The British backlash over President Obama and the BP crisis
- Thread starter flame boy
- Start date
And it's quite an outrageous pile of crap Joll. Did you really think while you were reading it? Beyond enjoying the nice anti US zingers? Nothing... nothing, I have read in the American media or heard coming from the lips of any American official regarding BP or the UK, comes close to that jingoistic, hateful excuse for journalism.
Let's get this straight. A British multinational oil company, with the worst safety record in the industry, finally fucks up royally and causes the worst oil spill in American history if not world history and you expect the American President to apologize for saying the company is at fault and must pay for the damages? :banghead2:
LOL. That's really the most stupid thing I've heard.
Last edited:
Completely fatuous attempts at analogy.
A valid comparison would be to ask how many would refer to KFC as Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Absolutely not. KFC uses both names interchangeably.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2004
- Posts
- 15,636
- Media
- 62
- Likes
- 4,928
- Points
- 433
- Location
- London (Greater London, England)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
No, not for this. But there are two areas where an apology is needed.
The first apology would be for the negligence of US national institutions (for which the president is symbolically responsible) prior to the spill.
* BP had the worst safety record in the industry (over 700 violations) and the institutions did nothing about it.
* The contract for the work was awarded to BP (effectively by the USA) despite the worse safety record in the industry. Seemingly the only concern was price, not safety. This is a grievous failing in the duty of a state to look after its people.
* The regulatory framework in the Gulf of Mexico was (and still is?) very lax, certainly compared with UK regulations.
* Enforcement of regulations was very lax indeed. For example there does not seem to be a system whereby inspectors are permanently present on the rigs.
Additionally Obama should apologise to pensioners and investors in the USA and elsewhere for the senseless damage to the value of BP (and their pensions and investments) through his rhetoric. Not only has he reduced the incomes of many but he has actually created a situation where BP is less likely to be able to pay costs.
On the first issue Obama would be apologising for a situation which he inherited from previous administrations - ie he has little personal involvement. The point of a formal apology is to acknowledge fault by national institutions and promote reform. This is directly comparable to Cameron's recent apology for the Bloody Sunday shootings in Derry/Londonderry. On the second issue Obama would be apologising for personal actions which have caused so much needless damage including damage to many of the poorest in the USA and worldwide. An apology would draw a line under the issue and improve the chance of a BP recovery. It would reflect that his actions beggar belief. It is hard to imagine how he could have created more damage than he did.
Furthermore there is a Trans-Atlantic issue which Obama needs to think about. He has recently spoken in the warmest terms of the reationship between the UK and the USA. There are few (or no?) countries that consistently support the USA in the way that the UK does. Presumably this relationship has value to the USA. But in his handling of the BP issue he seems to have gone out of his way to upset the UK. The UK newspapers may not matter much, but the Conservative politicians who govern are a different matter. Both the Mayor of London and the Lord Mayor of London (two different men) have been outspoken against Obama. Cameron has kept quiet, but it is hard to imagine him not being critical (as some MPs have been). Now all this is Obama's choice. If he wants to pick an argument with the UK he can do so. But what is he playing at? Does the USA really want to try as hard as it can to find a way to fall out with the country that regards itself as the closest ally of the USA? There's plenty here to keep the diplomats busy.
helgaleena
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Posts
- 5,475
- Media
- 7
- Likes
- 43
- Points
- 193
- Location
- Wisconsin USA
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Female
Bbucko
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Posts
- 7,232
- Media
- 8
- Likes
- 325
- Points
- 208
- Location
- Sunny SoFla
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
FRE
Admired Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2008
- Posts
- 3,053
- Media
- 44
- Likes
- 833
- Points
- 258
- Location
- Palm Springs, California USA
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
- FRE,
I agree in part.
Some of his detractors see him as week and lacking in determination; making additional apologies would confirm their position. Others think that he is too aggressive and moving too fast. To maintain his power and influence so that he can be effective, he has a very narrow line to tread. I certainly would not want to be in his position.
I see there is some dissent from this by Fre. I think Obama was sensibly slow to say anything because he was trying to stay out of it, because when he did do something it could only be to come down hard on BP. Even if he knew this was the wrong thing to do, but would eventually be forced to do it. I never got the impression that Bush was reluctant to invade half the world, but again the impression here was that the US overreacted to one bombing incident in the US. Quite a big one I grant you, but we had decades of bombings funded by the US, and the impression was that the US suddenly woke up to the idea that it isnt very nice having bombs go off randomly around your country, funded by foreign powers. Well, if you interfere in national affairs all round the globe, what do you expect? It does not make sense to suddenly lash out as a result, which is what the US then did.
Exactly the same character seems to be demonstrated in this debate. The US is aghast that something could happen on its own territory, even though (as with the bombings) it had done little beforehand to prevent it. Jason is quite right to point out that the US was perfectly happy to deal with a contractor which it now declares had an appalling safety record. It wasnt complaining before. It strikes me this is also similar to the healthcare and welfare debates in the US. The US simply does not believe in protecting its own citizens, either from bombs, oil spills, unemployment or illness. It adopts a policy of letting the citizen care for himself whenever it can. This just isnt acceptable in our modern society, even to americans. It does lead to the situation we have now. Will any american politicians agree to change this?
It is also reflected in the gas-guzzling US economy, which doesnt care at all how much fuel is used. The US is holding back the whole world in reducing fuel consumption, because again it has this same attitude of letting tomorrow take care of itself.
Jason, I dont understand your disappointment with the US and its disinterest in promoting a special relationship with the UK. It is a british illusion that the US wants a special relationship with the UK, except as far as common history and language goes. Nice to come and look at the changing of the guard and some ancient castles. What the US wants from every country in the world is agreement with whatever policy the US decides and will use whatever influence it has (quite a bit) to achieve this. The US also promotes the illusion of its especial care for you, to just about every country in the world. The only way for the UK to stand up to US bullying is common action via the EU. The best you can say about the US is that it will be a very serious competitor for very scarce resources in a few dacades time. If it isnt still pushing the world around militarily,it will only be because it has run out of money.
B_nyvin
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2009
- Posts
- 399
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 23
- Points
- 103
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Pensacola FL
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
The USA does not "Need" a good relationship with the UK in any way at all, the only reason Bush was all warm and fuzzy with the UK was because for one the UK is invested heavily in the oil market and also the UK was about the only country to support the Iraq war.
The UK for the most part...is irrelevent...in fact i'd go to say the USA would sacrifice it's good standing with them in favor of good standing with Russia or China if that was ever possible.
Heck...even countries like Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Canada have more importance to the USA then the UK does....the UK exaggerates itself MASSIVELY....THE UK IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT TO US!!!
The UK for the most part...is irrelevent...in fact i'd go to say the USA would sacrifice it's good standing with them in favor of good standing with Russia or China if that was ever possible.
Heck...even countries like Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Canada have more importance to the USA then the UK does....the UK exaggerates itself MASSIVELY....THE UK IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT TO US!!!
Last edited:
dong20
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Posts
- 6,058
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 28
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The grey country
- Sexuality
- No Response
Perhaps, but while it may be inelegant, it's not especially inaccurate.
The UK has long punched above its weight, and a harsh reality that it can no longer afford to do so is slowly beginning to dawn on Westminster.
Sorry Jason, but it seems your best friend doesn't love you any more, perhaps you should look closer to home ...
To be fair, it wasn't a bomb....it was not one, not two, but three jet airliners flying into buildings, and a fourth that was brought down by passengers. Let's not cheapen the event by saying it was a "bomb" singular, as if it was simply a car bomb that killed one or two folks.
Cameron's apology, coming a whole 38 years after the Bloody Sunday/Bogside Massacre, and that article doesn't support your assertion that a PM facing some tragic disaster during their time in office would, unlike Obama, respond with an apology. And the article fails to demonstrate a double standard.
Hence Margaret Thatcher did not apologize for 1988's Piper Alpha disaster. Edward Heath did not apologize for 1972's "Bloody Sunday" - the official response of his government being the British Army acted in self defense. Prime Minster I. Ghandi did not apologize for Union Carbide India Ltd's 1984 mishap.
Gordon Brown didn't say "I'm sorry" in 2008 re: the economic woes caused by Iceland's financial institutions.
QFT
Last edited:
It's an odd time to play it this way, though.Perhaps, but while it may be inelegant, it's not especially inaccurate.
The UK has long punched above its weight, and a harsh reality that it can no longer afford to do so is slowly beginning to dawn on Westminster.
Sorry Jason, but it seems your best friend doesn't love you any more, perhaps you should look closer to home ...
With a new UK government deliberately positioning itself closer to America than Europe - and with Europe saying they want Britain firmly in the EU, deliberately snubbing the UK risks pushing their closest ally (in Europe and around the world) into re-assessing its relationship with the EU. A Britain fully committed to an integrated Europe would create a very different looking picture - in which the US had no-one to plead its cause to the EU, which with Britain's full backing and co-operation could quickly become a much more powerful player.
Kinda risky, imo.
But can the British government sway British public opinion enough? Britain has a history of nearly 1000 years of fierce independence.
D_Andreas Sukov
Account Disabled
As you arn't to the majority of British people. No British i know thinks its positive being your lapdog, and all the Bush-Blair years did to the majority of people my age is leave a really sour taste about America.
I think you'll find we are a nuclear contry. So, yes, the US does need a good relationship with the UK.
B_OtterJoq
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Posts
- 912
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 39
- Points
- 163
- Location
- Minneapolis
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Good point, and I doubt it. I don't think, ultimately, this fallout will permanently end the special relationship (from our side, at least). Our loyalty to/affection for the States goes much deeper than this current rift, although it will probably alter the terms of the relationship slightly.
It's probably made the new UK gov more wary when dealing with the States. Instead of unconditional support for a US we feel we can depend on, I imagine our dealings will be much more cautious, and dealt with on a case by case basis.
It may cement a position of positive engagement to both sides (US and EU) without total alliance to either. Basically, being fairly friendly and co-operative with both sides, but guarding our own interests and independence fiercely.
FRE
Admired Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2008
- Posts
- 3,053
- Media
- 44
- Likes
- 833
- Points
- 258
- Location
- Palm Springs, California USA
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
- FRE,
Dandelion,
You’ve made some good points and pointed out some inconsistencies which some of us Americans don’t seem to see, but some of what you say is over-simplified and not quite correct.
There are many people here who hate Obama with a white-hot passion. They are watching him very carefully to find excuses to criticize him. No matter what he does, he will be attacked, sometimes only for political reasons by people who may even agree with him secretly. Considering the circumstances with which he is dealing, I think he is doing as well as possible. Obviously no one, including Obama, can always be right. Also, it isn’t always clear whether his decisions are right or wrong.
I agree that the U.S. over-reacted to 9/11, although I may be crucified for saying so. The number of lives lost in 9/11 was small compared with the number of lives we continually lose by accepting an unacceptably high road fatality rate. Even though we have better roads than the UK, our road fatality rate, the last time I checked, was about 30% higher than in the UK, based on distance traveled. When 9/11 occurred, I was living in Fiji so I missed much of the impact. But the ranting of president George II made little sense even though it seems that it was seen as reasonable by many Americans at the time.
All presidents from Nixon (who was elected in 1968) to Obama have pointed out the imperative of ending our addiction to oil, but for political reasons, far too little has been done. Laws with gigantic loopholes were enacted to improve vehicle fuel efficiency. Moreover, as engine management and aerodynamic techniques made greater efficiency possible, laws did not change to require greater efficiency. Nothing was done to improve urban planning to reduce the amount of driving necessary and to make public transportation more practical. Instead, new roads were built and lanes were added to existing roads to accommodate the additional traffic generated by poor urban planning.
And what country does not want other countries to be in agreement with it? Isn’t that simply normal human nature, even if it isn’t always reasonable? Let us not forget that Europe did not deal very well with the Nazi threat. Instead, PM Neville Chamberlain attempted to appease Hitler and thought that he had succeeded in doing so ‘til subsequent events proved otherwise. I wonder whether the UK’s handling of the Falkland Island situation under PM Lady Thatcher was ideal. The UK’s behavior in India surely left much to be desired. And don’t forget that, under the Marshal Plan, the U.S. helped to rebuild Europe after WW II.
Of course the U.S. is not always right, and it’s fine to point out our mistakes. But let us not forget that ALL countries have often made less than optimal decisions and have a checkerboard history.
Many of us Americans have a strong emotional attachment to the UK, and I assume that it’s reciprocated by many UK citizens. Despite various disagreements and irritations, that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
You’ve made some good points and pointed out some inconsistencies which some of us Americans don’t seem to see, but some of what you say is over-simplified and not quite correct.
There are many people here who hate Obama with a white-hot passion. They are watching him very carefully to find excuses to criticize him. No matter what he does, he will be attacked, sometimes only for political reasons by people who may even agree with him secretly. Considering the circumstances with which he is dealing, I think he is doing as well as possible. Obviously no one, including Obama, can always be right. Also, it isn’t always clear whether his decisions are right or wrong.
I agree that the U.S. over-reacted to 9/11, although I may be crucified for saying so. The number of lives lost in 9/11 was small compared with the number of lives we continually lose by accepting an unacceptably high road fatality rate. Even though we have better roads than the UK, our road fatality rate, the last time I checked, was about 30% higher than in the UK, based on distance traveled. When 9/11 occurred, I was living in Fiji so I missed much of the impact. But the ranting of president George II made little sense even though it seems that it was seen as reasonable by many Americans at the time.
All presidents from Nixon (who was elected in 1968) to Obama have pointed out the imperative of ending our addiction to oil, but for political reasons, far too little has been done. Laws with gigantic loopholes were enacted to improve vehicle fuel efficiency. Moreover, as engine management and aerodynamic techniques made greater efficiency possible, laws did not change to require greater efficiency. Nothing was done to improve urban planning to reduce the amount of driving necessary and to make public transportation more practical. Instead, new roads were built and lanes were added to existing roads to accommodate the additional traffic generated by poor urban planning.
And what country does not want other countries to be in agreement with it? Isn’t that simply normal human nature, even if it isn’t always reasonable? Let us not forget that Europe did not deal very well with the Nazi threat. Instead, PM Neville Chamberlain attempted to appease Hitler and thought that he had succeeded in doing so ‘til subsequent events proved otherwise. I wonder whether the UK’s handling of the Falkland Island situation under PM Lady Thatcher was ideal. The UK’s behavior in India surely left much to be desired. And don’t forget that, under the Marshal Plan, the U.S. helped to rebuild Europe after WW II.
Of course the U.S. is not always right, and it’s fine to point out our mistakes. But let us not forget that ALL countries have often made less than optimal decisions and have a checkerboard history.
Many of us Americans have a strong emotional attachment to the UK, and I assume that it’s reciprocated by many UK citizens. Despite various disagreements and irritations, that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Similar threads
