Nasrallah loves Olmert

While inaugurating a "book fair" in a Hizbullah center, Hassan Nasrallah, the supreme leader of the Hizbullah militia in Lebanon, decided to impart his blood-soaked wisdom to the unfortunate visitors of the fair. Before I get to the part where he expressed his "respect" for Olmert and Israel, let's start from the point where he explains the evil American project in the region.

Nasrallah's argument goes, that since oil reserves in Arab countries will last far longer than those in the US, the latter is implementing a demonic plot to eradicate all resistance movements in region, preserve Israel's superiority, and create dictatorships that follow American orders.

He described the July war as his militia standing up to this American plot to take over oil resources by setting up a greater Middle East.

This isn't the place to discuss American oil interests in the region. But who knew that Nasrallah is so worried about Saudi, Libyan, Iraqi, Kuwaiti and UAE oil reserves, that he is leading a resistance movement in Lebanon of all places, to counter this plot! I wonder why he never bothered to defend Kuwaiti oil when Saddam invaded. Or, why his mouth rarely utters condemnations of the massacres of Shias during Saddam's reign, and now under Syrian-Iranian sponsorship. Maybe we are missing something and Nasrallah has discovered oil in his bunker in Beirut's southern suburbs! And those tents in downtown Beirut must be protecting the vast oil reserves lying under restaurants, clothing stores, bookstores, pubs and Arab oil -funded hotel projects! 

Some might explain this as Nasrallah trying to give his "resistance" an international dimension to justify his support for militias in other countries. Others might see it as Nasrallah outing himself as an international terrorist. And somewhere in downtown Beirut, a disgruntled store owner will see Nasrallah's lecture as another lame justification for his domestic terrorism.

Note how Nasrallah only objects to dictatorships that are friendly to the US, i.e. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan—others, such as the one he and his Iranian masters protect, namely the Assad regime, do not feature in his analysis.

Glowing in a pretend victory that banished him to a hole, and led an entire country to economic ruin, Nasrallah heaped praise over the "enemy entity" of Israel, which he said behaved with "sincerity" even in its "unjust cause" by investigating its failure to destroy his militia. "You can't but respect this behavior", Nasrallah said, especially when "the other side [Lebanon] does not investigate or study or hold accountable or question or form investigation commissions as if nothing had happened."

Apparently, Nasrallah has more respect for his enemy than his own state and government, which he has condemned to slow death for daring to question his holy actions. Had this government held him accountable and launched a probe into his actions, would he be here today lecturing on accountability?  And what about that UN tribunal he is obstructing? I guess that falls under the attempt to hijack Arab oil by bringing his dictator friend to justice!

After this pseudo-intellectual trip, Nasrallah went on to continue the dismantling of Lebanon, and using the polarized bits and pieces to safeguard his holy mission against an "entity" he now respects more than his own country. I wonder if an Olmert will come to his rescue next time his rockets hit the Zionist fan.

Comments

[fubar]

"The specificity of war is the clarity it creates. And you obfuscate that by adding all these modifiers. The only way that there can be peace in this region is to go back to the normal routes of war."

Amir Taheri has a good interview in JPost, in case anyone missed it.

Pay close attention to the part about the disasterous premature end of wars since the inception of the UN. He is talking about Israel, but it applies equally to all wars, including the Lebanese Civil War and the Summer '06 war.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178096596427&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

[lazarus]

amir taheri has been discredited for his previous writings, so referencing him to make a point is not useful, unless of course his arguments contain enough rationality to stand on their own. unfortunately, this interview did not contain sound arguments.

a.k., interesting post. although there is much i disagree with - and there is hope in disagreement - i am not sure why you placed quotes around "book fair."

it was after all, a book fair.

- m.

[BadVilbel]

I made a quick comment about this the other day (under one of the other entries on this blog), but frankly, I don't even know why we bother to sit here and dissect Nassrallah's comments anymore (or those of Naim Qassem).

It's one thing to discuss or debate intelligent statements made by somewhat intelligent people, regarding somewhat pertinent issue. But what's the point in trying to analyze or debate fantasies and statements that have no basis in logic or rational thinking?

Would you bother discussing my comments if I came out everyday with statements like "Bananas from outerspace paint the sky green" ???

[fubar]

BV,

I think that depends on how many rockets you have and who you are pointing them at. = )

[BadVilbel]

What if I said "I've got a rocket in my pocket." ?? :)

[Umm Kais]

Very funny BV! (And I'm not being sarcastic...) We need more humor.

[fubar]

lol, BV.

You are right, Umm Kais. Hearts and minds. . .and humor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3iY45m0v1Y&NR=1

[Amir in Tel Aviv]

Hassan, the guardian of the Holy Wells.
No one guaranties him an Olmert in the future, Indeed. Good one AK.!
.

[Charlie]

This oil argument is so overused it is not even funny anymore. People who keep making this argument with respect to US oil imports have no clue where the US gets its oil from. They clearly don't realize that the US's primary sources of oil are not from the Mideast. Actually on the list of countries that supply oil to the US Saudi comes at 4th or 5th while Canada is the number one supplier of Oil and Natural Gas to the US, heck even Nigeria is higher on the list than Saudi. So if Nas's argument has any merit, the US should be planning to invade Alberta rather than Iraq...what a dip this NAS is and what's dumper are the people who sit through his dump ass speeches cheering his fat sweaty ass on....

[Vox]

Charlie,

1-The middle east has two thirds of the world's oil reserve, and maybe more, which means that the US will have to buy its oil from the Middle East in the future
2-Even if the US doesn't get its oil from the middle east, the market for oil is a global one. It means that if the rest of the world has to pay $150 a barrel, the US has to pay the same price or it will lose its suppliers.

[Charlie]

Vox,

So the US is invading or controlling the Mideast because several hundred years into the future Canada, Nigeria, Mexico, Venezuela and Russia are going to run out of oil and the US will have to import this commodity from the Mideast!!

Maintaining an unobstructed flow to oil from the Mideast is not just a US priority, it is a global economic priority.

As for the global pricing, everyone including the oil producing countries of the Mideast need to keep the price of oil at moderate levels. This is all governed by supply and demand and its impact to the global economical growth and not just the US’s economy. In simple terms, if price of oil rises to a level that brings in a global recession, then demand will drop and along with it the producers will have to bring the price down. So the US doesn’t need to invade Saudi Arabia and Iran to make sure the price stays at economically viable levels.

So from a US stand point: Do we have a national interest in making sure that part of the world is secure and not getting hijacked by the kinds of the Iranian Mulla’s? sure we do, but so does the rest of the world!!!

[fubar]

And we are saving ANWR for when the rest of the world goes to hell in a handbasket so we will still have oil. Such a devious plot. = )

[fubar]

Has anyone been able to get onto The Daily Star and read the whole story? Did they pull the story?

(Daily Star) Seven suspects in the April 23 kidnapping and subsequent killing of Ziad Qabalan, 25, and Ziad Ghandour, 12, were referred to Mount Lebanon Public Prosecution on Thursday, according to a judiciary report. Four Lebanese suspects and a Syrian man were referred to Mount Lebanon Public Prosecutor Magistrate Ghassan Oueidat, the report said.| Full Story

****
Second story under Politics. But "full story" has been 404ing for hours.

[Charlie]

"And we are saving ANWR for when the rest of the world goes to hell in a handbasket so we will still have oil"

Darn it Fubar, you had to go and tell them about the ace in the secret plot..All along NAS has been thinking ANWR was a refrence to Saddat of Egypt...:-)

[fubar]

lol, Charlie.

Did you watch the republican debate tonight? There was a couple of times I could hear sound of the bombs falling in Iran in the background. But then I am drinking so it could just have been Jose whispering to me. lol

[Charlie]

Fubar,

Missed it, long day at work today..:-(
Are you sure about the bombs though? Grandmama Pellosi said we need to talk to these sweet fascists from the Mideast….:-)

[fubar]

Well, Charlie, the whole thing was pretty sad. God help us. But, at least, they were one upping each other on how tough we have to be with Iran.

Pelosi has her head up her ass, as usual. Let's send the dear over to hell for a sit down. Of course, the protocol people will have to brief her, Islamic dress now required of all tourists as well. A chador would probably be a big improvement. = )

If we are really lucky, they will kidnap her. lol

444, 445, 446, ... let's not rush into anything. LOL

[Charlie]

Fubar,

You did say you were drinking, weren't ya....:-)

[ghassan karam]

The biggest fear for Saudi Arabia is the transition to an alternative fuel that would in effect consign its huge reserves to stay where they are. That is why Saudi will NOT use oil as a weapon, because it is not in its national interest neither is it in the interest of the global economy.

BTW , Fubar, ANWR is not that important in the overall scheme of things. The tar sands of Canada hold as much oil as the reserves of Saudi and many estimates place the ultimate potential of Shale, in Colorado, even higher than that. The world supply of oil is scarce but not the supply of energy, not yet, Global warming fears not withstanding, I am afraid that the world will shift to tar sands, shale, heavy crude, back to coal, nuclear before we go into a hydrogen economy.

So NAS is a man of the cloth, a general, a politician and an energy expert all rolled into one. Not a bad gig if you can have it.

[R]

Fubar,

The story about the seven suspects is in Almustaqbal as well. In Arabic tho :)

[ali bm]

according to estimates, oil supply will equal demand somewhere in the 2020s and from there on, supply will not be able to keep track. this means that iraq, with possibly the largest oil reserve in the world is the jack pot to the oil mogols who help[ed bush senior an djunior to power, especially with the recently passed iraqi oil bill which was pushed all the way by american pressure as it allows foreign companies to control the oil feilds. or else why did good old U.S. of A invade Iraq? to bring it democracy? yeah ok...

and as for the story about the murders. its old news. according to security sources talking to as safir, the five brothers of adnan shamas who was killed last january did the whole thing as revenge for their brother. they lured in the older guy but were suprised at the presence of the 12 year old kid but decided to kill him to for honor or whatever.

and as for the whole "there will be no olmert to save his ass thingy", u r ignoring the fact that the same tactics used in 2006 were used in 1996 at the time of the first Qana massacre and in 1994 and in 1992 but the israelis seem to be slow learners

[nobody]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate may vote this month on legislation that aims to drive down gasoline demand by boosting the fuel economy of cars and trucks and increasing the use of nonpetroleum fuels like ethanol.

The Senate Energy Committee on Wednesday sent to the full chamber a bill that targets gasoline demand -- the biggest chunk of U.S. petroleum use. It also seeks to lower greenhouse gas emissions spewed into the atmosphere.

The bill cleared the committee by a vote of 20 to 3.

Under the proposal, the Energy Department would have to come up with a plan to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent by 2017, 35 percent by 2025 and 45 percent by 2030.

To help cut fuel use, the legislation would also authorize the Energy Department to issue loan guarantees for fuel-efficient vehicle manufacturers and related parts suppliers.

And with an eye toward weaning America off foreign oil, the legislation would increase the amount of ethanol and other renewable fuels used in motor vehicles annually to 8.5 billion gallons in 2008, steadily boosting it to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

Source
. . .

[Mark]

I recall a debate I had with my Uncle while I was in Beirut two and a half years ago about the Middle East and oil. I contended that it was the Saudis that had us (the US) in their pockets because we needed the oil. My uncle contended that the US had the Saudis in their pocket because the Saudis needed a buyer. I had a hard time understanding why he thought the US had the upper hand (as if the Saudis couldn't find a buyer elsewhere). He had a hard time understanding my point of view (as if the US couldn't find a seller elsewhere). We obviuosly have a different perspective, and perhaps the real answer is somewhere in the middle. Anyhow, I wanted to tie my debate with my Uncle to AK's comment about Assad escaping Nas' wrath on the Arab dictators. If the Syrians found a large deposit of oil, perhaps it would be the beginning of a beautiful, new US-Arab Dictator relationship. I'm sure that would tick Nas off. I'm just trying to figure out the physical possibilty of the US being in Syria's pocket while at the same time Syria is in the US's pocket.

[Vox]

Charlie,

I've never said that the US invaded Iraq because of oil (nor do I believe it). I just said that the US is as dependent on ME oil as anybody else.

[Roman Kalik]

Ali bm,

Off the top of my head, the reasons for invading Iraq could include The Domino Effect (I.E, changing the direction in which the Middle-East is sliding into so as to stop the radicalization of the entire region against the US, and even reverse it. The exact same logic was used in Vietnam to try stop the huge advances of Communism in the Far East), or Saddam’s misuse of a resource that carries with it a global responsibility. Saddam was grossly irresponsible, and in fact could very well be accused of deliberately sabotaging the oil market (which is to say, the *real* oil argument rather than the simplistic “profits for oil moguls” one). Sabotage the oil market enough, and you harm the economies of all industrialized countries.

Then you have the intel reports shortly before the invasion, all of which said Saddam was building WoMD’s. Laughable though it may seem in retrospect, just about every single intelligence report at the time (this includes all of Europe, and most ME countries) said Saddam was actively building WoMD’s. It was Saddam’s greatest masquerade, and his greatest error. In his attempt to retain an appearance of strength to keep Iran at bay, he played games with the UN inspectors so that no one would see the truth. At the time, everyone thought he was hiding his weaponry from them. Now it would seem he was hiding the lack of them.

But not everyone was willing to give him more and more chances.

I myself tend to bet largely in The Domino Effect. Speaking of which, unless both Iraq and the Kurdish Autonomy both fall apart completely in the near future, this long-term strategy will most likely work. You can see this in the shift of the Sunni Arab world from Israel to Iran, for example. And had the Bush administration focused more on true forward planning and correct execution of said planning for Iraq, rather than on rushing forward to appearances of Instant Stability, things today would be a great deal better. Mind you, Iraqi Kurdistan seems to be flourishing at least.

And as Nobody’s article shows, the US doesn’t like being dependent on the Middle-East for oil, and is also very much aware of what changes need to happen in the near future. By the way, many of the alternative fuel projects are funded and even run by… oil companies. Oil companies aren’t as dumb and shortsighted as most people think. They’re already designing their new resource rather than relying on a depleting one, and are in the best position to make a transition from fossil fuels to replenishing fuels happen. And keep the market firmly in their grasp, which is only to be expected.

By the way, regarding that law in Iraq, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a democratic country that has a nationalized oil industry. Iraq is in need of foreign investments and large tax profits, rather than become indebted to the Gulf states. And if I remember this law correctly, we’re not talking exploitation rights but rather short-term leasing. That would allow for homegrown firms to rise and eventually give the Iraqi economy a huge boost, which is what happened in Russia for example.

In conclusion, this issue is a complex one. Simplistic arguments are for simplistic goals, and in this case the simplistic goal is simply “Death to America!”. The good old distraction game.