote, there is "no credible evidence" that the US gave "any material aid whatsoever to the Khmer Rouge."  The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988, details the extensive fighting between the non-Communist forces of Son Sann and Prine Sihanouk with the Khmer Rouge.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Pilger, John, Cambodia: Year One (television programme) currently available online, 1980; follows Western Aid, including American aid, by truck to a Khmer Rouge controlled camp and shows the aid being comandeered. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Editors may need to be reminded that in the United Kingdom truth is not a defense against libel. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is certainly nothing in the film that justifies accusing Brzezinski, Carter, Thatcher or Reagan of direct, personal involvement in a conspiracy to aid the Khmer Rouge. All it has is an image of an aid worker giving food to people who Pilger refers to as Khmer Rouge, Pilger's accusation that Thailand supported them, and an interview with a Khmer Rouge official who mentions support from "the ASEAN countries."  The evidence that Brzezinski played a role in this cannot and did not hold up in court.75.63.53.166 (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ISNOT a court. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Public life-Amnesty International
Amnesty International[citation needed]>>http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about/board/zbigniew-brzezinski.aspx from:crisis group

This response is insufficient. No mention, for example, when? Is there any AI official document where him appears? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.52.193.162 (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Manichaean Paranoia
RE quote from main article:
 * "[President George W. Bush] has a vision which can be described with two other words: Manichaean paranoia ... the notion that he is leading the forces of good against the empire of evil, that in that setting, the fact that we are morally superior justifies us committing immoral acts. And that is a very dangerous posture for the country that is the number one global power. ... The fact is he squandered our credibility, our legitimacy, and even respect for our power." The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, March 14, 2007.

Use of this term betrays Brzezinski's misunderstanding of the situation. Our fear is not an unreasoning fear (paranoia) or Manichaean (the idea that one's moral superiority justifies one in committing immoral acts). Since when is proactive self defense against a potential nuclear holocaust or nuclear blackmail immoral? Perhaps we could say that we are less morally inferior.

Europeans have already lost their right to free speech and in particular, political free speech when they cannot criticize Islamists in print or cartoon without fear of terrorist reprisal. They may find they have lost their right to self defense as well, when the time for that arrives. Tobyw 12:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of Europe never had a right to free speech anyway, I think the French might have that with their constitution after revolution, but I don't think many others do. Zbigniewwho (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does Manichaean paranoia redirect here if it isn't mentioned in the article? TobyLoobenfeld (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Manichaean paranoia used to have an article of it's own, but some people didn't like the concept and wanted to make sure that it wouldn't become notable, so it ended up being deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FManichaean_paranoia_(2nd_nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.174.214 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

B-class review
Failed for WPPOLAND: needs many more inline cites. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Brzezinski's daughter's comment
To those editors adding Brzezinski's daughter's comment to the article: Please read WP:BLP. "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." and "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives..." A comedy/satire show airing a ten second clip with no context and off the cuff remarks not even mentioning the father specifically is not a high-quality source. -- Neil N  talk to me  21:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Re-protect?
Since this page's protection expired, anonymous editors have once again started adding the quote from the Daily Show about Brzezinski beating his daughter with a hairbrush. Maybe the page should be protected again for another week or so. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly, don't mind the article itself being protected; however, I would like to set the record straight. I don't think that this talk page should be protected.  Back when I lost my password, I was Special:Contributions/108.206.84.45.  I originally posted a reference to the Daily Show asking if it was appropriate or inappropriate to add this.  I did so in hopes to head off the situation before it became a problem.  However, my question was immediately redacted and I was threatened on my IP's talk page.  I have since gotten webmaster's help in recovering my account and have not touched this talk page or article in hopes to try to defuse the situation.  However, it seems like I was not the only person or at least only IP that posted questions about the "hairbrush" comment.  So while I think the protection to the article is a good move, I consider it equally damning Vandalism to redact people's questions on talk pages as editing the article with the "hairbrush" comment itself. Please note that NeilN in the section below has done a good job of answering the questions I originally had about the Daily show reference.  I just want to see you actually talking to people before using such a heavy handed approach to protecting talk pages of articles again. Physics16 (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Chessboard original
I found an earlier ISBN: ISBN 0465027253. The one given in this page should be for some 1998 reprint. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Name pronunciation
How does one pronounce his first name?

Oddly enough, you pronounce it the way it's spelled. "Zbig" is like "spig", but you vocalize it. "Niew" rhymes with "pew". Accent is on the "Zbig". The last name is kinda like "burr-zizz-inski", but the "burr" is very short. Accent on the "in". – Quadell (talk) (help)  14:57, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * If you want to be even more correct in the pronunciation of his first name, make the "w" at the end sound a bit (but not entirely) like a "v", but that's only if you want to impress Polish speakers --thames 03:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The Polish pronunciation is more or less: ZBEEG-nyev bzheh-ZHEEN-ski. I guess Americans may pronounce it as they wish. -- Kpalion 18:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The guy was on John Stewart last night, and pronounced his own name ZBIGNIEF. 74.15.2.138 02:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone make an OGG-clip and a IPA transliteration so that one can get a hint on how his name is pronounced? --Shandristhe azylean 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. The description of how his name is pronounced is in another language again, not exactly helpful. Make it simple please, I want to say his name, but I don't want to learn another language to do it. Plus why just translate his last name? As if the first name is easy. Moomot 18:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interview where he pronounces his first name himself: http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/03/brzezinski_on_the_daily_show/

Jon Stewart jokingly says that "You know where I screwed it up? The 'w' should be an 'f'! They spelled it wrong on your book!" And Brzezinski replies "that's right." To me it sounds something like "ZBIGnyef". One could get into a phonological argument over whether the final sound should be transliterated as "f" or "v", but I think for the English-speaking reader an "f" is more effective.

As for his last name, I get the impression that "berZINskee" is pretty close. I'll leave the IPA in place and add an approximation as well. babbage 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's Zbigniev Bzhezhinski, not with an 'f'. Polish 'w' is English 'v', and Polish 'rz' makes English 'zh' (like French 'J' such as French name Jean is pronounced 'Zhon'), and Polish 'zi' makes English 'zhi'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.178.2.151 (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Polish ‹w› transcribes as [v] when voiced. When ‹w› appears in an environment where it is devoiced, such as the case where it is word-final or followed by unvoiced obstruents, ‹w› is transcribed [f]. – RVJ (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Edited - I went ahead and added the Anglicized pronunciation. I also made the Polish consistently allophonic. To have the consonant-final /v/ devoiced to [f], but leaving consonant-final /ʐ/ unaltered is just irresponsible. If you feel there are any inaccuracies, feel free to alter them. -Devin Ronis (d.s.ronis) (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

People - it ain't that hard - Zbig-nyef bzheh-zheen-skee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.89.193 (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

His opinions and reality
This man is without doubt a very good academic and much more but it is too unsed in Wikipedia english as reliable source.World of academics is really wide.He can be easily criticized in many points.151.40.119.193 (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed you are correct, however, do remember that Brzezinski's views are rather mainstream amoung political scientists. While the sources you are disputing over at Middle Power fall more into the category of being a 'fringe theory' - something we have a policy against here on Wikipedia (unless due weight is clearly given).Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Zbigniew Brzezinski openly and unashamedly admitted that he told China and Thailand to support Khmer Rouge because it was anti-Soviet
Zbigniew Brzezinski openly and unashamedly admitted that he told China and Thailand to support Khmer Rouge because it was anti-Soviet

http://books.google.com/books?id=7i0jGxysUUcC&pg=PA194#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't. Just one of several made-up quotations conspiracy theorists have invented to libel Brzezinski.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * A historian on the Khmer Rouge, published by Yale University Press vs Brzezinski's own denial to save face? Another historian published by univesity of pennsylvania press thinks so too. And btw, the quotation makes clear that the United States knew that it was bad publicity to aid Pol Pot in any direct manner. Whether it is true or not is actually immaterial, its whether historians like Kiernan and Andreopoulos believe it is true and published it in a WP:RS which matters. If this is added to the article with the preceding statement that "historian Ben Kiernan believes that Brzenski's statement is true.... plus the added statement that "Brzenski denied it..... that is how the assertion and counter claim were shown in this book- the alleged quote plus an added statement that Brzezinski denied it. You don't know if it was made up or not, it was Washington Post journalist Elizabeth Becker who attributed the statement to him, not a random conspiracy theorist.

[http://books.google.com/books?id=KoaKt8a_7ngC&pg=PR29&dq=Brzezinski+pol+pot+abomination&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Tc7CU4zjIKnfsASxjILICQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Brzezinski%20pol%20pot%20abomination&f=false In 1979, national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski continued Kissinger's earlier policy. As he later revealed, 'I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could'.]

Rajmaan (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The statement is from Becker's recorded interview with Brzezinski. Brzezinski does not dispute Becker's quotation in the link provided. The skepticism is unwarranted, and in the case of user TTC, simply reflects political biases.Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * On April 17, 1998 Elizabeth Becker published an article in The New York Times in which she made the following accusation:
 * "To insure that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge would fight the Vietnamese occupiers, the Carter Administration helped arrange continued Chinese aid."


 * As evidence, Becker cited former Carter administration official Zbigniew Brzezinski:
 * "I encourage the Chinese to support Pol Pot," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser at the time. "The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could."


 * Furious over Becker's article, Brzezinski sent a letter to the NYT on April 22, 1998. As he was supposedly Becker's source, the Times opted to publish his rebuttal. In his reply to Becker, Brzezinski stated:
 * "An April 17 article asserts flatly—as if it was a fact—that the Carter Administration "helped arrange continued Chinese aid" to Pol Pot. The Chinese were aiding Pol Pot, but without any help or arrangement from the United States. Moreover, we told the Chinese explicitly that in our view Pol Pot was an abomination and that the United States would have nothing to do with him—directly or indirectly."


 * To pretend that Brzezinski does not contradict Becker is, simply, to indulge in wishful thinking. Since no-one, including Becker, has claimed the alleged private conversation was recorded, that particular embellishment is wishful thinking as well. Believing that powerful former officials in the "New World Order" support your conspiracy theories would doubtless be a source of great comfort and vindication for those of your ilk. Alas, the reality is different.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Becker DOES claim the interview was recorded, though this is not stated in the footnote. Do you even know how interviews work? They are almost always taped, unless they are explicitly off the record. Nobody they are not simple convestations that you later "recollect". Your larger problem, TTC, is that you claim a commonly known and cited fact to be a "hoax" before doing any serious research whatsoever. Such facts are accepted as such FOR A REASON: they are well-supported and difficult to disprove. Not surprisingly, all of your factual points boil down to simple ignorance and misunderstanding. (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC) (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no shit, of course that is how interviews are generally conducted, and of course that's why you assume this one was! Hence why I find it so ridiculous, laughable, and absurd that you made this commonplace assumption the entire basis for your argument that Brzezinski's denial doesn't change anything. (Indeed, you act like I'm crazy for even bringing it up!) Think back to the sheer presumptuousness of your first comment: The alleged quote was from a "recorded interview with Elizabeth Becker." A "recorded interview"? Is this some sort of special category of interview? Is there any other kind? Where did you learn to write—don't you try to avoid unnecessary or redundant words? Golly gee, I guess this is the first time in history that an interview has been recorded, so Becker's "claim" to that effect makes her journalism uniquely unimpeachable and immune to all criticism; there is no longer any need to cross-check her claims with other journalists or scholars, or even the primary sources (e.g. Brzezinski) themselves! No-one has ever been misquoted and journalists have never made errors or false statements, since they record interviews; certainly not Becker, whose word we must take as gospel truth (even when she is putting words in the mouth of another). I yield before the overpowering majesty of your brilliant logic!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Now, do I believe you are really this dumb? Certainly not. I think you are trying to deceive others by implying that Becker refuted Brzezinski's complaint by reproducing the tape, and that the existence of this tape is why Becker's publisher never forced her to retract the quote in later editions of her book—something you could not possibly know, and were simply making up, along with your assertion that Becker explicitly claimed to possess a recording in her book, which would indeed be rather odd. Of course, knowing how silly this was, you edited one of your previous comments on this matter into essentially its opposite, as you are prone to do when your edits are needlessly inflammatory or contain errors in need of retraction.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * TTC asserts, as ususal without evidence: "no-one, including Becker, has claimed the alleged private conversation was recorded". I respond directly and factually to TTC's claim: "Becker DOES claim the interview was recorded" (I happen to know - for a fact - that she has made such a claim; you can verify it with her). To which TTC replies with yet another fact-free (and very imaginative) rant as if nothing has hapenened. I've seen this same cycle get repeated over and over again. Much of what TTC says is "not even wrong"; the remainder is largely wrong. He has yet to explain why Zbig has not said "Becker's quotation is fake" or had his lawyers call her publisher (que another rant). But he has succeeded in proving that I have re-edited some of my posts. That righ there is some well-done research. Topic for a senior thesis perhaps?Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Zbigniew Brzezinski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130512231230/http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue1/mrubin.pdf to http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue1/mrubin.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111020084120/http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/10/27/we_arm_the_world.php to http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/10/27/we_arm_the_world.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Polish-American
From the article Polish-American: "Polish Americans are Americans who are of total or partial Polish descent.". I know we can't use Wikipedia as a source for itself, but it's not like this is some great controversy or something ffs.  Volunteer Marek  02:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And I added a source.  Volunteer Marek  03:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's controversial that he's of Polish descent. I think this might be about MOS:BLPLEAD, which states that "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". While I typically remove gratuitous mentions of ethnicity in lead paragraphs, in this case I do think that Brzezinski's ethnicity is relevant to his notability, so I don't see a problem in letting it stand. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much agree with that.  Volunteer Marek   03:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

He's obviously American. I think putting Polish-American seems too redundant. His political career is mostly established in the US and he's recognized as an "American" politician. Therefore he should simply be stated as American. his political career is mostly established in the US and he is recognized as an "American" politician and both had a great impact on US politics and is considered important figures in American history, like Kissinger. Other examples include Henry Kissinger, Mila Kunis, Alexander Hamilton, Bruce Willis (German-Born, half American/half German. Thus more reason to state him as German-American but he's simply regarded as American because he established himself in America). Think of this, Boris Johnson and Vico C both were born here in America, yet they both are nationally recognized with the countries they established themselves, Johnson as British and Vico C as Puerto Rican (Puerto Rico is a US territory but independent, but you get what I'm saying, right?). And besides, the only thing he has to do with Poland is his origins and else but lets not mix ones origins with their current status. (N0n3up (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC))


 * The discussion is right above. Please respond there. Of course he's American. That's what the word "American" in the phrase "Polish-American" means. And no, "Polish-American" is not redundant with "American". "American" would be redundant with "American". But here we have "Polish-American", which has two words, as opposed to "American" which has only one word. Two words is more than one word so one of those words, and hence the whole phrase, is not redundant. Also, consensus is clearly against you, for obvious reasons, and you are edit warring.  Volunteer Marek   00:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Volunteer Marek, User:Orange Suede Sofa. His ethnic background don't really have much so say to his notability since he, along with Brent Scowcroft and Henry Kissinger(German-born, American national, considered simply as American) who are known as one of the most important guys in US foreign policy are known for their contributions in US politics. Brzezinski might be connected to his Polish roots such as family origins and visits (you can actually see him greet John Paul II in his Twitter account saying "never Poles apart"), but that's on a personal level, something he didn't really emphasize in his career as a US politician. I apologize for reverting you without writing to you, although not edit-warring since I didn't exceed the Three-Revert Rule. And consensus is probably against me probably because the editors who reverted my edits are Polish (nationalistic motivated edits), but that's okay because you bring a good point to your argument, which I appreciate. But this is a separation from personal and public/career life. Henry Kissinger himself is a fan of his German birthplace's team SpVgg Greuther Fürth, but he is known for his role as a US politician, again separating public from private life. Hope you read this and tell me your opinion, Thanks. (N0n3up (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC))
 * I'd appreciate it if you refrained from impugning motives to my actions ("motivated by nationalism"). Discuss content not editors. Needless to say, I disagree with you, and so do most of the sources, which do describe him as "Polish-American". And he has played a very important role in US foreign policy with respect to Eastern Europe.
 * Also think of it this way - what benefits not us, but our readers? Suppose someone reads something about or by Brzezinski somewhere in a newspaper or on the internet. They decide to find out more about the guy so they come to the Wikipedia page. One thing they're very likely to wonder is "what's up with his crazy name?". Having article say that he's Polish-American right there in the lede will give'em that information immediately - "oh, it's a Polish name!". So inclusion is encyclopedic here.  Volunteer Marek   05:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Volunteer Marek, Sounds good to me. Btw when I mentioned the possible motives of the nature of the edit by the editor, I tried to put a possibility since I see many edits being patriotically motivated. I see now that you mean good intentions and apologize for any inconvenience. Regards. (N0n3up (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC))

external link?
Would an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski from 1986 be useful here as an external link? Focus of conversation is nuclear weapons policy. http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_5C735628FA2741B4AEA4B2C6FFF8E068 and http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_451AE9D3181A407C800F3ADF76F567FD (I helped with the site, so it would be conflict of interest for me to just add it.) Mccallucc (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Zbigniew Brzezinski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/media/article.php?article=3850
 * Added tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n32_v11/ai_17210365/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000829032721/http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-17/brzezinski1.html to http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-17/brzezinski1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012151415/http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/ungomap/background.html to http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/ungomap/background.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

ITN nomination
Currently, the only thing standing in the way of this article going under "Recent deaths" in Template:ITN are the many orange tags(1 unsourced section tag and 3 expand section tags) and [citation needed] tags ("Find..." in my Chrome browser counts 16 of them.). The majority of the problems are in the National Security Advisor section.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 06:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Neither Mondale nor Brzezinski is in Photo Despite Caption
Under the section "National Security Advisor," in the black-and-white photo with the caption "Walter Mondale, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Cyrus Vance and Jimmy Carter during an Oval Office meeting, 1977" I do not think either Mondale nor Brzezinski is present. Can anyone take a look and verify this? 67.220.19.59 (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Adam T.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zbigniew Brzezinski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304022857/http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04252012-175722/unrestricted/WHITE_THESIS.pdf to http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04252012-175722/unrestricted/WHITE_THESIS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible article to use as a reference
This was sent via email as a possible source to expand the article: I make no claims as the reliability or veracity of the article. I'm simply passing it along. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Brzezinski Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur (1998)

Mr Brzezinski's religion?
I remember, in an interview, Brzezinski talking about his Roman Catholicism. I can only find limited info re this online, most of it from unreliable sources. I suggest info may be important enough to merit being added. Daedalus 96 (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Explanation
How could his father Tadeusz Brzezinski help Jews escape from the Nazis if he and his the family left Europe in 1938? The war started in 1939. Must be explained.
 * According to the source: "While in Leipzig, Germany, before World War II, Brzezinski became involved in efforts to rescue European Jews from Nazi concentration camps.". But yeah this could be clarified.  Volunteer Marek   06:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Chronology and semi-overlapping sections in the article
There is a bit of overlapping chronology within the article with different subheadings. The subheader of "Government" under "Biography" is a partial overlap with "National Security Advisor". Meanwhile, "After power" in "Biography" is a partial overlap of "Later years".

However, the subheadings in "Major policies" are good, they should just also be in the "Government" section. Really the whole article is Brzezinski's biography so there doesn't need to be a biography section header. Merging this out would add to the flow of the article. Rauisuchian (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)