From: Bill Hahn
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 03:54 PM

"That said, I do think the NY Times article might well explain the real situation to you---Hezbollah wants to run Lebanon by destroying its own infrastructure. The Hariri assassination was the tip of that iceberg".

?? The Gospel according to the New York Times? Well, I suppose it's one viewpoint, but if you apply a little logic, you might wonder why Hezbollah would rather lord it over a country full of smashed bridges, destroyed infrastructure and so on, when there was a flourishing country rebuilt for 15 years after the civil war and last Israeli invasion, ripe for the picking. It reminds me a lot of the nonsense put about by British elements in the media when their soldiers and police burned Cork city to the ground (in Ireland) during the war for independence there in 1920. The next day, with the city a smouldering ruin, the British claimed the IRA and civilians burned the city down themselves to discredit the British and turn the people against them!(hardly a very convincing explanation when you think about it, after all they'd just be saving the British army a lot of work) The only problem was that there were a wealth of civilians who had seen what really happened, and the British army and police had carried out the destruction without even bothering to remove their uniforms. Now even if Hezbollah did want to run Lebanon in this manner, they would find it more profitable to simply turn their rockets against their own infrastructure (though admittedly their rockets are not as effective as US/IDF bombs and missiles) and take on the Lebanese army - a much weaker opponent than the Israeli forces.
And if the Israelis keep blaming Syria for sponsoring the Hezbollah (though the Israelis are of course, sponsored by the White House) why don't they just go in and attack Syria and be done with it? Maybe because they haven't yet received the 'nod' from the White House!


"Another thought is that we--the U S--should be talking with Iran and Syria. But we have a stubborn "I am never wrong and only talk with people that deserve my consideration" president. Look where that has gotten us"

I quite agree with you. But Bush, Rice etc., don't see any need to talk to Syria and Iran, because they think there is nothing to talk about. Iran, Iraq etc., happen to be sitting on the principal reserves of world oil, the White House wants it, and it doesn't matter what the people or governments of those countries in the way think. It's a bit like the Black Hills of long ago. Back in the middle of the 1800s the US government signed a number of treaties with the Sioux Indians and other tribes to guarantee them the Black Hills (sacred to the Indians but thought to be worthless by the US government at the time) 'for as long as the rivers flow and the sun shines'. Well, the sun stopped shining pretty soon after that apparently, because someone discovered gold in the Black Hills and before long the US government was allowing white prospectors in to try their luck, depsite their promise to the Indians to prevent this. Naturally the Indians were angry at the failure of pale face to honour their promises (not realising the true nature of pale face) and when the prospectors began to increase in number and refused to leave, and the US government did nothing, the Indians attacked them. And then the kid gloves came off! No more 'tolerant' Mr.Nice Guy! The Indians had become 'terrorists' (or whatever word was in vogue at the time) and the US army went in to 'restore order' which turned out in translation to be grabbing the Black Hills. In a way you could be led to think the US government allowed the panhandlers, knowing how the Indians would respond, and using this perfectly natural response as an excuse to simply grab by force what they had promised not to in writing. The Black Hills were full of gold, and the backward, smelly Indians were in the way, so they had to be pushed aside if they didn't go peacefully. Then, not content with breaking their promises and their treachery, the US government decided to add insult to injury by carving up the Black Hills (sacred to the Indians, remember - think how you might feel if someone dropped a bomb on the White House, or, on a lesser scale, tramples on the American flag - then you have a fraction of an idea of how the Indians felt about the Black Hills). They carved the Black Hills up into the faces of 4 US presidents. As John Fire Lame Deer (Sioux medicine man, died sometime in the 1970s or 80s) said "This is what the four faces mean: when white people come out and see them they think: '"we did this. We are powerful. What we want we get, and no-one can stop us' They may not know that's what they are thinking, but they are thinking it" (see 'John Fire Lame Deer, Sioux Medicine Man', by Richard Erdoes and John Fire).
What's this to do with Iran etc.,? I hope it should be clear by now. The White House and its allies want to control the world's oil (remember their attempt to overthrow Chavez in 2002 in Venezuela - a DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader, so much for love of democracy!) and anyone who stands in the way of that project will be eliminated. It's that simple. If they can't be eliminated (for example, many US citizens disgaree with White House policy, but the White House can't just go round killing THEM) they will be silenced in other ways: harrassed by the police, accused in the media and elsewhere of 'sympathising with terrorists' of being 'un-patriotic' etc., (in the old days, they called you 'a n****er lover, or a injun lover, and before that, a witch). As well as the oil producing countries, they need to control a few peripheral countries as well, such as Afghanistan, in order to create a buffer zone between the oil fields and the energy hungry countries around them, such as Russia, China and India. I wonder how long the Russians, Chinese etc., will tolerate this before World War Three is launched?

"A war that cannot be won against an enemy we did not need to fight with a lack of manpower and no exit strategy"

They never really were the enemy, like the Indians - but they are sitting on top of one of the world's most coveted natural resources, and so they are in the way of neo-con New America (I'm not blaming Americans here, by the way, as I hope you realise. It would help though if they didn't vote for Jeb Bush when he tries to continue the family dynasty at the next presidential elections, that is if Bush hasn't crowned himself 'dictator for life' by then. Watch out for Condoleeza Rice too: if Jeb doesn't make it as a runner, she'll probably be put forward as a candidate, and will play the race card (as the first would-be black president) and the feminist card (as the first would-be woman president). Don't be fooled! She may be a black woman, but to get where she did, she made her heart a neo-con's white man's). A far better choice might be Hillary Clinton, if no-one truly amazing steps up in the meantime.