The British backlash over President Obama and the BP crisis

[dandelion]

there will be another leak next year, and another the year after... Most of them will not be in the US. The people in the US will go 'tut-tut', and wonder if it will affect the price of petrol. They wont care at all who the company concerned was.

 

[maxcok]

there will be another leak next year, and another the year after... Most of them will not be in the US. The people in the US will go 'tut-tut', and wonder if it will affect the price of petrol. They wont care at all who the company concerned was.

Oh, you know us all so well, don't you? How did you become so astute?

BTW, lovely sentiments you expressed in your last post to me:

We dont care if the US goes bust except in so far as it drags us down too. That is the meaning of national interest, as you just said yourself in reverse about the president working for US interest alone.

That's not what I said. Don't put words in my mouth, okay?
I wonder if your first statement there is reflective of most Brits, or if it is a reflection of you personally.

This issue precisely demonstrates that US and UK common interest is in reality only where the two have common goals and not otherwise. The US likes to portray itself as everyones friend internationally, but obviously this is impossible.

Barring the vagaries of certain presidential administrations, I think the U.S. has a long history of being friendly to nations who act like friends, even sometimes when they don't, even sometimes when we don't have "common goals".

 

[Drifterwood]

I do wonder whether the UK Government is always actually working in the UK's best interests.

But then I think sole national interest is a problem that was played out in the Twentieth Century and I personally hope that this century will see a more inclusive global policy, rather than being the black and white of with us or against us.

This is why I am personally a little disappointed with Mr. Obama's response (at least the one I am hearing in the UK).

 

[Mr. Snakey]

So you still have nothing to back up your claims, and your latest response is to personally attack those who challenge your hollow rhetoric... Real cute, but your assertion is still baseless without further explanation.

I have posted countless times in this thread about my honest opinion on this subject with links. You have offered nothing more than insults and cursing. Perhaps if you stop smoking crack you may be able to form a opinion of your own. In the mean time eat a whole box of Exlax and lock yourself in a closet for a week. Also realize the more you post, the more you make a ass of yourself.

 

[D_Harvey Schmeckel]

Unintentional irony award goes to Mr. Snakey for this sequence:

1) Perhaps if you stop smoking crack you may be able to form a opinion of your own. In the mean time eat a whole box of Exlax and lock yourself in a closet for a week.

2) Also realize the more you post, the more you make a ass of yourself.

 

[maxcok]

^ Number 2 is particularly ironic. Doubly so.

 

[sbat]

So, what's the point? If you operate a vehicle in a careless manner and drive it through your neighbor's wall into their living room, who is responsible? The makers of the vehicle? Perhaps your neighbors for putting their house in your vehicle's path? Or maybe the person who issued you your driver's license.

The President says BP is responsible because they are. Those who whine about holding them accountable are usually the same ones historically opposed to government regulation of businesses and industry in the first place.

If the resulting "financial prospects for the company are grim" as a result of their own carelessness, then so be it. Lesson learned.

My point was simply to demonstrate how a president could play a role in talking a company to death. There was no value judgement in my words

 

[sbat]

Can you show me where I claimed to have a monopoly on the truth or claimed to know what's in Obama's mind? If not, this is a specious deflection. And my defense of the president in this instance is based on what he's said repeatedly in his campaign and since taking office, not "what's in his head".

It's reflected in your unecessarily combative stance against those with whom you disagree. It's not just me. Nothing I've said has been hyperbolic. Hyperbolic is when star accused Obama of being the worst con-man in history. Saying that part of Obama's goal is to get people to not blame him is not hyperbolic or blatant misrepresentation - it's the reality of politics in a democratic country. Politicians who are associated as culpable for failing to resolve environmental catastrophes tend to lose elections. Obama doesn't want that to happen. Nothing I've said was illogical or out of the realm of realistic possibility.

So, you've been accused of being hyperbolic before? Hmm . . . wasn't me. Maybe there's a pattern there?

Not on this website. No pattern here. People have often taking meaning from unconventional or controversial opinions that I've share that wasn't there. I've seen a lot of that happen to Trinity lately - her Jon Stewart thread, for example. I understand some of it comes from her history, but you can just ignore her if her arguments cease to be logical.


Again, my 'truth monopoly', lol. As for pointing out your "hyperbole", how about the "blatant misrepresentation" below for an example? Coincidentally, one I already debunked in the very post you quoted in your response here, so I don't think we need to debate it. Although I suppose you're free to tell me I'm wrong and try to defend it as truth if you can.

How was it a blatant misrepresentation? You know, you could have just written a post demonstrating how it was so instead and created an engaging, entertaining debate. But you chose not to, and left me to assume (or not) that you are right because you say you are.



Continuing . . . .

Maybe you can first show me where I made any such statement? Otherwise, it's another specious deflection.

Fine. Would you then like to show me where I've said anything challenging your belief?

You just said my post was full of hyperbole and blatant misrepresentation without specifically identifying anything that I said. You expect me to take your word on it?

Otherwise, you guessed it, specious deflection.

Kind of like dismissing someone's post as blatant misrepresentation without demonstrating how?

Oh, but you see, to me this issue is very serious. Environmental issues top my list of serious concerns. You can make light if you want (and you have), and you can misrepresent if you want, but what makes you think I'm going to ignore you if you make a statement I strongly disagree with? You don't have that prerogative.

I don't want you to ignore. I'm more interested in debating. Not the kind of debating that we're doing now. But the kind where we actually discuss the points at hand and try to actually convince each other of our own points. Not the kind where you completely ignore the actual argument and dismiss without supporting statements what the other person has to say.

I don't necessarily share my own full personal opinions on this board, and I often play devil's advocate because it's boring for the world for one to spout what they believe all the time.

 

[pedercic99]

Ther also seem to be a difference in language between the USA and us. " I want my life back" means for us " There is nothing I want more than to clear this mess up. I can do nothing else until it is sorted. " Whereas to the Americans it seems to mean " This is a nuisance and I want out."
[/QUOTE]

I agree with everything apart from the above. 'I want my life back' is not an expression most English people use, but to me (and other English friends I have discussed it with) it means something like 'I'm having a hard time too, know. This is ruining my life and I want to get this inconvenient stuff sorted out so that I can have start enjoying myself again.' This seems inappropriate to us because it sounds self-pitying and because he is somehow equating having to work harder to sort out the situation (for which he as CEO is ultimately responsible) with the deaths, bereavements, and economic and environmental consequences resulting from it. I can't speak for all English people but I cringed when I heard him say that.

 

[Incocknito]

"I want my life back"

Is a selfish statement. Whoever said that does not care about anyone but himself.

 

[rbkwp]

This thread has evolved to people ...
"I want my life back"
I would suggest in all cultures such would plainly mean...I would like my life back to how it was formerly, a genuine Plea of Humanity of which we are all entitled to
A most unfortunate incident that has put our usual living standard on hold
So sad and not so much a selfish plea i would not think

BP has acknowledeged there Guilt over it all and are prepared to put in all sources it can to Clean Up' thats to be commended obviously.Barack is ----- gently' reinforcing ------ what the USA Citizens expect of there President, thats admirable, he is allowed to Play Golf or go to a Movie with his family huh???
Nothing more should be expected of the guy he is not super human, perhaps people want him to roll up his sleeves and swim amongst the oil soaking it up
That would then be regarded as a photo opportuity....damned if you do/don't
I am incredulous that us mere humans almost wish damnation on all others
Faultless? are we
I doubt that very much

I am now beginning to think its a futile discussion, we are all trying to shift blame on Citizens of Nations now..myself incl with my attack on the Ops original..stick to the Primary
Clean up, as we know just has to be performed
enz

 

[houtx48]

It would probably be appropriate if Obama ever gets off the golf course that he oughta head down to Louisiana and check things out.......................... Pull your cranium from your rectum then you could ascertain what was going on.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

Just because a correspondent here is articulate and half educated should we assume his utterings are of more value than those of us who base our discourse on expereince. I believe Obama is a good man (and what the heck is wrong with Americans who question a man's veracity) but he is as much hostage to the oil companies as the victims of the disaster. The duplicity of the Washington elite is verging on the arrogance of the 18th century French nobility. Once in awhile it is well we should have a good houseclean.

 

[Jason]

Lord Tebbit - former chairman of the Conservative Party, now retired - waded into the debate a couple of days ago to call Obama's actions "despicable". Today he has given his view of what Cameron should do:

"What Mr Cameron has to explain to the President is that winding up a hate campaign against the British is not a terribly smart policy. It may win Mr Obama political support amongst the less well-informed voters right now, but the long-term effects are less sure. BP is also a major US company. Busting it might not be a very smart idea and not just on economic grounds. The message that non-US companies are likely to be treated as political punchbags would be a profoundly political message, too.
As if that were not enough, Mr Cameron will also have to explain to the President that there can be no question of allowing the extradition of Gary McKinnon, the Asperger’s syndrome sufferer who made a fool of the US government by hacking into its secret computer networks. As the now Deputy Prime Minister said on December 15 last year while campaigning against McKinnon’s extradition, “it is up to the Government here to do the right thing”."

This and more at What Cameron should tell Obama about BP

Tebbit is a Conservative grandee and carries weight - he is to the right of the party. The linkage with the McKinnon issue is interesting as this is something that the Liberals made much of. Tebbit seems to be suggesting that all parts of the Liberal Conservative Coalition can make common ground around standing up to Obama. My sense is that there is more than just this. Cameron and Tebbit are more astute as politicians and diplomats than to stand up to Obama just for the fun of it. I think the survival of BP is a key British national interest and I think the UK is willing to back BP both with words and perhaps with money. Both bring the UK into confict not with the USA - for the survival of BP is important for the USA also - but with Obama. We seem ever so close to a position where the UK government is looking towards a new Atlanticist policy with closer links with the USA - but with a USA not led by Obama.

 

[Jason]

In the last few minutes we have the UK Labour Party (Ed Miliband) saying that responsibility for the disaster should be established and we should stop pointing fingers. It seems we have pretty much cross-party consensus in the UK that Obama has got it wrong.

As the UK sees it talking down BP and stopping them paying a dividend does serious damage to the UK and UK pensioners - and indeed damages the US. It is being done as part of a political gesture to placate a sense of outrage in the US. That British pensioners and the British economy should take a major knock so that Obama can be seen to be placating US voters is unacceptable. The idea is that Obama claims he has his boot on the throat of "British Petroleum". In fact he has his boot on the throat of British pensioners.

The announcement just made that BP has 48 hours to step up its response is seen in the UK as ludicrous. If more needed to be done why didn't Obama get it done 50 days ago? If the reality is that BP really cannot do anything more, then this is just another attack by Obama on British pensioners.

 

[798686]

It's a pointless hoo-hah. he should just let them get on with the clean-up operation. I'm sure they're doing everything they possibly can to sort it, with the full glare of the world's media on them.

This is the Comment in today's Times.

*There was a great cartoon yesterday entitled USA v England (referring to the footie match) with Obama booting a BP coloured ball, lol...

 

[B_talltpaguy]

I have posted countless times in this thread about my honest opinion on this subject with links.

You offered the complaint that it's all Obama's fault, because he hasn't personally spoken with the CEO of BP...
http://www.lpsg.org/2813387-post30.html

Then you said the same thing again.. It's all Obama's fault, because he didn't personally talk to the CEO of BP...
http://www.lpsg.org/2813871-post45.html

Then when multiple people objected to your position, and effectively explained why it's irrelevant, you took on a belligerent tone, and again stated that's it's all Obama's fault, specifically because he didn't talk to BP's CEO. But again, you left out how talking to the CEO of BP was going to actually accomplish anything to mitigate this disaster...
http://www.lpsg.org/2814258-post72.html


So, after reading the same remarks from you for a third time, but with nothing added actually explaining how your position is relevant to fixing this disaster, I asked you directly...

And this would have helped how exactly?

Please spell out this alternate reality you dream of.

And your response was the same sort of personal attack you have responded to everyone else with who asks you to further explain why Obama not talking personally to the CEO of BP represented a "lack of leadership" as you asserted, makes the oil spill "all his fault" as you asserted, means that Obama "isn't doing his job" to minimize this disaster as you asserted, and shows that Obama's response to the spill displays a "destroy everything mentality" as you asserted.

You have made numerous serious attacks on the president, both professionally and personally, all of them based on your assertion that these consquences were caused by Obama not personally talking to the CEO of BP.

I'm still at a loss to comprehend how all of these terrible consequences that you assert can occur, simply because Obama did not personally talk to the CEO of BP. You are clearly clinging to this single specific act as essentially being the downfall of Obama's response to this disaster, but you haven't explained how personally talking to the CEO of BP would have actually made a difference.

So... I ask again, how would Obama talking personally to the CEO of BP helped end this disaster sooner and lessened its effects? How does Obama talking on the phone to the CEO of BP help seal the well faster or mitigate the effects of the spilled oil, or reduce the economic impacts of this disaster? Why is it in your mind that there is this epic difference in effectiveness between administration officials talking to BP in the name of the president, and Obama doing it himself personally? Please explain the functional difference.

You have offered nothing more than insults and cursing.

No, I offered you the chance to explain how Obama talking to the CEO of BP would accomplish anything. Instead, you have evaded explaining how your complaint leads to a solution, and have leveled personal attacks on any member here who challenges you to explain your position.

My guess is that you will either ignore this post, or continue your now well established pattern of leveling personal attacks against respondents, rather than actually discuss your remarks in greater detail and explain how they are relevant to solving the oil spill.

 

[dong20]

In the last few minutes we have the UK Labour Party (Ed Miliband) saying that responsibility for the disaster should be established and we should stop pointing fingers. It seems we have pretty much cross-party consensus in the UK that Obama has got it wrong.

As the UK sees it talking down BP and stopping them paying a dividend does serious damage to the UK and UK pensioners - and indeed damages the US. It is being done as part of a political gesture to placate a sense of outrage in the US. That British pensioners and the British economy should take a major knock so that Obama can be seen to be placating US voters is unacceptable. The idea is that Obama claims he has his boot on the throat of "British Petroleum". In fact he has his boot on the throat of British pensioners.

The announcement just made that BP has 48 hours to step up its response is seen in the UK as ludicrous. If more needed to be done why didn't Obama get it done 50 days ago? If the reality is that BP really cannot do anything more, then this is just another attack by Obama on British pensioners.

Feeling betrayed, Jason?

Or are you simply coming to realise that after months of berating all things EU, while extolling the virtues of a replacing the EU with close Anglo-US cosiness that a simply harsh reality has, eventually begun to penetrate even your often seemingly blinkered 'Little England' worldview - that global politics is a most fickle mistress.

So, by voicing robust criticism of likely corporate negligence (with a dose of media hoopla included - primarily for domestic consumption) ... the leader of your favourite nation (well, perhaps second favourite) has his foot on the throat of British pensioners?

It's a repeated amusement (to me anyway) how you repeatedly craft your posts to suggest you 'speak for' the UK and have your finger on the throbbing pulse of public opinion, when actual events tend to suggest quite the reverse.

 

[B_crackoff]

Are the British now a race? Who knew?

Well African's aren't either then!

Here's some evidence on British DNA for you sweetheart! It's relatively unchanged for about 10,000 years. Good enough!:biggrin1:

Myths of British ancestry – Prospect Magazine
British Have Changed Little Since Ice Age, Gene Study Says

Otherwise your typical trollish anti-Obama rant courtesy of Crackoff.

maxcok, you're simply an apologist for Obama! Anything that is negative about Obama, always has the same posters calling dissenters trolls.

BTW, this whole thing won't break BP. They've got more than enough cash & resources, & it's been overplayed. I bought in @360.

Any posturing by the US Govt. looks completely unenforceable legally at present anyway, as any search of actual qualified legal opinion would prove.

Have a nice weekend all!

 

[123scotty]

well after all the name calling, finger pointing, sound bite comments.
has anyone in the u.s. administration done anything positive to help.
i know this sounds really out there
but
why not try and help bp
if they cant get the job done fast enough themselves
meanwhile the oil flows on and on