Which is exactly what are doing. Creating a myth out of unfalsifiable statements. I call it a myth because it is completely divorced from reality.
Yeah, right. It’s purely a coincidence that our troops bypassed armories and alleged WMD sites, in order to secure the Oil Ministry. It has no significance that the attack was originally called “Operation Iraqi Liberation”, ie “OIL”. It has no significance that during the artificial California “energy crisis”, Cheney and his “energy committee” were studying maps of Iraqi oil fields.
It’s the apologists like you who are living a myth, or just lying.
Why would we? We haven’t done it anywhere else.
Uhm, since when does Mexico = Iraq? You were talking about Mexico above when I called you on your “just so” story.
You keep thinking there, Der. That’s what you’re good at!
I apologize in advance for continuing what seems to be a hijack in the making, but I just want to make sure I’m reading this correctly. Der Trihs, are you seriously advancing an argument that the administration deliberately named the Iraqi invasion so the acronym would spell out “OIL”? Assuming such an absurd conclusion is factual, what on earth would be the reason?
It’s not “absurd”; it was quite real; here’s an example, and another from Ari Fleischer here. It’s the title of the first example, and Ari Fleischer refers to it in the second :
It’s not all that obscure. As for why they did so, my guess would be that it was an in joke that inadvertantly got made official - for a short time. They knew it was about the oil from the beginning, after all.
Wait – there’s only two cites you can provide for that? One, a press statement by a Senator who probably has Alzheimers (who probably doesn’t know the difference between Iraq and Iran, anyway) and second, a possible misstatement by the White House press secretary? I note that no reputable exposes of the Iraq war – whether Woodward’s books or Cobra II or Thomas Ricks’ new book – make any reference to the name of the operation being changed. Finally, it’s worth noting that military campaigns often adopt similar names – like Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm. It doesn’t make much sense to take Operation Enduring Freedom and decide that “freedom” wasn’t the right word for Iraq, requiring a change to call the Iraq invasion OIL.
You have again presented the weakest possible string of coincidences as iron-clad evidence of the evilness of Bush. Congratulations. But you go on ahead believing it, because I’m certain you can’t be dissuaded.
:rolleyes: Gee, is there a numerical requirement ? I provided cites, if you want sheer numbers just google it youself.
One good citation is worth a million crappy ones.
FWIW, Ari called it “Operation Iraqi Liberation” twice, on two separate days. The Snopes forum quotes from his briefings on March 24 and April 1, 2003. If it’s a “misstatement,” it’s one he’s made repeatedly.
So Ari Fleischer called it “Operation Iraqi Liberation”? And this proves…what?
Let me get this straight. The theory here is that the oil guys who came up with the invasion jokingly called the invasion “Operation Iraqi Liberation” among themselves, because they knew it was all about oil. They came up with the name as a way to amuse themselves about how they were screwing over the American people. And that joke name was used a lot, so much that it accidentally made it to the public?
Wouldn’t a simpler theory be that some flack came up with the operation name until somebody noticed the unfortunate acronym, and the name was therefore rejected?
If it didn’t fit the larger pattern, yes. As it is, no.
“Two plus Five = Seven, and there are Seven seas! :eek: Mere co-incidence? I don’t think so!” :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
But you are correct: It has no significance that the attack was originally called “Operation Iraqi Liberation”, ie "OIL.
Umm, dudes. Since WWII, we have “invaded” the following- N. Korea (no oil), Viet-nam (no significant oil) Panama (debateable, but no oil), Grenada (no oil), Afganistan (no oil) and Iraq (scads of oil). If we were looking for Oil, we’d invade Mexico and Venezuala looooong before Iraq. And, it doesn’t look like we are getting much benefit from Iraq’s oil, as far as I can see anyway.
Why did we invade Afganistan then? Cheap hash? :dubious:
Now look, I don’t agree with GWB’s invasion. It was damn fucking stupid. But there were lots of reasons, and oil is one of the smallest.
Hash is for pikers, man. We wants their opium, and we wants it now!! 
That’s why we called it OOL-- Operation Opium Liberation.
The first four are irrelevant, since different people were in power. Afghanistan doesn’t matter, because the only reason we invaded was because it was a necessary political stepping stone to Iraq; we ignored it as soon as we could.
As I’ve said before, Mexico has too strong a lobby. We’ve already famously tried to pull off a coup in Venezuala, and if we weren’t bogged down in Iraq we would have invaded, I expect. Iraq came first for a variety of reasons, one of which is that it’s surrounded by other oil rich countries we could conquer, if we weren’t bogged down.
We are not benefiting from Iraq’s oil, but Bush’s oil buddies are ( and Bush has no interest in benefiting us ); keeping it off the market has raised prices. Besides, it makes the PNAC types happy by keeping the oil away from China.
Moron. Everyone knows that Texans pronounce oil as “ohl.” Back to Operation Hash Liberation. Actually I’d be more concerned about it’s real name: Operation Enduring Freedom.
Der Trihs I don’t blame you for being paranoid. This administration is so mind-boggling that it’s hard not to be. But…dude. You’re being paranoid–you’re letting Them distract you from the truth. Just like with Area 51: “Let them believe it’s UFOs, at least they won’t get any closer to the truth about what we’ve really got here.”
Toxic waste IIRC; the soldiers have all sorts of nasty physical problems that doctors have trouble treating, because they aren’t allowed to talk about what they were exposed to.