From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Mar 31 2003 - 06:25:26 MST
hubert mania wrote:
> Now it is billed as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" but initially
> it should have read "Operation Iraqi Liberation". So, if you
> take a look at the abbreviation for this fine advertisment, you will
> see the true motive:
>
> O.I.L.
That's an interesting point, though I don't support your strong anti-war
sentiments. I'm more or less neutral to slightly pro-war, with some very
serious reservations about this new direction in US Foreign policy. I don't
pretend to know the absolute truth about the justness or lack thereof of
this invasion. I'm doing my best to be a patriotic supporter while also
trying to trust the wisdom and classified knowledge of very smart and
experienced and educated people like Rumsfeld and Rice. Their credentials
are beyond reproach. (In fact I'd consider voting Dr. Rice for president!
Too bad the US is probably not yet ready for a black woman president.)
But still it's an interesting point that you make. I wonder if the
Pentagon/White House decided to avoid the label "Operation Iraqi Liberation"
for the reason you suggest. It would after all have been a more poetic and
appropriate name for the operation, but the acronym is embarrassing.
I do agree with you that one would need to be wearing rose-colored glasses
to not see that oil is at least one of the important factors driving this
war. At someone else quoted him here, at least Murdoch was honest enough to
come right out and say so.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 06:32:25 MST