Quite a number of news agencies have reported the US is moving 12,000 troops to Libya. You remember Libya. That's the place where we just dropped tens of thousands of tons of bombs on cities - for humanitarian reasons - and we hurt so few that NATO has never thought it worth while to say how many civilians got killed - for humanitarian reasons.
Anyway, it turned out happy. The good guys won; and Libya is now a democracy. So how come the US is sending in 12,000 troops? Could it have something to do with the fact that the rebels are now fighting each other? Keep moving folks, nothing to look at.
News around the world is the video of four American marines in Afghanistan, urinating on the bodies of some men they had just killed. There are dozens of copies of it on Youtube. But not a mention in the Moncton Times and Transcript. Just keep moving, folks. Nothing to see.
The level of political discussion in the US is now so low that the contest for Republican leader has become an international embarassment. In a recent development, candidate Newt Gingrich has launched a major attack on Mitt Romney. Romney, says the Newt, is unworthy to be party leader or president because - he can speak French! (No. I did not make that up.)
It's pretty frightening to see these levels of hysteria and ignorance in a country as important to us as the US. But, there, there, just read the TandT, and you won't be worried at all.
The only story of trouble in the world is a Reuters report that Obama is being forced to get tough with Iran. He has tried so hard for peace all these years. But the Iranians are just impossible. And, gee, if they get a nuclear bomb, that would be the greatest threat to world peace ever. Well, that's according to Reuters... But if anyone at the TandT had a brain at all, that person would know -
1. The western powers have for over a dozen years been spreading the story that Iran is within months of developing a nuclear bomb. This long ago became the longest pregnancy in history.
2. Iran (Persia) has not attacked anybody in over two centuries. Its last war was fighting off an invasion by Saddam Hussein - who was urged on and supplied by the US and at least two NATO powers.
3. Even when smaller countries try to develop such a bomb, it isn't for attack. Any small country with a bomb or even ten knows that it would be wiped out if it made any such attack. They want a bomb to keep the big powers from invading them- as NATO is planning to do with Iran. Ever notice how the west has avoided attacking North Korea? Even Kim Jong was never crazy enough to launch an attack. But he knew the value of having a retaliatory threat against big powers.
4. Quite apart from the thousand or so nuclear missiles that the US could easily spare for Iran, Israel has another 200.
5. The planned attack on Iran has nothing to do with a nuclear threat. It has to do who gets to control the world's oil supply. The problem is that a western attack on Iran could well trigger a general war in the middle east - and that could well trigger a world war.
But not to worry. The image that the TandT peddles is of reasonable, moderate Obama who goes to war only when he really, really has to. That's good PR.
When the rest of the world thnks of Obama, the image it sees is of four marines urinating on men they have just killed. That's bad PR.
Don't look at the bad PR, folks. Keep moving.
The big story of the day is on page three. New Brunswickers can now get 'a world-class product with rich content'. Yes. For just two dollars a month you can get all New Brunswick papers on the web, and all of them just as good as The Moncton Times and Transcript. Hurry, hurry, folks. Line up here to read everything that Mr. Irving wants you to read.
As usual, the columns by teens in the Whatever section are worth a read. Unlike most of the TandT, they are not about selling anything, or writing about nothing, or spreading propaganda. They are the honest expressions of people developing insights and sharing their development with us.
My advice to Isabelle Agnew is not to worry about the twits who object to her disapproval of 'Merry Christmas'; and who find her disapproval anti-Christian. I disapprove of the expression Merry Xmas because I AM a Christian. The ones who delight in saying Merry Christmas are much the same ones to discriminate against gays, who pray to God to help us kill people who interfere with our oil supply, and who think it's more important to build ships to fight American wars than to provide medical care.
People like that, who claim to be Christian, are hypocrites. Charles Dickens, who was a devout Christian, couldn't stand them. Ever notice there are no clergymen and no church services in A Christmas Carol?