Yeah, okay Max. They spend their lives memorising complex methods of silent communication, secret ciphers, radio codes etc, but they simply couldn't remember what the forward base was for unless they had a verbal word association like 'Exxon'. LOL. Honestly now, do you really require education as to why naming a base after an oil company, in light of the heated debate about American reasons for the invasion, which play heavily upon Arab opinion, might be UNNECESSARILY inlfammatory?
Here are both sides of this issue from the same article: *********** http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/27/b...00&en=fd08859e6169208a&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE "My first reaction when I saw it was this was not a political statement in any way by the men and women of 101st," Mr. Cirigliano said. "I think the 101st was being pretty creative and naming things after what reminds them of home. And I think that's pretty neat." But others involved in the oil industry say the Pentagon's indifference to the names of the bases was poorly considered. "You have this atmosphere of suspicion and apprehension now, and that's just among your allies," Jan Stuart, head of research for global energy futures at ABN Amro, the Dutch investment bank, said. "And in this atmosphere, you call your own supply effort this. It's mind-boggling the degree of insensitivity. There is little doubt the Americans will win the war, but you have to wonder how people who are so insensitive are going to win the peace." *************** So it would seem some trader guy is the one upset. BFD. BTW, the only article I have seen on this subject, at least so far and it's 17 hours old.
Neither Royal Dutch/Shell nor Exxon knew about the Iraqi bases. Cerris Tavinor, a spokeswoman for Shell, heard of the base only when a reporter called.
LOL. What a complete moron! "pretty neat".. I don't consider it a "political statement" either. But only a complete deadbeat with blinkers on would consider it anything but unwise.
What "heated debate" are you talking about? Are you of the mind that it is about the US doing this for the oil? There's never been any question about the subject; "the oil" is an argument completely devoid of any foundation.
You know it is really telling when all the pinkos can complain and whine about is the minutia of what the FARR bases are named. The pathetic attempt to seek something, anything to criticise is actually really funny. Keep it up guys.
So far we have on record: a NYT writer and an oil futures trader complaining. Whoopdee f*cking doo. Let's start on the Patriot missles. That name is somehow against Islam, I'm sure of it. Then let's take the "U.S." out of US ARMY, that's inflammmatory for sure. And isn't "Abrahms" a Jewish name being used in a Moslem country. Totally unfair.
U.S. Rejects Criticism on Awarding of Iraq Contracts WASHINGTON, March 27 â An American official has strongly rejected European complaints that the United States was unfairly awarding contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq to American companies. The overriding United States objective, he said today, was to provide the quickest possible relief to the Iraqi people.
Oh, pardon me for not being able to provide you with a thorough statistical analysis of opinions on the matter, Max. Indulge me, and utilize some plain old common sense for a second: if most Arabs, and Iraqis in particular, knew about the base naming, what do you think their reaction would be? They probably wouldn't like it very much right? Do you think they'd be feeling particularly 'liberated'? Or 'invaded'? On the balance of probablities, do you think it's MORE likely to HELP win the PR battle? Or more likely to HINDER it? Given that the name of a base is such a non-essential item, do you think it might, just might, have been prudent to select another, equally effective (for the handicapped forces who need word association to remind them what a base is for), non potentially offensive name?
The whole argument is specious; the net effect is so infinitesimally small and simply has no real world relevance.