...If he had the balls of course..... :lol:

 

Look, Barack, old chap. I know that this whole BP lobbying to do a deal with Ghaddafi for cheap oil thing is a goshed sticky wicket and all that, but hey, FUKK YOU, I WASN'T PM AT THE TIME THE GOVT FREED THE LOCKERBIE BOMBER, YOU TW@T......"

 

Seriously though... How is Cameron responsible for something that happened in 2007...? That was the Nu Labor Govt, with the final approval coming from the Scottish Executive... Cameron actually opposed the release of Al-Magrahi.... So, why the need to be all apologetic and contrite about it...? I am glad to hear that he IS gonna be taking a harder line on the "special relationship" with the US, which just seems to me is us bending over backwards for those gits by helping them out with Iraq and Afghanistan and then getting shafted in return by an ungrateful bunch of Washington w/ankers who seem to forget who their friends are...

 

While I certainly wont defend anything BP has done, fukk you Barack, if that's the attitude you're gonna cop. Maybe we shouldn't wait til 2014 to pull our troops out of Afghanistan or Iraq, maybe we should do it a lot sooner. Like TOMORROW.... Let's see how far you get without the professionalism and discipline of the British soldier to back up your incompetent, "friendly fire" committing, barely-literate assholes pulled out of jail terms to serve in the army and who can't hit the broadside of a barn (yeah, great idea, letting convicted FELONS serve in the military, just give 'em guns legally and let them shoot people thousands of miles away instead, so long as it's not on the streets of America, why should YOU care, eh?)....

 

And, errr, let's also look into the affairs of American oil companies shall we Barack...? Let's also look into Exxon (the team that brought you "Exxon Valdiz and the Slick of Prince William Sound") giving you millions to fight your election campaign and now, along with Shell, being responsible for a worse environmental disaster in Africa... Not within your purview Barack??? Oh, and here was me thinking you were the African-American President..... :rolleyes:

 

Well, if David Cameron has to apologise for something that the previous "Labour" govt did, then YOU have to go down on your fukkin' knees and apologise to every single Iraqi person who's ever lost a relative due to your country's illegal war in Iraq...

 

You promised so much Obama, and you have delivered so little, and you try to deflect your people's attention away from that fact by concocting a p!ssing contest with one of your closest allies who's done so much (an a LOT more than any ally should do...) for your country....

 

In short - here's a whole jumbo-sized can of "Shut the fukk up" for you Obama......

Nice one! Very passionate and true!!

Shouldn't this thread really be re-titled "What Grimley Fiendish thinks Cameron should be saying to Obama today....?" :lol:

 

Fortunately Cameron is Prime Minister and not foul-mouthed Grimley Fiendish.

 

Sorry to disappoint you Scott but according to News At Ten just now their meeting went really well with Cameron rightly blaming Scotland for the Megrahi release. He's said he will release documents but won't allow an inquiry in to the release. He's invited Obama to the UK on a State Visit and Obama said the "relationship is truly special"

Edited July 20, 201014 yr by Common Sense

Shouldn't this thread really be re-titled "What Grimley Fiendish thinks Cameron should be saying to Obama today....?" :lol:

 

Fortunately Cameron is Prime Minister and not foul-mouthed Grimley Fiendish.

 

Sorry to disappoint you Scott but according to News At Ten just now their meeting went really well with Cameron rightly blaming Scotland for the Megrahi release. He's said he will release documents but won't allow an inquiry in to the release. He's invited Obama to the UK on a State Visit and Obama said the "relationship is truly special"

Of course it did. The press release saying the meeting went well will have been written before Cameron left London. Just as happened every other time the PM met the US president.

What Cameron should be saying is that he UK will be pulling out of Afghanistan, starting with immediate effect.

Cameron could also enlighten Obama on cutting the budget deficit.

Cameron could also enlighten Obama on cutting the budget deficit.

 

Yeah, because I'm sure Obama and his economic team consisting of people who presided over the Clinton boom years in the 90s are DYING to hear the pearls of wisdom from Cameron and Osborne.

This entire post was unbelievably f***ing stupid and ridiculous, I honestly don't know where to begin.

 

Look, Barack, old chap. I know that this whole BP lobbying to do a deal with Ghaddafi for cheap oil thing is a goshed sticky wicket and all that, but hey, FUKK YOU, I WASN'T PM AT THE TIME THE GOVT FREED THE LOCKERBIE BOMBER, YOU TW@T......"

 

I don't have a clue what "goshed sticky wicket" means but your point that Cameron shouldn't have to defend the government he represents for colluding with a private company to release a terrorist who blew up a jumbo jet for business interests means that you can't blame Obama for the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan because he wasn't president at the time they were started. So most of the rest of your post has already been discredited, but let's continue for the hell of it.

 

While I certainly wont defend anything BP has done, fukk you Barack, if that's the attitude you're gonna cop. Maybe we shouldn't wait til 2014 to pull our troops out of Afghanistan or Iraq, maybe we should do it a lot sooner. Like TOMORROW.... Let's see how far you get without the professionalism and discipline of the British soldier to back up your incompetent, "friendly fire" committing, barely-literate assholes pulled out of jail terms to serve in the army and who can't hit the broadside of a barn (yeah, great idea, letting convicted FELONS serve in the military, just give 'em guns legally and let them shoot people thousands of miles away instead, so long as it's not on the streets of America, why should YOU care, eh?)....

 

You have left me speechless by this rant. This is utterly appalling jingoistic nonsense. And extremely offensive, by the way, coming from someone who calls people out all the time for generalizations and stereotypes. You have lost all credibility in that regard, seriously.

 

There have of course been problems with American soldiers and the military has lowered its admission standards and even allowed convicted felons to serve, which is unacceptable. But to blanket the entire US military, hundreds of thousands in number, with the sweeping generalizations you have is beyond stupidity. Even more absurd is your delusional image of "the professionalism and discipline of the British soldier" who, by the way, tortured and killed innocent Iraqi civilians in 2003, 2004 and 2006. I will admit there are problems with the US military -- you choose to believe all British soldiers live up to some ideal. You claim to loathe jingoistic military propaganda, but you just gave me a North Korea size dose of it.

 

And, errr, let's also look into the affairs of American oil companies shall we Barack...? Let's also look into Exxon (the team that brought you "Exxon Valdiz and the Slick of Prince William Sound") giving you millions to fight your election campaign and now, along with Shell, being responsible for a worse environmental disaster in Africa... Not within your purview Barack??? Oh, and here was me thinking you were the African-American President.....

 

No one has asked David Cameron or any British politician to apologize for the actions of BP, which is a scumbag piece of $h!t corporation run by f***ing criminals, just like Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell. That you think Americans walk around all day angry at British people or British politicians for the BP oil spill is the height of insecurity. Seriously, we have better things to do and it is insulting to us that you think we can't tell the difference between the British government/citizenry and a corporation. Oh wait, except, BP may have successfully lobbied for the release of a terrorist to gain profit from oil in North Africa... how do you react to that? The company you won't defend is in bed with the government you're defending rabidly and nonsensically.

 

Grim, you are a smart guy and have shown yourself to be tolerant and sensitive in the past (usually in defense) but this post is seriously ridiculous. I don't even understand what the point is -- that Cameron shouldn't apologize for BP's oil spill? Well, fine, so he shouldn't. He didn't, to my knowledge. If your opinions match those of many or most Brits then I'm guessing the UK-US diplomatic "rows" that the UK media fabricates once a year (Americans "boycotting" Scotland over Al Megrhai's release?! Are you KIDDING ME?!) are probably welcomed by the UK. Ouch.

Edited July 21, 201014 yr by Consie

Cameron is quite right to point the blame of the Lockerbie Bomber release at Scotland, our 'Justice' Minister has made a lot of noise about making the decision himself and not getting any input from Westminster. After-all it's actually f*** all to do with England, he was convicted in a Scottish court under Scots Law and sentenced to a Scottish Prison. All of that comes under the purview of the SNP minority Scottish Government ^_^ Open your firing squads at them by all means, preferably with real guns. You may need an anti aircraft missile to get though Salmonds Ego though.

 

 

 

Oh, one minor thing, Consie you are aware that whenever Obama said British Petroleum he was in fact bull$h!tting? The company hasn't been British Petroleum for quite some time. They are now 'Beyond Petroleum' and AFAIK this change has been recorded at company house. Obama's inaccuracy is whats causing your media and country to round on BP and our government. BP aren't even the owners or operators of the rig, they just swan off with the oil. I don't see the American and iirc Swiss companies that own/operated the rig getting much hassle.

American shareholders have almost as large a stake (39%) in BP as UK shareholders (40%).

Oh, one minor thing, Consie you are aware that whenever Obama said British Petroleum he was in fact bull$h!tting? The company hasn't been British Petroleum for quite some time. They are now 'Beyond Petroleum' and AFAIK this change has been recorded at company house. Obama's inaccuracy is whats causing your media and country to round on BP and our government. BP aren't even the owners or operators of the rig, they just swan off with the oil. I don't see the American and iirc Swiss companies that own/operated the rig getting much hassle.

 

Ok, I'm not naive, so maybe it was a sinister and deliberate move to try to place blame on a foreign entity for the oil disaster. Maybe it was a mistake, considering everyone in the world knows what BP originally stood for (I may be wrong but I believe 'Beyond Petroleum' is just a marketing thing). He was wrong to do this, without a doubt. But his doing so has never led to any public or government furor directed at the UK. The US media and US public has never gone after the British government over BP -- that is, until this week when the rumors over the Al Megrahi affair surfaced. Take a look at this BBC article:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/ma...tbashing_i.html

 

In it you will find the truth -- that there is no anti-UK sentiment WHATSOEVER in this country. For whatever reason, the UK media loves to stir up supposed diplomatic provocations every so often. The articles last year about Americans boycotting Scotland were LUDICROUSLY false.

I think Obama did say "British Petroleum" deliberately, but I think it was more to emphasise BP as a non-American corporation (i.e. to try to deflect blame away from himself) rather than any specific anti-British intent. Other than that, there was nothing even remotely anti-British about anything Obama or anyone else said, and a YouGov poll carried out in America showed that only 2% of American people said their opinions on British people/government had been affected. The whole affair, which (unsurprisingly) was started up by the Daily Mail and then leapt on by stupid anti-American people with all its jingoistic crap given it all kicked off afew days before the England-US game (I still remember some editorial signing off with "if President Obama wants a lesson in kicking some ass, he should fly to South Africa on Saturday - that sure worked out well didn't it :rolleyes: ) and was a national embarrassment imo.

 

As for the Megrahi release - even as someone who's left-wing on law/justice generally, it doesn't sit well with me that a convicted terrorist was released regardless of his health. I know that there were questions over how strong the evidence was, but the proper way to address those questions is via legal

appeal, not by bypassing it with a "compassionate grounds" label. My suspicion is that the Scottish government didn't want the potential embarrassment of his conviction being quashed by appeal and so wanted to avoid it by releasing him...

 

Obviously, the fact he has well outlived his prognosis DOES mean there should be an investigation - although with that said, I don't see why the US Senate is getting involved as it has literally nothing to do with them at all.

Ok, I'm not naive, so maybe it was a sinister and deliberate move to try to place blame on a foreign entity for the oil disaster. Maybe it was a mistake, considering everyone in the world knows what BP originally stood for (I may be wrong but I believe 'Beyond Petroleum' is just a marketing thing). He was wrong to do this, without a doubt. But his doing so has never led to any public or government furor directed at the UK. The US media and US public has never gone after the British government over BP -- that is, until this week when the rumors over the Al Megrahi affair surfaced. Take a look at this BBC article:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/ma...tbashing_i.html

 

In it you will find the truth -- that there is no anti-UK sentiment WHATSOEVER in this country. For whatever reason, the UK media loves to stir up supposed diplomatic provocations every so often. The articles last year about Americans boycotting Scotland were LUDICROUSLY false.

There's no doubt that much of the so called anti brit movement is a fabrication by our press, The Daily Mail does run out of ideas for Diana and Immigration stories occasionally.

 

They company is no longer legally registered as British Petroleum. There is no doubt that it is pure spin on their part that they refer to themselves as BP or Beyond Petroleum.

 

 

Nobody here is pleased with the Al Megrahi affair either, and i am very pleased to see Cameron directing the blame where it belongs with Alex Salmond and the SNP :w00t:

There have of course been problems with American soldiers and the military has lowered its admission standards and even allowed convicted felons to serve, which is unacceptable. But to blanket the entire US military, hundreds of thousands in number, with the sweeping generalizations you have is beyond stupidity. Even more absurd is your delusional image of "the professionalism and discipline of the British soldier" who, by the way, tortured and killed innocent Iraqi civilians in 2003, 2004 and 2006. I will admit there are problems with the US military -- you choose to believe all British soldiers live up to some ideal. You claim to loathe jingoistic military propaganda, but you just gave me a North Korea size dose of it.

No one has asked David Cameron or any British politician to apologize for the actions of BP, which is a scumbag piece of $h!t corporation run by f***ing criminals, just like Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell. That you think Americans walk around all day angry at British people or British politicians for the BP oil spill is the height of insecurity. Seriously, we have better things to do and it is insulting to us that you think we can't tell the difference between the British government/citizenry and a corporation. Oh wait, except, BP may have successfully lobbied for the release of a terrorist to gain profit from oil in North Africa... how do you react to that? The company you won't defend is in bed with the government you're defending rabidly and nonsensically.

 

British troops are better trained than US ones, that's just a fact mate, and the recruiting standards are definitely higher, the UK armed forces turn down more people than they let in, and they certainly dont have a situation where a convicted criminal could do a deal to stay out of prison by doing military service instead... The SAS for example is probably the best trained special forces unit in the world, Navy Seals actually get trained by the SAS dont they...? And, I stand by the comment about "Friendly Fire" absolutely... More British troops were killed in the Gulf War of 1991 by US "friendly fire" than were killed by the Iraqis, that's just a fact mate, sorry if you dont like it, and there were more of these incidents in the current Iraq conflict.... My cousin (and several friends of mine) served in the army, and have told me that the worst words a British soldier can hear is "You'll be supported by cover fire from the US air-force..", straight up dude.... I didn't mean to imply the British army is perfect, but in terms of the actual discipline, generally, they're a much tighter unit...

 

Obama DID quite deliberately emphasise "British Petroleum" in his speeches, etc, there's no getting around that... I dont defend this Govt, certainly not, but I'm not gonna listen to a US president who is clearly trying to deflect home criticisms onto someone else... As far as I'm aware, BP actually leased that rig off of someone else, it wasn't theirs... Also, the piece of safety equipment that failed was manufactured by a US company I believe, so why isn't Obama criticising them just as much as BP for supplying faulty goods..? In fact, why isn't there a lot MORE criticism of the lack of regulation of the oil industry generally...? The US corporations dont WANT regulation, because it gets in the way of them making profit, well, now you see the result of this lack of stringent regulations... Lack of regulation caused havoc in the banking sector, now it has caused this environmental catastrophe.... The American pursuit of the Almighty Dollar is what is most to blame here for what happened in the Gulf of Mexico, not just the ONE particular company, I just think that Americans should be looking a LOT closer to home for the source of this problem instead of pointing the finger elsewhere and finding a scapegoat (which wont solve the issue anyway) when the whole system itself is at fault.... The root of the problem is with your Govt's total inability (or lack of political will) to control the excesses of your corporations and other foreign corporations which operate on your soil, and this is how corners get cut and accidents happen, and the fact that when US and UK companies operate in the third world, they very clearly exploit these countries... Not that the UK Govt is much better, we went along with everything the fukkin' banks said and look where that got us. But, of course, fundamentally, the home of Neo-Liberalism, Reaganomics (which does still have an influence), rampant, unfettered Free Market Capitalism and de-regulation is YOUR country, like it or not, (I mean, come on, most of our banks were getting all their "brilliant" ideas from the likes of Goldman Sachs, Lehmann's, etc, it was American banks coming up with Sub-Prime mortgages, and ours copied the idea..), and we're all of us suffering the consequences of that...

 

The point I was trying to make as far as the lobbying thing goes is that BP are hardly the only ones guilty of this, and American corporations have been responsible for MASSIVE damage to the environment and people's lives in Africa, Asia and the Amazon, people have been murdered, entire tribes and races of people have been displaced off of historical tribal lands just so the likes of McDonalds, Exxon, Haliburton, etc, can make a buck; and this lot on Capitol Hill (probably the same idiots who voted in favour of the Iraq war) are bitching about the release of ONE BLOKE from prison, after the Corporate OIL WAR in Iraq which has seen a sovereign country illegally invaded and over $200 billion of Iraqi oil wealth has been spirited away from the Iraqi people and into Corporate coffers, oh, seriously, come off it, who are these c/unts trying to kid.. And, you're actually mistaken and have been misled, BP did NOT actually lobby to have Al-Magrahi released, they lobbied in favour of consideration for other things, and give Cameron SOME credit, he actually voted against releasing Al-Magrahi in the Commons, so, really that is nothing to do with him, so why is there people in Washington trying to sling that mud around.. Of course, now Cameron has totally blown whatever credit I may have given him by making the unforgiveably stupid statement about Britain being a "Junior Partner" during WW2, and even getting the date of America's entry into WW2 totally wrong....

 

 

 

 

Even more absurd is your delusional image of "the professionalism and discipline of the British soldier" who, by the way, tortured and killed innocent Iraqi civilians in 2003, 2004 and 2006.

 

I'll address the torture issue... Where do you suppose the average British soldier got the idea that it was acceptable to torture and generally trample all over Human Rights... Hmmm, lemme think.... Gee, wouldn't be Guantanamo, CIA "interrogation" tactics such as Waterboarding and Stress positions or "Extraordinary Rendition" would it...? Things that the Bush administration were pretty much endorsing....

 

Still, I guess most Americans must be happy today that Hayward's been dumped to be replaced by an American... I'm sure he'll do a marvellous job and will be whiter than white, squeaky clean and wont at all enter into any dodgy deals or lobby any Governments for anything.... -_-

 

Chicken or the egg, dude. I don't disagree with any of your comments and none of them are news to me (although they might be to most other US citizens) but arguing that the US started it, that the US created corporate greed, militarism, and torture while the UK and the rest of the world blindly followed, it's just not very productive and often isn't relevant. Further its incredibly difficult to substantiate -- how far back do we want to go? -- after all, the British empire probably invented the modern concept of invading a territory and raping it of resources under the false pretense of "trade" and free markets. Then again, maybe it predates even the British Empire.

 

My point is that you seem to always play the blame game. It's really easy to blame the US for every cultural, social, economic and militaristic indecency in the world but just don't let it get in the way of real self reflection.

Chicken or the egg, dude. I don't disagree with any of your comments and none of them are news to me (although they might be to most other US citizens) but arguing that the US started it, that the US created corporate greed, militarism, and torture while the UK and the rest of the world blindly followed, it's just not very productive and often isn't relevant. Further its incredibly difficult to substantiate -- how far back do we want to go? -- after all, the British empire probably invented the modern concept of invading a territory and raping it of resources under the false pretense of "trade" and free markets. Then again, maybe it predates even the British Empire.

 

My point is that you seem to always play the blame game. It's really easy to blame the US for every cultural, social, economic and militaristic indecency in the world but just don't let it get in the way of real self reflection.

I wont defend the actions of the "British Empire", quite the opposite I think you'll find... But, we're talking about the here and now, and in the here and now, the US is the dominant hegemonic state which wants to influence, dominate and control the globe.... And, sorry, but I DONT think that it is a coincidence that torture in the modern context has come to the forefront during the War on Terror, and it seems to have become acceptable to do so in this modern context since 9/11 onwards...

 

Put it this way, my cousin served in the British army for 12 years from 92-04, he saw front line action in Kosovo and Iraq... During his service in the 90s, there was no question of whether or not torture or "stress techniques" (which is the PC term for torture) was acceptable or not, it would've been labelled "conduct unbecoming" and the person who did it would be dismissed from the army and find themselves in the brig.... He did a year in Iraq, and all of a sudden the morality becomes a little bit hazy and unsurprisingly, he left the army, you have GITMO and then Abu Ghraib happening, and then reports of British soldiers doing things they probably would never have contemplated doing in the decade before (I mean, sorry, but how many British soldiers were court-martialled for torture during the conflicts in Former Yugoslavia and Kosovo? ZERO, the last I checked).... I dont call that a coincidence frankly.... People try to excuse Abu Ghraib, etc, by banging on about "stress"... Yeah, okay, stress, whatever... Was it more stressful than witnessing the ethnic cleansing and mass graves in Former Yugoslavia...? I dont think so.....

 

Pretty obvious to me that the policy changed during the Bush Admin and certain torture techniques became acceptable, and the UK Govt just followed like the sheep they were... The CIA say "jump", B-Liar says "how high"...? It's as if we never left the 80s really....

 

Never thought I'd post a link to a Daily Mail article, but check this out....

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...K-citizens.html