I give the above numbers to argue my point only about the threat of “small little rockets” and not out of callousness to the far worse damages done by Israel’s war in response. No Hezbollah’s rockets are not an existential threat, but a considerable one. How much greater could Iran’s threat be?

In other words, Hezbollah is no threat to Israel except for it’s connection to Iran. A good thought experiment would be on goals and possible activities of a Hezbollah without Iranian support. I bet they would be pretty much the same as they are now but the means might be more crude.

Nevermind that Israel cannot use it’s nuclear power to destroy Hezbollah ( or Iran). Nevermind that the “small little rockets” terrorize and kill coming by the hundreds and thousands and that some of them are not so small.

I have noticed previously and here again that Juan Cole has little to no sympathy or understanding of Israel in his opinions. I read his blog every day in the early part of the Iraq War until he disappointed me when he ventured off into the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict. I expect historians to be more fair and neutral.

Now the problem with this explanation is that it isn’t really competing since single-answerism of the kind this show exhibited was more about root cause or main cause and probably could embrace all these other factors and more…

The Bush Agenda and Iraq
It’s been over 3 years since the war started in Iraq, but the reasons for the conflict are still in dispute. Is there hope for democracy and freedom? Is it about oil? Is it about corporate profits and U.S. imperialism?

Guests:
Antonia Juhasz is a leading expert on international trade and finance policy. She worked as a congressional aide and as project director of the International Forum on Globalization. Currently, she is a visiting scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. In addition to numerous TV and radio appearances, her writing has appeared in dozens of publications including the Los Angeles Times and the Miami Herald. Her most recent book is The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time.

It was the first hour of Friday’s KUOW’s Weekday http://www.kuow.org/programs/weekday.asp (August 11th, 2006)
It’s an archived stream, and it podcasts.

Regardless, yes, the state sponsered papers tote the state line, but they don’t tend to sell a lot…

Joshua, thank you.

Well the answer would be obvious if you read the news paper headlines recently. US is waiting on the sidelines on the pretext of getting hezbollah cleaned up and then be interested in lucrative reconstruction and army supplies and training contracts. Who benefits from these transactions? Obviously the US, from additional sales of arms and equipment and the so called “training of the lebanese army” Take a look at the the following stocks and track their progress from 2003 (the start of the Iraq war) BA, LHM, GD, RTN. All of them have been on an upswing climb.

So I guess the foreign policy and general strategy is that as long there are parts of the world that is kept unstable for vested reasons and the wars are fought outside the borders of the US, all that matters is how the internal economy is doing. Even if that is at the cost of tens of thousands of civilian lives taken elsewhere.

But that is a blood stained economic growth don’t you think?

Nasrallah today gave a speech asking Israeli Arabs to leave Haifa so that he can kill the non Muslims left in the city.
So far the Arabs in Haifa said that they would not leave.
I hope they don’t leave but if they do leave it will be a repeat of 1948 and I am sure the Israelis won’t let them back in since they will be participating in genocide.
Here is what Israeli Arab response:

“Haifa’s Arabs: We won’t leave city

Former MK Issam Mahoul rejects Nasrallah’s call to Haifa’s Arab population to evacuate city; ‘We have nothing to do outside of Haifa, and we refuse to be refugees,’ Mahoul asserts. Haifa Mayor: Nasrallah won’t succeed in uprooting Arab residents
Ahiya Raved

Former Knesset Member and Haifa resident Issam Mahoul on Wednesday categorically rejected Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah’s call to Arab residents of Haifa to evacuate the city.

“We have nothing to do outside of Haifa, and we have no reason to panic. The Palestinian people are especially unwilling to be refugees of any kind again,” Mahoul told Ynet.

In response to the National Security Cabinet’s approval of a widened offensive in south Lebanon, Nasrallah addressed Israel in a recorded speech broadcast on al-Manar Wednesday night. “Thousands of intrepid fighters await you, and we’ll kick you out by force,” Nasrallah threatened.”

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3289009,00.html

Oil = money.

Period.

After money, you can go anywhere with the equation, do anything you like with progressive or regressive consequences. But considering the nature of capitalism, greed, and ignorance, once you’ve reached the money part of the equation, you’ve already hit the practical dead end.

Money, the ultimate illusion, is the end unto itself.

Yes, I agree.

I would add that for Saudi Arabia and Iran

the equation should read oil=money=terrorist funding

Private controlled oil = money = technology= progress = peace
makes sense and is demonstrated in a Kleptocracy (Norway, Canada)

This was obviously written before they actually did invade Israel.

Hey try reading your Hizbollah’s friends literature. It’ll tell you all you need to know about why they attacked Israel.

Try this one:

from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Position_on_Israel

“Position on Israel
Hezbollah supports, in principle, the destruction of the state of Israel.[42][43][44] Secretary-General Nasrallah’s official stance is that “Israel is an illegal usurper entity, which is based on falsehood, massacres, and illusions, and there is no chance for its survival.â€?[45] The Age quotes him like so: “There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel.”[46]

Nasrallah has a history of making anti-Semitic statements (most infamously “if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwideâ€?[47]), but an anonymous page on Hezbollah’s website marks a distinction between “Zionist ideology” and Judaism. It sees the rejection of Zionism as an attitude hold across “races, religions, and nationalities”. It likens Zionism to “the concept of creating ‘Israel’ by the use of force and violence, by stealing the Arabs’ lands and killing Palestinians”. “[O]pposing the Zionists ideology is not opposing setting a home for Jews”.[48]

Notably, despite the rhetoric, Hezbollah appears to have neither the intention nor the capacity to invade Israel. Nasrallah stated that “at the end of the road no one can go to war on behalf of the Palestinians, even if that one is not in agreement with what the Palestinians agreed on.” [49] When asked whether he was prepared to live with a two-state settlement between Israel and Palestine, Nasrallah said he would not sabotage what is a Palestinian matter. [50] He also clarified that outside of Lebanon, Hezbollah will act only in a defensive manner towards Israeli forces, and that Hezbollah’s missiles were acquired to deter attacks on Lebanon.”[51]“

joshua hendrickson Says: Wanting people to think is never considered a good thing by people who just plain want their side to win at all costs. Calling a thought exercise “gossip by pseudo Professors� as Fiddlesticks does just confirms this.

Hey, don’t want to get into a posting fight here.

Calm down and start doing what you advocate: thinking before you post.

August 9th, 2006 at 9:37 am
“oil = money = power = war.
makes sense to me”

How about,

oil = money = technology= progress=peace

makes sense to me

Wanting people to think is never considered a good thing by people who just plain want their side to win at all costs. Calling a thought exercise “gossip by pseudo Professors” as Fiddlesticks does just confirms this.

‘Thought exercise’ is that like gossip by pseudo Professors?

In Metafuture: Iran, Iraq, and Permanent War ( posted at the Daily Kos January 30, 2005 ) I wrote an elaborate analysis that seems to be – in part – now coming to pass.

One of the significant predictive failures of the piece was that I envisioned bombing of Iran – by the US, Israel, or both – triggering Hizzbollah attacks on the US or US interests. In fact, the hammer blow first has fallen on Hezzbollah, and we may yet see terrorist acts ( beyond those directed at Israel ) in retaliation but we have not seen those yet.

So, I was incorrect in detailing the likely lead up to a US attack or even invasion of Iran. But Iran reamains very much the target. Here is a bit from “Metafuture…..” :

“SO : fobbing the disaster of Iraq* onto a crippled “democratic” Iraqi government ( except for the oilfields and refineries, of course ) or – if things spiral out of hand – implementing the “Cheney Plan” – to partition Iraq ( as reported by STRATFOR, 2002 ) : both free up resources against…Iran.

Cheney’s lidless eye now turns to Tehran, and to wider regional conflict : all according to plan.
Game out action and reaction in your mind with recognition of the following factors and possible aims :

Dominionists, Armageddonists, and NeoCons : Iran as escalation gambit to pull in Israel and Hezzbollah : PNAC project of widening the Mideast theatre of conflict to Iran, Syria, perhaps Saudi Arabia, eventually Pakistan and North Korea : serendipity of destruction – The political utility to the NeoCons and the US Christian Right of provoking terrorist strikes on the mainland US.

Remember this – escalation is in the air :”

As long as we are focused on destroying voices that disagree with our gut, regardless of the truth of what they are saying, we will continue to march down this path to war.

It saddens me, beyond words.