When Archie the black labrador lost his owner on a lonely Scottish station, he proved his well-trained pedigree and jumped aboard the first train home. Not only did the dog catch the right train, he got off at the right station, the Mail on Sunday newspaper said. Owner Mike Taitt lost sight of Archie at Inverurie station, near Aberdeen in eastern Scotland, and was hoping someone would spot his tag and return the much-loved mutt. "He is a very intelligent dog," Taitt said. "When he could not find me, he simply took the right train home. He's been on that train before. I am convinced he knew it was the right one. But who knows?" Closed-circuit television footage shows the dog waiting for his master at the station before watching the Aberdeen to Inverness train pull in. Unable to find his owner, the black labrador decided to avoid a long walk home by nipping aboard the 20:38. He got out at the right stop, Insch, twelve minutes along the line to the bemusement of signalman Derek Hope. "There was a train conductor standing with Archie on the platform saying he had got on at Inverurie but didn't have a ticket," Hope said.And I searched for a photo of Archie but couldn't find one on the web.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Another smart dog story
I love stories like this AFP storyWell-trained dog bags a free ride home
Great line of the day
From the Binghampton, New York newspaper storyPeaceful siege makes chicken hawks squawk.
In an example of a great mind getting right to the heart of a matter, [Fox commentator] O'Reilly wrote last week: "No one in their right mind would want Michael Moore, George Soros or Cindy Sheehan calling the shots in the war on terror." Granted. Then again, could they botch the job any worse than the people now calling the shots? [emphasis mine]
Next year country
This National Post story - Klein must share: expert is simply unbelievable. "Thomas Courchene, senior scholar at Montreal's Institute for Research on Public Policy and a professor at Queen's University, said yesterday a portion of Alberta's projected $7-billion surplus should be shared with the other provinces."
Now I haven't checked with anyone because I don't want to ruin my amateur standing, but I think we have a formula for this. It is the federal-provincial equalization formula and it makes sure that the "have" provinces share with the "have-not" provinces.
If Ontario falls into the have-not category, then Alberta will share with them (unlike, say, Newfoundland, who negotiated their own deal outside the formula).
Now, I realize it is contrary to the rules of the universe that Ontario would ever fall into a "have not" category in comparison to Alberta, but take it from me, folks, from a province which has bounced back and forth depending on resource revenues, being a "have not" province is no shame -- its just the way things are that particular year.
There's always next year.
Now I haven't checked with anyone because I don't want to ruin my amateur standing, but I think we have a formula for this. It is the federal-provincial equalization formula and it makes sure that the "have" provinces share with the "have-not" provinces.
If Ontario falls into the have-not category, then Alberta will share with them (unlike, say, Newfoundland, who negotiated their own deal outside the formula).
Now, I realize it is contrary to the rules of the universe that Ontario would ever fall into a "have not" category in comparison to Alberta, but take it from me, folks, from a province which has bounced back and forth depending on resource revenues, being a "have not" province is no shame -- its just the way things are that particular year.
There's always next year.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Chickenhawk is as chickenhawk does
I'm not sure that I was very clear about what I meant in my recent post about America's new chickenhawk policy in Iraq.
First, let's define chickenhawk. A chickenhawk isn't just someone who supports a war, or someone who evades the military during a war. Rather, a chickenhawk is someone who does both -- who vocally and 'hawkishly' promotes a war, to the point of deriding the patriotism of anyone who opposes it, but who then deliberately finds excuses to chicken out of fighting in it. Thus the term "chicken'-'hawk'
Bush was chickenhawk about Vietnam, defending it in college debates but then getting Daddy to arrange a spot for him in the National Guard so he wouldn't have to go and fight overseas. Cheney was another vocal Vietnam supporter, who engineered five deferrments because he had better things to do with his life than fight the war. Most of the top people in the Bush administration can be called chickenhawks because they derided the patriotism of the anti-war protestors while also purposefully avoiding fighting in Vietnam. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with any American boy who avoided the Vietnam slaughter any way he could -- just don't go around at the time, or 30 years later, boasting about what a big-time patriotic war supporter you were!
Second, let's look at the reason Bush now gives for keeping the war going in Iraq. As he said in his weekend radio address "if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets . . . the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war . . . By advancing the cause of liberty in a troubled region, we are bringing security to our own citizens and laying the foundations of peace for our children and grandchildren." So Bush's policy now is that war in Iraq must continue so that terrorists will stay in Iraq instead of attacking Americans in America.
Third -- and now we reach my point -- to me, this is a chickenhawk policy, both cowardly and cruel.
Bush is promoting a war in which Iraqis will die so Americans don't have to. He is saying that innocent Iraqi men, women and children should continue to deal with terrorist car bombs and suicide bombers and mortar attacks and gun battles, so that Americans can stay safe at home. The only Americans who risk death are the American soldiers unlucky enough to be stuck in Iraq as bait.
Now, I am not saying that this is a policy that Americans either want or endorse. Americans in general have always fought their own battles. But Bush and his gang are chickenhawks -- always have been -- so its not surprising that they would come up with a policy which turns all Americans into chickenhawks too.
Bush has said numerous times since 911 that he thinks his job is to keep Americans safe -- I am sure he is quite sincere in thinking that he is doing his job if he can get terrorists to kill Iraqis instead of Americans.
But I ask, and the world should ask -- who gave Bush permission to use Iraqis as human shields? How cruel it is for America to force Iraqis to fight and die, just so that Americans themselves can be safe. Only a coward could come up with such a policy.
First, let's define chickenhawk. A chickenhawk isn't just someone who supports a war, or someone who evades the military during a war. Rather, a chickenhawk is someone who does both -- who vocally and 'hawkishly' promotes a war, to the point of deriding the patriotism of anyone who opposes it, but who then deliberately finds excuses to chicken out of fighting in it. Thus the term "chicken'-'hawk'
Bush was chickenhawk about Vietnam, defending it in college debates but then getting Daddy to arrange a spot for him in the National Guard so he wouldn't have to go and fight overseas. Cheney was another vocal Vietnam supporter, who engineered five deferrments because he had better things to do with his life than fight the war. Most of the top people in the Bush administration can be called chickenhawks because they derided the patriotism of the anti-war protestors while also purposefully avoiding fighting in Vietnam. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with any American boy who avoided the Vietnam slaughter any way he could -- just don't go around at the time, or 30 years later, boasting about what a big-time patriotic war supporter you were!
Second, let's look at the reason Bush now gives for keeping the war going in Iraq. As he said in his weekend radio address "if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets . . . the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war . . . By advancing the cause of liberty in a troubled region, we are bringing security to our own citizens and laying the foundations of peace for our children and grandchildren." So Bush's policy now is that war in Iraq must continue so that terrorists will stay in Iraq instead of attacking Americans in America.
Third -- and now we reach my point -- to me, this is a chickenhawk policy, both cowardly and cruel.
Bush is promoting a war in which Iraqis will die so Americans don't have to. He is saying that innocent Iraqi men, women and children should continue to deal with terrorist car bombs and suicide bombers and mortar attacks and gun battles, so that Americans can stay safe at home. The only Americans who risk death are the American soldiers unlucky enough to be stuck in Iraq as bait.
Now, I am not saying that this is a policy that Americans either want or endorse. Americans in general have always fought their own battles. But Bush and his gang are chickenhawks -- always have been -- so its not surprising that they would come up with a policy which turns all Americans into chickenhawks too.
Bush has said numerous times since 911 that he thinks his job is to keep Americans safe -- I am sure he is quite sincere in thinking that he is doing his job if he can get terrorists to kill Iraqis instead of Americans.
But I ask, and the world should ask -- who gave Bush permission to use Iraqis as human shields? How cruel it is for America to force Iraqis to fight and die, just so that Americans themselves can be safe. Only a coward could come up with such a policy.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
If you cannot remember their names . . .
I have my own Statue of Limitations for when an historical outrage should be answered with a derisive "get over it!"
I believe that history is Officially Over when it happened to relatives whose names you can no longer remember.
I thought of this again when I read Driftglass's hypothesis that Iraq is another example of the American tendency to fight the Civil War again and again:
It may be surprising to our American friends, but many other countries in the world are actually somewhat ashamed of their wars -- war is usually just a failure of diplomacy and, even when successful, most people aren't very happy to have had to fight them. They blame them on their leaders, and often boot these leaders out of office as soon as they can once the war is over.
But Americans show a tendency to romanticize their wars, and Iraq is no exception. So maybe Driftglass is correct, that Iraq is just another metaphorical do-over. And if so, I would ask just how many people have to die so the good ole boys can whoop and holler? How high does the price of oil have to go and how far into the tank does the world economy have to sink before the do-over lust is satisfied? There's a limit to how many generations the world can continue to tolerate this egotistical self-indulgence.
America, get over it!
I believe that history is Officially Over when it happened to relatives whose names you can no longer remember.
I thought of this again when I read Driftglass's hypothesis that Iraq is another example of the American tendency to fight the Civil War again and again:
. . . war always shows up brightly in the emotional spectrum, and certain wars – lost wars -- burn like the fire of a thousand suns. Some people (most notably and locally, certain Red State citizens) obsessively re-fight them over and over again, generation after generation. Losers forever stand on the neck of history, jumping up-and-down, demanding a do-over. And when the banner the losing side fought under was hateful and repulsive, the lies and delusions that the defeated use to radically revise and prettify a murderous history and ideology into a glorious and noble “Lost Cause” also get passed down, father to son, like hemophilia. So look at the brief and bloody history of Iraq and note that...If this is correct, then the Civil War now falls well beyond my Statute of Limitations rule -- it happened to the great-great-great-great grandparents of the soldiers now in Iraq.
...it is a war began by a Southern President.
...it is a war began by rich men and fought by the poor.
...it is war sold to Americans as a Noble Cause.
...it is a war of pre-emption against a hated enemy that we were told we HAD to attack before it was too late.
...it is a war sold on the defense of our “way of life” rather than a specific, measurable, strategic objective.
And come the 2004 election -- an election was all about Iraq -- look how the nation split, right down the Mason-Dixon Line.
It may be surprising to our American friends, but many other countries in the world are actually somewhat ashamed of their wars -- war is usually just a failure of diplomacy and, even when successful, most people aren't very happy to have had to fight them. They blame them on their leaders, and often boot these leaders out of office as soon as they can once the war is over.
But Americans show a tendency to romanticize their wars, and Iraq is no exception. So maybe Driftglass is correct, that Iraq is just another metaphorical do-over. And if so, I would ask just how many people have to die so the good ole boys can whoop and holler? How high does the price of oil have to go and how far into the tank does the world economy have to sink before the do-over lust is satisfied? There's a limit to how many generations the world can continue to tolerate this egotistical self-indulgence.
America, get over it!
Great line(s) of the day
From the Smirking Chimp: Phil Rockstroh: 'Listen up, you Christo-Fascist bullies':
. . . The time is long past due the rest of us ceased our cowering and stood up to you Christo-fascists bullies. The hour has come round that we look you straight in your bulging, true believer eyes, and told you that we've had it with your smugness, with your blood-drenched crusades, with your victim mentality . . . It's high time someone told you outright that you must be suffering from holy water on the brain, if you think we can't see you for what you are: a klavern of counterfeit prophets waxing psychotic for other cretinous hypocrites. Also, you can cease playing the persecuted party, whenever someone stands up to you -- because we're no longer buying that ploy. . . . When did the golden light of the sun abandon its position in the eastern horizon and begin rising, each morning, from out of your silly, neo-Iron Age asses? . . . every last one of you Apostles of Perpetual Psychosis -- listen up. Given the self-evident fact that your beliefs bring little relief to your own troubled souls and have, on the whole, served to engender tragedy worldwide, don't you think it's time you gave it a rest for while. In other words, this is a polite way of suggesting to you that you shut your pie-in-the-sky hole and take stock of the things you're saying -- because your utterances are becoming sicker and sadder, by the hour. If not, you could, at least, in the words, of Tom Waits, 'Come down off the cross -- we can use the wood.'
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
The 400 lb gorilla as emperor
Pogge notes Lloyd Axworthy's latest rant -- Time to redefine ties with U.S. I'm not sure whether I agree with Axworthy's advice, to dump NAFTA and pursue global trade instead, but I can certainly agree that the 400 lb gorilla is throwing its weight around:
. . . we are dealing with an American political system currently steeped in the ideology of "empire." It recognizes few rules, adheres only to those treaties that are expedient to basic interests, and believes that the only political currency that counts is the exercise of raw power. In its mildest form, it practises a la carte bilateralism, co-operating only when it wants to, and when it suits short-term domestic or international objectives. In its bad days, it simply follows a strategy of "take no prisoners," "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead," "don't tread on me," "America First," or any other of the clichés used by ultra-patriots. These are the extant policy directives from the White House. While most Canadians responded with dismay to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, few could quite grasp that the same cavalier, imperial attitudes exemplified in Washington's rejection of various agreements on disarmament, its fierce opposition to the International Criminal Court, its indifference to climate-change warnings, and its undermining of the U.N. would prevail in our continental relationship as well. There is a chronic and dangerous failure to fully appreciate the shift going on in the political demographics of the U.S. and how this change affects attitudes not only toward Canada but also to the broad U.S. approach to its international role. The reality is that political power is shifting to the south and west of the United States, bringing with it less understanding or interest in our country and certainly an anti-internationalist notion that the U.S. can and should go it alone. Growing, as well, is the attitude — especially prevalent amongst congressional Republicans — that the U.S. should legislate extraterritorially to compel other countries to abide by its decisions. Anyone who thinks that neighbourly proximity brings favours or privileges is living in a dream world. In the changing landscape of U.S. politics and policies, Canada lacks the necessary traction . . . Let's face it: This is a painful and uncertain time in our relations with the United States. Muddling through from crisis to crisis won't work. Neither will listening to the chorus of continentalist claptrap promoting more U.S.-Canada integration — look no farther than the present disputes to see where such policies have landed us — or the calls for protectionism and retaliation that can still be heard from the Left. It's time for new policies and tough action to shift our trade and security strategies away from a preoccupation with continental matters to a more global footing.I think we will need more than just new trade policies to deal with this challenge.
Joke of the Day
Today in Iraq notes the WP's reference to many versions of the Bush Lightbulb Joke. Here's one:
How many members of the Bush administration does it take to change a light bulb? Ten.
One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed;
One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed;
One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb;
One to announce to the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or for eternal darkness;
One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb;
One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner 'Bulb Accomplished';
One administration insider to leak how Bush was literally 'in the dark' the whole time;
One to viciously smear the insider;
One to write the talking points about how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along;
And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.
How many members of the Bush administration does it take to change a light bulb? Ten.
One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed;
One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed;
One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb;
One to announce to the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or for eternal darkness;
One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb;
One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner 'Bulb Accomplished';
One administration insider to leak how Bush was literally 'in the dark' the whole time;
One to viciously smear the insider;
One to write the talking points about how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along;
And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.
For what it's worth
There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear:
A Very Slight Change in the Script
There's a man with a gun over there telling me I got to beware :
Legionnaires Condemn War Protests, Pledge Support for President, Troops
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down:
Iraq Shi'ite militias fight as splits emerge
A Very Slight Change in the Script
There's a man with a gun over there telling me I got to beware :
Legionnaires Condemn War Protests, Pledge Support for President, Troops
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down:
Iraq Shi'ite militias fight as splits emerge
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
"Who would Jesus assassinate?"
First, lets make no mistake about what Pat Robertson actually said:
One question raised by the whole Pat Robertson episode is whether being a religious extremist cause you to become mentally ill, or whether being mentally ill leads to religious extremism? Either way, Robertson now qualifies (see also Phelps, Fred).
But today's most remarkable non-denial denial statement came from Donald Rumsfeld. The AP story 'U.S. dodges Robertson comments on Chavez' includes a pretty lackluster distancing from Robertson's remarks and quotes Rumsfeld as saying "Our department doesn't do that kind of thing. It's against the law. He's a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time."
Oh, that Rummy -- just so coy, isn't he? Lets take a closer look at that remarkable statement:
"Our department doesn't do that kind of thing" -- baldfaced balderdash. Remember, for example, the Phoenix program in Vietnam. And the CIA has admitted to political assassinations like that of Allende in Chile. Bush's Herod Doctrine now OKs US preemptive strikes. And don't forget Ari Fleisher's remark in October, 2002 about how one bullet for Saddam wouldn't cost very much.
"Its against the law." Well, yes, it is contrary to international law as well as being a completely short-sighted and self-defeating policy. Of course, the US isn't a member of the international court, and the invasion of Iraq was against the law too. . .
"He's a private citizen." Yeah, like Saddam Hussein is now a private citizen. Pat Robertson hosts one of the most popular TV shows in the world, the 700 club; he tried to run for president 18 years ago, and still has influence in both the White House and Congress. So please excuse the world for thinking that maybe someone got him to run up a flag to see if somebody salutes.
"Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time." --well, yeah, but that doesn't mean remarks like this are just ignored. There is such a thing as hate speech, and the Secret Service is supposed to keep track of 'private citizens' who go around making threatening remarks about government leaders.
It just goes to prove how right Chretien was: "If you start changing regimes, where do you stop, this is the problem. Who is next? Give me the list, the priorities."
We have the ability to take him [Chavez] out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."Who would Jesus Assassinate?" asked Keith Olbermann at Countdown tonight.
One question raised by the whole Pat Robertson episode is whether being a religious extremist cause you to become mentally ill, or whether being mentally ill leads to religious extremism? Either way, Robertson now qualifies (see also Phelps, Fred).
But today's most remarkable non-denial denial statement came from Donald Rumsfeld. The AP story 'U.S. dodges Robertson comments on Chavez' includes a pretty lackluster distancing from Robertson's remarks and quotes Rumsfeld as saying "Our department doesn't do that kind of thing. It's against the law. He's a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time."
Oh, that Rummy -- just so coy, isn't he? Lets take a closer look at that remarkable statement:
"Our department doesn't do that kind of thing" -- baldfaced balderdash. Remember, for example, the Phoenix program in Vietnam. And the CIA has admitted to political assassinations like that of Allende in Chile. Bush's Herod Doctrine now OKs US preemptive strikes. And don't forget Ari Fleisher's remark in October, 2002 about how one bullet for Saddam wouldn't cost very much.
"Its against the law." Well, yes, it is contrary to international law as well as being a completely short-sighted and self-defeating policy. Of course, the US isn't a member of the international court, and the invasion of Iraq was against the law too. . .
"He's a private citizen." Yeah, like Saddam Hussein is now a private citizen. Pat Robertson hosts one of the most popular TV shows in the world, the 700 club; he tried to run for president 18 years ago, and still has influence in both the White House and Congress. So please excuse the world for thinking that maybe someone got him to run up a flag to see if somebody salutes.
"Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time." --well, yeah, but that doesn't mean remarks like this are just ignored. There is such a thing as hate speech, and the Secret Service is supposed to keep track of 'private citizens' who go around making threatening remarks about government leaders.
It just goes to prove how right Chretien was: "If you start changing regimes, where do you stop, this is the problem. Who is next? Give me the list, the priorities."
Credentials? Need some nice credentials , fella?
Why, yes, don't mind if I do.
Thanks to The Poorman, I now hereby claim the title of Distinguished Senior Fellow (DSF) of The Poor Man Institute.
To demonstrate the quality of this fine institution, I also want to inform both of my readers about the Institute's latest cause celebre -- The Elder Lifestyle. Watch out, everyone!
Personally, I think it would be much better just to enact a constitutional ammendment in both Canada and the United States which simply disallows skin wrinkling and all other kinds of interior organ deterioration whatsovever. That way, we can all just stay young forever.
Great idea, huh? That's the kind of high-quality thinking you will be getting now on this blog, now that I am a Distinguished Senior Fellow (DSF)!
-signed, CathiefromCanada, DSF
Thanks to The Poorman, I now hereby claim the title of Distinguished Senior Fellow (DSF) of The Poor Man Institute.
To demonstrate the quality of this fine institution, I also want to inform both of my readers about the Institute's latest cause celebre -- The Elder Lifestyle. Watch out, everyone!
It is impossible to look at today’s society and not notice that something is wrong. There is a sickness at the core of our culture, a rot, a decay. There is a fetid odor rising from the stangnant sewer of American society, and it smells suspiciously like that weird funk at grandma’s house. I’m referring, of course, to the practitioners of the trendy, and morally dangerous, elderly lifestyle. There is no doubt that the numbers of the elderly have grown, and will continue to grow, unless something is done to stop it. While elderly advocacy groups claim they are not trying to recruit new members, the numbers speak for themselves. More and more people are dropping out of the workforce, picking up Social Security checks, and planting themselves in front of the PAX channel at taxpayer expense. Many people feel that we should be tolerant of the elderly lifestyle. They say that it isn’t hurting anybody, that they can’t help it, that it is “natural”, etc. “What’s the big deal if we just lay down and do nothing while old people ruin everything that’s good and true in the world?” they ask. The elderly lifestyle is a choice. No one is born liking Antiques Roadshow. No one is born wanting to hike their pants up to their armpits and turn the heat up to 87°F and babble endlessly about how much things used to cost and how no one ever visits them and how much better everything used to be. Admittedly, most people are born wrinkly, toothless, whiney and incontinent, but that’s just the point! How are we supposed to teach our children to be responsible adults when the media keeps pushing a hip and resposibility-free elderly lifestyle of adult diapers, free money, and all the pills you can pop? And study after study has shown that “going old” is a gateway to the dead lifestyle. The Poor Man Institute for Freedom and Democracy and a Pony recommends that Congress enact a law making 47 the maximum age allowable by law. After you get to 47, you have to stop. Enough is enough. For, as the Bible teaches: “Old […] people […] are […] wicked”. (Genesis 5:32 - 19:7)Pretty good, except, for obvious reasons, I disagree with the "Stop 47" law.
Personally, I think it would be much better just to enact a constitutional ammendment in both Canada and the United States which simply disallows skin wrinkling and all other kinds of interior organ deterioration whatsovever. That way, we can all just stay young forever.
Great idea, huh? That's the kind of high-quality thinking you will be getting now on this blog, now that I am a Distinguished Senior Fellow (DSF)!
-signed, CathiefromCanada, DSF
There ain't nobody here but us chickens
Speaking of chickenhawks, take a look at some of these liberals, trying to get Martin to break his election-in-30-days promise, just so they can hang onto their seats for a few more months. The Globe story -- 'Martin faces pressure to put off election call' -- quote "a senior Liberal" as saying "there are hints that the other parties would agree to a motion to delay any election until the spring. 'The question is, who puts forward that motion?' the Liberal said."
Well, it had better not be Paul Martin.
Well, it had better not be Paul Martin.
Well, that explains it then
Time magazine's article 'Inside Iran's Secret War for Iraq' quotes numerous unnamed sources and senior US military officers, as well as an "informed Western observer" and "western diplomats", and also intelligence officials (some of whom are "top", as in "top diplomats and intelligence officials").
A lot of these people seem to think that the Sunni/Baathist insurgency was actually, really, all along, an Iranian-backed Shia insurgency with training camps in Lebanon and some relationship to Hizbolla or something. And they're sneaking arms across the border and "Businesses, front companies, religious groups, NGOs and aid for schools and universities are all part of the mix". Too many Iraqis now have a "shared world view with Tehran".
So it seems pretty definite . . . whatever it is, its all Iran's fault.
A lot of these people seem to think that the Sunni/Baathist insurgency was actually, really, all along, an Iranian-backed Shia insurgency with training camps in Lebanon and some relationship to Hizbolla or something. And they're sneaking arms across the border and "Businesses, front companies, religious groups, NGOs and aid for schools and universities are all part of the mix". Too many Iraqis now have a "shared world view with Tehran".
So it seems pretty definite . . . whatever it is, its all Iran's fault.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)