Bullets are flying, among other things; they really could care less what we name our refueling points.
Oh yeah Max. The Arabs are unanimous on that point... Joe Baghdad playing cards with his friends, talking about the war (they do that, you know), never once considers it possible that the Americans may have an eye on his country's biggest resource...
Well, hell, then - we gotta take the Iraqi information hack at face value, the Iraqis are rolling on to victory; which definitely makes your "Exxon naming tragedy" a moot point.
It's not mere "complaining" Babak. Is it really so difficult for you understand that GIVEN that it IS a minor detail, why the hell couldn't they avoid turning it into a potentially harmful one? The logic is really VERY basic. Mind you, neither is the attempt at finding something to criticise about this war "pathetic", nor particularly difficult. The whole thing is a sham.
Max, if you really are intent on "liberating" the Iraqi people, wouldn't you consider it important to win Iraqi public opinion to your side? I would have thought it essential. Iraqi opinions are, of course, likely to be quite misguided (it's understandable, thousand of their number are being killed while their country is being invaded), but it is still important to take those opinions into consideration.
Take your own logic as manifested by your own statement: "...given that it IS a minor detail..." Exactly, i.e. who gives a crap except some NYT writer and an interviewed oil futures trader... and you, of course.
You're picking out a worthless cause to defend. If you spread the lie to the Iraqis that our main battle tank was named because it is Jewish* name, what do you think that would do for our cause? Doesn't that have a higher probablity than the Exxon/Shell BS? Really, nobody gives a crap. * don't even know if Abrahms is Jewish, nor do I care.
These people are really worried about what the coalition names FORWARD AREA REARM AND REFUEL POINTS (FARRP's):
I'll lay it out one more time for you Maxi, just coz I like you. The Details - base names are, normally, of minute consequance. - Many (the vast majority) of Arabs, and Iraqis in particular, rightly or wrongly, harbor suspicion that the invasion serves the main purpose of getting their oil. - The coalition is ostensibly 'liberating' Iraq In that case, naming your bases after your oil companies a) gives the impression that you really are after their oil b) has the markings of an INVASION, not a "liberation" Now, I didn't post the original article, and I haven't scoured the net looking for any others. I was struck at what blithering idiocy it was. And I stand by that assessment. The fact that it, thus far, has been of essentially zero consequance nothwithstanding. I really don't understand why it is so hard for you to simply admit that calling your bases after national oil companies was a risky move.