1
   

Stupidity

 
 
nelsonn
 
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 06:52 pm
How could we possibly be so stupid as to name our supply depots in Iraq after oil companies (Shell, Exxon)?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,250 • Replies: 24
No top replies

 
pueo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 07:03 pm
that was pretty stupid.

i told them to use krispy kreme and dunkin' donuts.
0 Replies
 
gezzy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 08:01 pm
They could have used Burger King and Wenndy's.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 08:29 pm
McDonalds would have been better. Wink c.i.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 08:32 pm
Stupid is the name mission iraqi freedom
0 Replies
 
gezzy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 08:46 pm
CI
Good point ;-)

Littlek
No doubt! That racks right up there with friendly fire!
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 09:19 pm
yep
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 09:39 pm
Didn't they also raise an American flag?
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 09:40 pm
that is disturbing....
0 Replies
 
gezzy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 09:45 pm
Yes, it is!
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Mar, 2003 02:46 am
That why i started a thread "US shows a glimp of their real intentions"

This is not about Iraqi Freedom. Why are the oil fieds secured and the people still besieged?

Why are the Oil Corporations already working in Iraq and the humanitarian workers aren't allowed to go in?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Mar, 2003 02:46 am
Since the topic is stupidity, let me share a bit from Elsa Walsh's 3/24 New Yorker (dead-tree version only; no link) profile of Bandar bin Sultan:

On April 16th, the White House announced that Crown Prince Abdullah planned to visit Bush at his ranch in Crawford. The circumstances were not promising. Abdullah's opinion of Bush was increasingly unfavorable, and by this time Bush had begun to declare that one of his goals was "regime change" in Iraq. Saudi support was essential, but unless something was done about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Saudis could not oppose another Arab country, not even Iraq.

On April 24th, the eve of the visit, Bandar received a private briefing from one of the President's senior officials: Bush, he was told, was unaware of what was happening in the streets of the West Bank or Gaza. "This guy doesn't watch TV--he just doesn't know this stuff," the official said, adding that Bush's aides, many of whom were staunchly pro-Israel, shielded him. Bandar was in a hotel in Houston preparing Abdullah for his meeting with Bush the next morning. Bandar wanted Bush to see what Arabs saw daily on Al Jazeera, hoping that it would open his eyes, and so his aides were trying to get photographs. Eventually, they were able to find some, mostly pictures of dead Palestinian children--a five-year-old with a bullet wound to his head, a child cut in half. He did not want to show the most gruesome; the purpose was not to make Bush sick.

Bandar knew that if Bush was unaware of views within the Arab world, he couldn't understand the impact that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was having in the region. Already the trip was becoming something of a fiasco. On Abdullah's first day in Houston, the White House had faxed Bandar a draft of a proposed communique, to be released by the two leaders following their meeting, which seemed to place all the blame for the increase in violence on Arafat and the Palestinians. "This is ridiculous--this is unacceptable," Bandar said to an aide, and he picked up the phone to call Powell. The Secretary of State claimed that he hadn't seen the latest version, and had rejected previous drafts. The draft had come from Vice-President Cheney's office, the rationale being that Abdullah is the Vice-President of Saudi Arabia. Bandar faxed back his rejection to the White House and warned that Cheney should not under any circumstances give a copy of it to the Crown Prince....

Later, back at the ranch:

The meeting was scheduled to last twenty minutes, but Bush and Abdullah talked for two hours. At one point, the Crown Prince handed Bush the photographs of the dead Palestinian children. Do you think it's right? he asked. Bush appeared surprised by the photographs and his eyes seemed to well up. One person familiar with the conversation summarized Bush's comments: "I want peace. I don't want to see any people killed on both sides. I think God loves me. I think God loves the Palestinians. I think God loves the Israelis. We cannot allow this to continue." At one point, Bush told Abdullah that he believed Muslims and Israelis were all God's children and that God didn't want to see children from either side die. The meeting ended with both leaders promising to deliver the other side: Abdullah pledged to rein in Arafat and Bush to rein in Sharon.

Someone suggested a break for lunch. Before beginning to eat, Bush bowed his head and reached for Saud's hand. "Let us pray," he said. A look of panic came over the Crown Prince, who was unfamiliar with the Christian custom of saying grace before meals. "What is he doing?" he whispered to an aide sitting nearby. "What should I do?" Powell also looked stricken, as if he couldn't believe what Bush was saying in front of his Muslim guests.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Mar, 2003 09:03 am
hmmmm.
0 Replies
 
nelsonn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Mar, 2003 02:24 pm
Something bothers me about th" New Yorker " article. Bandar has been an ambassador in Washington for many years and must have attended many dinners, both public and private. Was grace never said at any of them?
0 Replies
 
pueo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Mar, 2003 05:50 pm
regarding the flag raising issue, i have not posted this before but during the un multi-national peacekeeping occupation of lebanon (lebanese, u.s., french, italian) the french had their tri-color flying over lebanese soil. after we (marines) relieved the french we struck the french tri-color and raised the lebanese flag, much to the delight of the lebanese i might add.

so it's just not the u.s. who do these things, was it stupid, yes it was. but it's good to remember that we are not the only ones "guilty" of this type of action. the french have been guilty of the same thing at least once.
0 Replies
 
JoanneDorel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Mar, 2003 07:24 pm
A friend recently e-mailed me this news: All the WalMart's in Iraq were closing and Target was taking them over.
0 Replies
 
gezzy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 12:46 am
At the beginning of the week I was watching the news and they showed a US tank with the words "Got Oil" written on the side. Since then I've heard enough from the Bush administration to convince me that it is atleast partly about oil.
0 Replies
 
pueo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 12:53 am
regardless of what this operation is about, the "got oil" on the tank was most likely put there by the tank crew. i imagine it's a play on the "got milk" etc. ads.
0 Replies
 
gezzy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 12:56 am
Pueo
I knew that, but I was very surprised that it made the news.
0 Replies
 
JoanneDorel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 07:26 am
Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (Shell Oil)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Stupidity
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 04:25:10