Since the large oil spill in the gulf last month, BP has been trying to resolve the problem. President Obama has been noticably vocal recently in his criticism of BP (or British Petroleum as he calls them, even though they dropped the British over 10 years ago).

 

Is he just playing to his American audience or are relations between the USA and the UK in danger of becoming a blame game.

 

His comments about not paying a dividend and calling for the chief executive to be sacked, should he be getting involved in this?

 

Just about every pension sheme in the UK has shares in BP, so if the share price collapses it will affect large numbers of people in the UK if BP loses billions.

 

The White House believes BP may be held liable for the wages of all US oil workers unable to work after deepwater drilling was halted in the wake of the disaster, possibly hundreds of millions of dollars a month.

 

One US investment analyst suggested BP may have to seek protection from bankruptcy and an investment bank mooted a takeover by a Chinese firm.

 

Should BP be allowed to just get on and stop the leak? Surely the Oil drilling company Transocean who operated the rig that exploded (and they are a US company) should be taking some of the heat as well as BP.

 

Is he being hypocritical, when you consider what the US banks did to the global economy.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of US Companies causing disasters around the world.

I think any criticism of BP at this point is justified. They f***ed up the entire gulf for years to come, plain and simple. Props. It's unfortunate that so much of your economy is tied to BP, but if something similar like this happened in the UK caused by an American company you just know we'd be getting an equal amount of $h!t for it. I don't think anyone is blaming the UK at large for what happened, just BP. And yes, Transocean should be taking more of a hit, they're just not as widely known a name as BP so, eh, that's life.

oh hes just sounding off to look good, <_< , it was by all accounts an ACCIDENT and accidents happen. americas ecconomy is largely built on oil, sooner or later this was going to happen.

 

im not worried about its effects on our ecconomy, in fact, its a good time to BUY shaes in bp as they will return to the higher levels.

Firstly, lets have a look at the good old US of A's history when the shoe has been on the other foot:

 

 

• BHOPAL TRAGEDY

On the night of December 2 and 3, 1984, a 40-ton leak of methyl isocyanate gas from the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, caused the immediate deaths of at least 3,787 people, as a pale mist settled over the town. Thousands more were blinded and crippled by the disaster.

In the intervening years at least 20,000 have died prematurely from the leak, and 150,000 have suffered permanent health problems.

Union Carbide, now a subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company, was a U.S. firm, and its officials have consistently refused to take full liability for the accident.

Immediately after the disaster the CEO of Union Carbide, Warren Anderson, was arrested by Indian police when he visited Bhopal. He was released on bail and left the country.

Since then Anderson, who lives in comfortable retirement in the U.S., has avoided an international arrest warrant, and India has no extradition treaty with the U.S.

Indeed the U.S. government and American courts have repeatedly blocked attempts by survivors' groups and the Indian government to bring Anderson and other American executives to account, and very little of the $450million compensation package paid by Union Carbide has gone to the survivors (money that came not from the company but from its insurers).

This week, seven former Union Carbide managers, some in their seventies, were found guilty by an Indian court of causing death by negligence and sentenced to two years in prison. All were Indian nationals.

Not a single U.S. citizen has been punished for the disaster despite evidence emerging that the plant's owners were aware, before the tragedy took place, that faults existed in the Indian plant.

 

 

• EXXON VALDEZ

When a quarter of a million barrels of oil leaked from the stricken supertanker Exxon Valdez in March 1989, it was considered the worst maritime environmental disaster in history.

The affected area lay wholly in U.S. territory, Prince William Sound in Alaska, and the ship was owned and operated by a U.S. firm.

Despite the impact on seals, birds, fish and other wildlife, Exxon fought hard to avoid paying the massive compensation decreed by the American courts, reducing an original penalty of $5billion to just $500million on appeal.

As usual, the American legal system acted fast to defend the interests of American corporations, even when their victims were American citizens (and sea creatures).

 

• TORREY CANYON

The worst oil spill in British history (and the world's first major maritime environmental incident) polluted miles of Cornish coastline, and cost the local tourist industry tens of millions of pounds.

The 1967 disaster involved an American supertanker, the Torrey Canyon, which had been chartered by British Petroleum. It ran aground on a reef off the Scilly Isles, and broke up; the subsequent clean-up operation cost the UK and French governments tens of millions of pounds.

Attempts to recover any cash from the tanker's owners proved almost impossible. At one point, a young British lawyer, Anthony O'Connor, served a writ against the owners by sneaking aboard the Torrey Canyon's sister ship, the Lake Palourde, when she was moored in Singapore. He got aboard by pretending to be a whisky salesman and stuck his writ to the mast.

French naval speedboats chased the Lake Palourde but were unable to board her and serve their writ on behalf of Paris.

Sir Elwyn Jones, the Attorney General, told Parliament, seven months after the disaster that the Barracuda Tanker Corporation was trying to limit its liability in the U.S. courts to just $50.

In the end, compensation of £3million was paid, a small fraction of the clean-up costs and costs to the tourism industry.

 

• PIPER ALPHA

On July 6, 1988, 167 people were killed when the North Sea oil rig Piper Alpha exploded in a sheet of flame.

The rig lay about 120 miles northeast of Aberdeen, in the British North Sea Sector. It was wholly owned by Occidental Petroleum, based in Los Angeles, California.

An inquiry found Occidental Petroleum partially liable, on the grounds of inadequate safety and maintenance procedures, but no prosecutions followed.

Despite the catastrophic loss of life (more than 15 times as many were killed as by Deepwater Horizon) and the devastating economic consequences of losing some 10 per cent of total North Sea production, there was no anti-American rhetoric at the time from the Thatcher government.

 

So the USA are good at taking the blame when it is their own fault then ...... not.

 

Secondly, maybe Obama is pissed off with the UK because we now have a Government/Coalition who for the first time in nearly a decade and a half has reportedly said no to a request from Obama to send more UK troops into the Helmand province in Afghanistan; and in fact made a point of visiting our troops out there to not so cryptically say he is looking to pull our troops out of there leaving the USA to pick up the pieces. If only B-liar had had the balls to say no to Bush Jnr over those Whoppers of Mass Deceptions....... :thinking:

Firstly, lets have a look at the good old US of A's history when the shoe has been on the other foot:

• BHOPAL TRAGEDY

On the night of December 2 and 3, 1984, a 40-ton leak of methyl isocyanate gas from the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, caused the immediate deaths of at least 3,787 people, as a pale mist settled over the town. Thousands more were blinded and crippled by the disaster.

In the intervening years at least 20,000 have died prematurely from the leak, and 150,000 have suffered permanent health problems.

Union Carbide, now a subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company, was a U.S. firm, and its officials have consistently refused to take full liability for the accident.

Immediately after the disaster the CEO of Union Carbide, Warren Anderson, was arrested by Indian police when he visited Bhopal. He was released on bail and left the country.

Since then Anderson, who lives in comfortable retirement in the U.S., has avoided an international arrest warrant, and India has no extradition treaty with the U.S.

Indeed the U.S. government and American courts have repeatedly blocked attempts by survivors' groups and the Indian government to bring Anderson and other American executives to account, and very little of the $450million compensation package paid by Union Carbide has gone to the survivors (money that came not from the company but from its insurers).

This week, seven former Union Carbide managers, some in their seventies, were found guilty by an Indian court of causing death by negligence and sentenced to two years in prison. All were Indian nationals.

Not a single U.S. citizen has been punished for the disaster despite evidence emerging that the plant's owners were aware, before the tragedy took place, that faults existed in the Indian plant.

• EXXON VALDEZ

When a quarter of a million barrels of oil leaked from the stricken supertanker Exxon Valdez in March 1989, it was considered the worst maritime environmental disaster in history.

The affected area lay wholly in U.S. territory, Prince William Sound in Alaska, and the ship was owned and operated by a U.S. firm.

Despite the impact on seals, birds, fish and other wildlife, Exxon fought hard to avoid paying the massive compensation decreed by the American courts, reducing an original penalty of $5billion to just $500million on appeal.

As usual, the American legal system acted fast to defend the interests of American corporations, even when their victims were American citizens (and sea creatures).

 

• TORREY CANYON

The worst oil spill in British history (and the world's first major maritime environmental incident) polluted miles of Cornish coastline, and cost the local tourist industry tens of millions of pounds.

The 1967 disaster involved an American supertanker, the Torrey Canyon, which had been chartered by British Petroleum. It ran aground on a reef off the Scilly Isles, and broke up; the subsequent clean-up operation cost the UK and French governments tens of millions of pounds.

Attempts to recover any cash from the tanker's owners proved almost impossible. At one point, a young British lawyer, Anthony O'Connor, served a writ against the owners by sneaking aboard the Torrey Canyon's sister ship, the Lake Palourde, when she was moored in Singapore. He got aboard by pretending to be a whisky salesman and stuck his writ to the mast.

French naval speedboats chased the Lake Palourde but were unable to board her and serve their writ on behalf of Paris.

Sir Elwyn Jones, the Attorney General, told Parliament, seven months after the disaster that the Barracuda Tanker Corporation was trying to limit its liability in the U.S. courts to just $50.

In the end, compensation of £3million was paid, a small fraction of the clean-up costs and costs to the tourism industry.

 

• PIPER ALPHA

On July 6, 1988, 167 people were killed when the North Sea oil rig Piper Alpha exploded in a sheet of flame.

The rig lay about 120 miles northeast of Aberdeen, in the British North Sea Sector. It was wholly owned by Occidental Petroleum, based in Los Angeles, California.

An inquiry found Occidental Petroleum partially liable, on the grounds of inadequate safety and maintenance procedures, but no prosecutions followed.

Despite the catastrophic loss of life (more than 15 times as many were killed as by Deepwater Horizon) and the devastating economic consequences of losing some 10 per cent of total North Sea production, there was no anti-American rhetoric at the time from the Thatcher government.

 

So the USA are good at taking the blame when it is their own fault then ...... not.

 

Secondly, maybe Obama is pissed off with the UK because we now have a Government/Coalition who for the first time in nearly a decade and a half has reportedly said no to a request from Obama to send more UK troops into the Helmand province in Afghanistan; and in fact made a point of visiting our troops out there to not so cryptically say he is looking to pull our troops out of there leaving the USA to pick up the pieces. If only B-liar had had the balls to say no to Bush Jnr over those Whoppers of Mass Deceptions....... :thinking:

 

good post richard.... but you just know the americans conveiniantly forget about their accidents. boy cameron should point this out to obama when he next chats with him.

Firstly, lets have a look at the good old US of A's history when the shoe has been on the other foot:

• BHOPAL TRAGEDY

On the night of December 2 and 3, 1984, a 40-ton leak of methyl isocyanate gas from the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, caused the immediate deaths of at least 3,787 people, as a pale mist settled over the town. Thousands more were blinded and crippled by the disaster.

In the intervening years at least 20,000 have died prematurely from the leak, and 150,000 have suffered permanent health problems.

Union Carbide, now a subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company, was a U.S. firm, and its officials have consistently refused to take full liability for the accident.

Immediately after the disaster the CEO of Union Carbide, Warren Anderson, was arrested by Indian police when he visited Bhopal. He was released on bail and left the country.

Since then Anderson, who lives in comfortable retirement in the U.S., has avoided an international arrest warrant, and India has no extradition treaty with the U.S.

Indeed the U.S. government and American courts have repeatedly blocked attempts by survivors' groups and the Indian government to bring Anderson and other American executives to account, and very little of the $450million compensation package paid by Union Carbide has gone to the survivors (money that came not from the company but from its insurers).

This week, seven former Union Carbide managers, some in their seventies, were found guilty by an Indian court of causing death by negligence and sentenced to two years in prison. All were Indian nationals.

Not a single U.S. citizen has been punished for the disaster despite evidence emerging that the plant's owners were aware, before the tragedy took place, that faults existed in the Indian plant.

• EXXON VALDEZ

When a quarter of a million barrels of oil leaked from the stricken supertanker Exxon Valdez in March 1989, it was considered the worst maritime environmental disaster in history.

The affected area lay wholly in U.S. territory, Prince William Sound in Alaska, and the ship was owned and operated by a U.S. firm.

Despite the impact on seals, birds, fish and other wildlife, Exxon fought hard to avoid paying the massive compensation decreed by the American courts, reducing an original penalty of $5billion to just $500million on appeal.

As usual, the American legal system acted fast to defend the interests of American corporations, even when their victims were American citizens (and sea creatures).

 

• TORREY CANYON

The worst oil spill in British history (and the world's first major maritime environmental incident) polluted miles of Cornish coastline, and cost the local tourist industry tens of millions of pounds.

The 1967 disaster involved an American supertanker, the Torrey Canyon, which had been chartered by British Petroleum. It ran aground on a reef off the Scilly Isles, and broke up; the subsequent clean-up operation cost the UK and French governments tens of millions of pounds.

Attempts to recover any cash from the tanker's owners proved almost impossible. At one point, a young British lawyer, Anthony O'Connor, served a writ against the owners by sneaking aboard the Torrey Canyon's sister ship, the Lake Palourde, when she was moored in Singapore. He got aboard by pretending to be a whisky salesman and stuck his writ to the mast.

French naval speedboats chased the Lake Palourde but were unable to board her and serve their writ on behalf of Paris.

Sir Elwyn Jones, the Attorney General, told Parliament, seven months after the disaster that the Barracuda Tanker Corporation was trying to limit its liability in the U.S. courts to just $50.

In the end, compensation of £3million was paid, a small fraction of the clean-up costs and costs to the tourism industry.

 

• PIPER ALPHA

On July 6, 1988, 167 people were killed when the North Sea oil rig Piper Alpha exploded in a sheet of flame.

The rig lay about 120 miles northeast of Aberdeen, in the British North Sea Sector. It was wholly owned by Occidental Petroleum, based in Los Angeles, California.

An inquiry found Occidental Petroleum partially liable, on the grounds of inadequate safety and maintenance procedures, but no prosecutions followed.

Despite the catastrophic loss of life (more than 15 times as many were killed as by Deepwater Horizon) and the devastating economic consequences of losing some 10 per cent of total North Sea production, there was no anti-American rhetoric at the time from the Thatcher government.

 

So the USA are good at taking the blame when it is their own fault then ...... not.

 

Secondly, maybe Obama is pissed off with the UK because we now have a Government/Coalition who for the first time in nearly a decade and a half has reportedly said no to a request from Obama to send more UK troops into the Helmand province in Afghanistan; and in fact made a point of visiting our troops out there to not so cryptically say he is looking to pull our troops out of there leaving the USA to pick up the pieces. If only B-liar had had the balls to say no to Bush Jnr over those Whoppers of Mass Deceptions....... :thinking:

 

Fukk BP, they're GLOBAL polluters, along with Shell, Exxon, and others.. The US is by no means the only place where they've caused this sort of damage, one only has to look at Nigeria.. What, you mean you didn't hear about that one??? Nah, not surprising as the Western Political elites only ever seem to focus on what's going on in their own back yard..

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/3...ger-delta-shell

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news...jectid=10649775

 

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotian/1185995.html

 

I would say if Obama is to be criticised for anything, it's that he's not being tough enough on the oil companies.... His rhetoric on BP is a good start, but nonetheless it is ONLY a start, he needs to be every bit as tough-talking with Exxon, Shell, etc..... He should also be attacking the American obsession with ownership of SUVs and "gas guzzlers" which is at the heart of this problem anyway, it's the West's over-reliance on crude oil that's the problem, and it's not as if there aren't alternatives out there to petroleum, there have been for decades, the internal combustion engine is about 50-odd years obsolete, I saw on a TV programme once someone actually able to run a car on fukkin' CHIP FAT ffs.... :rolleyes:

 

I dont accept these environmental catastrophes as mere "accidents" (that implies that there's no one to blame), it's gross incompetence and negligence, and so typical of the Corporate interests in only making a buck and not giving a damn about the consequences of their greed....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fukk BP, they're GLOBAL polluters, along with Shell, Exxon, and others.. The US is by no means the only place where they've caused this sort of damage, one only has to look at Nigeria.. What, you mean you didn't hear about that one??? Nah, not surprising as the Western Political elites only ever seem to focus on what's going on in their own back yard..

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/3...ger-delta-shell

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news...jectid=10649775

 

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotian/1185995.html

 

I would say if Obama is to be criticised for anything, it's that he's not being tough enough on the oil companies.... His rhetoric on BP is a good start, but nonetheless it is ONLY a start, he needs to be every bit as tough-talking with Exxon, Shell, etc..... He should also be attacking the American obsession with ownership of SUVs and "gas guzzlers" which is at the heart of this problem anyway, it's the West's over-reliance on crude oil that's the problem, and it's not as if there aren't alternatives out there to petroleum, there have been for decades, the internal combustion engine is about 50-odd years obsolete, I saw on a TV programme once someone actually able to run a car on fukkin' CHIP FAT ffs.... :rolleyes:

 

I dont accept these environmental catastrophes as mere "accidents" (that implies that there's no one to blame), it's gross incompetence and negligence, and so typical of the Corporate interests in only making a buck and not giving a damn about the consequences of their greed....

 

Oh don't get me wrong I definitely agree with you on this principle.

 

However, calling BP British Petroleum on several occasions when it stopped calling itself that in 1998 smacks of Anglophilla.

 

Add to the fact that in 2009 The Exxon Mobil Corporation, the American multinational oil and gas corporation announced that they would support and donate to the Democrats at the 2010 US Election and suddenly it gets rather easier to get more cynical about the merits of Barrack Obama's verbal attacks.

However, calling BP British Petroleum on several occasions when it stopped calling itself that in 1998 smacks of Anglophilia

 

I take it you meant to say Anglo PHOBIA.... LOL

 

I take it you meant to say Anglo PHOBIA.... LOL

 

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

This whole "anti-British" crap the Daily Mail is trying to stir up is hilariously off the mark. I think as a general principle it's absolutely right that big businesses should be made to pay for the screw-ups they cause... it's an unfortunate consequence that British pensioners will lose out as an indirect consequence (as well as American pensioners, whose pensions are also tied in with BP shares... but I guess the people trying to stir up the "Obama hates Britain!!!!11" thing forget that), but we can't just do away with the general principle of holding businesses to account just because of that.

This whole "anti-British" crap the Daily Mail is trying to stir up is hilariously off the mark. I think as a general principle it's absolutely right that big businesses should be made to pay for the screw-ups they cause... it's an unfortunate consequence that British pensioners will lose out as an indirect consequence (as well as American pensioners, whose pensions are also tied in with BP shares... but I guess the people trying to stir up the "Obama hates Britain!!!!11" thing forget that), but we can't just do away with the general principle of holding businesses to account just because of that.

 

not so sure you can lay the blame squarely at the feet of the daily mail.

 

all im hearing of the tv news is a sickening whinge from obama, saying (unconvincingly) how hes gonna 'kick ass' <_< . yes its an unmittigated disaser, yes bp is responsible but yes bp are doing everything they can to sort this accident.

Okay, so what should he say? "LOL THX BP 4 TRYING YOUR BEST WE BELIEVE IN U" Numerous sources have claimed that BP were completely unprepared for the possibility of a spill, and by the vast amounts of damage that have been done to the Gulf Coast it shows. It'll take years to clean everything up. Obama isn't attacking the UK, no one is blaming you, he's blaming BP and they deserve the rhetoric, though as Grimly said I'd like to see more criticism towards the oil industry at large, though I think that in the longterm this event has definitely caused the public at large to be more skeptical of the oil industry.

 

It's only an accident if there was absolutely no predicting / preventing it as far as I'm concerned. Just like most car accidents really aren't accidents.

 

no...but he should stop going on and on. as has already been mentioned, america isnt exactly without blame in the past. i didnt hear any american president then going on and on, wanting to 'kick ass' when american firms 'accidents' abroad caused death, injury, pollution etc. he might be calling it the worst environmental disaster in american history.... but ONLY on american shores! totally ignoring americas sponsored environmental disasters abroad.

Okay, so what should he say? "LOL THX BP 4 TRYING YOUR BEST WE BELIEVE IN U" Numerous sources have claimed that BP were completely unprepared for the possibility of a spill, and by the vast amounts of damage that have been done to the Gulf Coast it shows. It'll take years to clean everything up. Obama isn't attacking the UK, no one is blaming you, he's blaming BP and they deserve the rhetoric, though as Grimly said I'd like to see more criticism towards the oil industry at large, though I think that in the longterm this event has definitely caused the public at large to be more skeptical of the oil industry.

 

It's only an accident if there was absolutely no predicting / preventing it as far as I'm concerned. Just like most car accidents really aren't accidents.

 

 

Preach the f***ing gospel tbh. I couldn't agree more. <3

Wednesday, 16 June 2010 17:29 UK

BBC NEWS

BP 'to fund $20bn spill payouts'

Breaking news

 

Under-fire oil firm BP is to place $20bn (£13.5bn) in a special fund to deal with compensation payouts after the Gulf oil spill, US media report.

 

BP executives were said to be finalising a deal at White House talks with President Obama and aides.

 

The meeting was held the morning after Mr Obama made his first Oval Office TV address over the oil spill.

 

Oil has been leaking into the Gulf since a drilling rig leased by BP blew up on 20 April, killing 11 workers.

 

Okay, so what should he say? "LOL THX BP 4 TRYING YOUR BEST WE BELIEVE IN U" Numerous sources have claimed that BP were completely unprepared for the possibility of a spill, and by the vast amounts of damage that have been done to the Gulf Coast it shows. It'll take years to clean everything up. Obama isn't attacking the UK, no one is blaming you, he's blaming BP and they deserve the rhetoric, though as Grimly said I'd like to see more criticism towards the oil industry at large, though I think that in the longterm this event has definitely caused the public at large to be more skeptical of the oil industry.

 

It's only an accident if there was absolutely no predicting / preventing it as far as I'm concerned. Just like most car accidents really aren't accidents.

 

 

After his speech overnight, I would say your about your leader have shown up that he is nothing more than a "false godhead".

 

Obama has singularly failed, as a statesman, to address the oil spillage catastrophy in the Gulf of Mexico. I would have expected a President in his position to have adopted a more statesman-like role, encouraging 'across-industry' cooperation to address the problem and bring this gusher under control, but no, all we get is more finger pointing, hysterical rhetoric and blatant threats. Setting aside the fact that the American culpability in this disaster is being totally ignored by Obama, BP (or "British Petroleum" as he deliberately and knowingly incorrectly calls them), since the two companies which were actually involved in the drilling (on BP's behalf) were the SWISS company Transocean and the AMERICAN company Halliburton.

 

But have you heard him criticise them? I haven't.

 

It would fit in with his anti-British agenda. BP have grudgingly from the outset accepted their responsibilities and obligations with regard to the compensation issues and clean-up etc, yet still we get negative pressure and threats from the White House, when true leadership would be much more appropriate and helpful in finding a solution to this awesome technical problem.

 

It is ironic that the very person that Obama dislikes so much, Winston Churchill (he had previously suspected that the British Army of Churchill's time was involved in the torture of his father during the Mau Mau rebellion; Hence on Day 1 on taking office he discarded the bust of Winston Churchill that was in the Oval Office), would have by now pulled together a panel of 'oil-industry and environmental' experts tasked with solving this problem and formulating measures that would regulate exploration and extraction methods, preventing further incidents occurring in the future - I wonder if Obama will get the message - or will it just be yet more threats and pressure.

 

Sorry, but this smacks of lets drive BP to go bust, so good old US owned Exxon can benefit (whom as I posted earlier gave the Democrats a significant amount towards their Election kitty). Hence his speech last night mentioned absolutely zero about amending all Oil producer's procedures & policies in the Seas around the USA as it was all about knocking BP.

 

Obama's rheoteric of "Seizing the moment," invoking World War II vets and the moon landing and stating that this disaster is the environmental 9/11, when 4 times as much is polluted from the Gulf of Niger by US Oil companies is breathtakingly insular. But then again I guess he ignores that, as his predecessors ignored (& supported US companies) over Bhophal is to be expected as the Rwandan genocide never happened did it in America's eyes.

 

As Morrissey once put it America Is Not The World & the Manic Street Preachers once put it If White America Told The Truth For One Day Its World Would Fall Apart.

 

In short Money talks & Bull$h!t walks. Whilst the UK is now getting a timely reminder in understanding why America is hated for its sheer arrogance in significant potions of the world.

 

Sad times, as I really thought Obama had more class than this, but I was wrong.

I do agree Obama should be doing more to try and clean up the spill - he should be deploying skimmer equipment or biological agents NOW and worry about who foots the bill later. But I still believe BP should bear the cost in full.

After his speech overnight, I would say your about your leader have shown up that he is nothing more than a "false godhead".

 

Obama has singularly failed, as a statesman, to address the oil spillage catastrophy in the Gulf of Mexico. I would have expected a President in his position to have adopted a more statesman-like role, encouraging 'across-industry' cooperation to address the problem and bring this gusher under control, but no, all we get is more finger pointing, hysterical rhetoric and blatant threats. Setting aside the fact that the American culpability in this disaster is being totally ignored by Obama, BP (or "British Petroleum" as he deliberately and knowingly incorrectly calls them), since the two companies which were actually involved in the drilling (on BP's behalf) were the SWISS company Transocean and the AMERICAN company Halliburton.

 

But have you heard him criticise them? I haven't.

 

It would fit in with his anti-British agenda. BP have grudgingly from the outset accepted their responsibilities and obligations with regard to the compensation issues and clean-up etc, yet still we get negative pressure and threats from the White House, when true leadership would be much more appropriate and helpful in finding a solution to this awesome technical problem.

 

It is ironic that the very person that Obama dislikes so much, Winston Churchill (he had previously suspected that the British Army of Churchill's time was involved in the torture of his father during the Mau Mau rebellion; Hence on Day 1 on taking office he discarded the bust of Winston Churchill that was in the Oval Office), would have by now pulled together a panel of 'oil-industry and environmental' experts tasked with solving this problem and formulating measures that would regulate exploration and extraction methods, preventing further incidents occurring in the future - I wonder if Obama will get the message - or will it just be yet more threats and pressure.

 

Sorry, but this smacks of lets drive BP to go bust, so good old US owned Exxon can benefit (whom as I posted earlier gave the Democrats a significant amount towards their Election kitty). Hence his speech last night mentioned absolutely zero about amending all Oil producer's procedures & policies in the Seas around the USA as it was all about knocking BP.

 

Obama's rheoteric of "Seizing the moment," invoking World War II vets and the moon landing and stating that this disaster is the environmental 9/11, when 4 times as much is polluted from the Gulf of Niger by US Oil companies is breathtakingly insular. But then again I guess he ignores that, as his predecessors ignored (& supported US companies) over Bhophal is to be expected as the Rwandan genocide never happened did it in America's eyes.

 

As Morrissey once put it America Is Not The World & the Manic Street Preachers once put it If White America Told The Truth For One Day Its World Would Fall Apart.

 

In short Money talks & Bull$h!t walks. Whilst the UK is now getting a timely reminder in understanding why America is hated for its sheer arrogance in significant potions of the world.

 

Sad times, as I really thought Obama had more class than this, but I was wrong.

 

 

splendid post richard! :)

 

and why didnt i get that? drive out bp from a very rich oilfield so american companies can benefit... doh!

But BP is just as much American as it is British! The majority of its employees are American for instance.

Edited June 16, 201015 yr by Danny

But BP is just as much American as it is British! The majority of its employees are American for instance.

 

... so? theyll just swap bosses.