"the more spills change... the more they stay the same... "

[consortium11]

That's a bit spurious. They are still working to downplay the magnitude of this, which our administration foolishly took at face value, delaying proper mobilization.

Obama's naivette regarding executive experience aside - BP still lied about the magnitude of what was coming. It still is.

As I said, I'm not defending BP here. They've done a lot of scummy things during the aftermath... although it does have to be said compared to other industrial and environmental disasters the effort they've gone to (albeit under severe political pressure) with regards to paying claims is definitely on the positive side. Once again though, still doesn't excuse the scummy actions.

What?

All I can find about this is Obama not giving Brown a proper welcome weeks after he assumed office. Given the clusterfuck he inherited, uh, what?

Or you could look at this... which as an article is fairly forgiving of Obama (and doesn't mention that the only real time they had together was when Brown literally caught him in the kitchen for 15 minutes...). While I can be somewhat forgiving of the lack of huge events for the Pm's visit to Washington... it still doesn't really explain why a joint press conference couldn't be held...

Genuinely hostile would be an intent to intervene. I wonder how Fox News (again, the same company pushing this sort of language on your side of the pond) would have reacted if he did. (Edit: Did support Britain's claim, I mean)

1) Calling it a "claim" is pretty deceitful. It's the equivalent of saying that the US only has a claim over Alaska or Texas... or hell, pretty much the whole United States actually. The UK only has a claim over Rockall... the Falklands are a part of under the UK’s jurisdiction

2) Well, it started with offer of mediation which you may just about claim isn't "intervening"... but it then led on to full blown support of declarations demanding negotiations over the islands.

Let us e clear here. The Falklands are British. While there is historical flotsam with regard to each claim for the vast majority of their existence the ruling power over the Falklands (and not as an oppressor) has been the UK. There was no displacement of natives... it was legitimate (well, as far as 17-19th century colonisation ever was) settlement. Even beyond that, surely the most important thing is this; every poll ever taken of whether the islanders themselves want sovereignty to even be discussed with Argentina is a resounding no. The constitution of the Islands itself states self-determination is their right. If you support negotiations you believe that is wrong... simple as that really.

I'm trying to think of a good comparison... forgive me if these are lacking. If high ranking members of the UK State were to offer to lead negotiations between the US and Mexico/Russia over Texas/Alaska... and later voted for and supported a resolution demanding those negotiations which the people of the two respective areas fiercely opposed... while in Texas's case calling the area in question Coahuila y Tejas... I'd say that would be seen as a pretty hostile action,

This is a linguistic tendency and has little to do with intent, claiming otherwise is - again - simply delusional. It originally stood for British Petroleum, it is still headquartered on the British Isles. They are naturally going to get interchanged. It might get used as a political stick against Rand Paul and others shilling for them, but it has nothing to do with hostility to the British people.

This is the 21st century, for crying out loud.

I can understand the man on the street getting the names wrong. I can understand someone who doesn't really know much about the company getting the name wrong. I can't understand pretty much the entire US administration repeatedly using a decade old name to deal with a company which, conveniently, also allows them to make pretty effective political capital off it, unless there's something slightly deeper going on then "aww shucks, I got the name wrong again..."

25 years ago - so claiming that judicial obstruction for Dow Chemical is an Obama administration problem is simply false.

Of course it's not just an Obama administration problem, but, you know, seeing as they're still blocking extradition... it sort of is now...

We let BP off the hook for leading to the deaths of American citizens, as well. We turned a blind eye to their genuinely abysmal safety record, and let them be the suppliers of oil to our military despite it all.

Once again, I'm not defending BP here...

And comparing this to the deaths ten thousand people over two decades ago is a sick, twisted, disgusting joke. Ignoring the two wrongs != right angle, ignoring the fact that we did put up with BP's negligence in killing our citizens, ignoring the inherently sick nature of trading death and suffering for death and pain...

Which you follow up with...

...it shows a stunning lack of comprehension of the scale involved. Ten thousand. Seriously? Do you have no clue at all of the magnitude of what is going on in the Gulf? British people typically accuse Americans of having no sense of perspective. "Well, it's only a third of your coastline!" ... that thirty million people depend on.

You can't have it both ways... you can't say it's wrong to compare suffering and then compare suffering.

But, that's not my point and it never was. As you say trying to compare the 10,000+ who died at Bhopal combined with the horrors that the survivors have suffered since and the current victims and trying to work out which is "worse" is sick. Which is why I didn't do that. If I really was going to compare events I'd point to the Piper Alpha rig explosion and how Thatcher (who no-one can accuse of backing down from a fight or ever being soft) didn't feel the need to talk of "keeping her boot on the neck" of Oxy.

But once again, that wasn't my point.

The point was this. At the same time as Obama and his administration was taking about criminal sanctions against BP, sentences were finally dealt out with regards to Bhopal. Pathetically small sentences, but once again, not my point. The point is that a certain Warren Anderson is still happily tucked away safe in the USA rather than facing charges... with the US administration still refusing to extradite him, a point expanded on here. If I was to be harsh I'd say that it's quite clear: Obama will attempt to bring management to justice for their sins... but only if they're British...

If some private group wrecked London, how would you react if I turned around and pointed to one of Britain's atrocities in the past?

Well, seeing that as far as I know no-one is using Bhopal to excuse BP (instead to point out the seemingly hypocritical stance Obama has taken) or gone "Well, remember Piper-Alpha, it's all fair now..." I'd say most people would think you were a bit strange. If on the other hand you were pointing out that when Britain committed an atrocity in relatively recent times and then blocked (and to the day continued to block) all attempts to bring those responsible to justice... but now was demanding that the members of the private group should suffer that fate and the hypocrisy there I'd say you had a pretty strong point.

Come on Veks, this last exchange with me supposedly having compared suffering has been pretty close to a strawman. You're better then that.

I seriously find it difficult to express the scale of my incredulity.

Likewise. Every other time I've debated with you previously you've been sharp and haven't resorted (even unintentionally) to misstating arguments. I'm not sure how "...the very harsh language about BP while the US companies are escaping relatively lightly... especially considering that the Bhopal Gas Tragedy was in the news at the same time" and "... while still blocking the moves that would lead to the prosecution of US company officers whose industrial accident led to the deaths of 10,000 plus" got turned into me supposedly trying to say one tragedy was worse than the other rather than that there's something strange about castigating P and talking about criminal sanctions while not making any real noise on aiding in the prosecution of US companies and individuals whose actions led to large scale industrial/environmental disasters.

Easy, easy...

Like Sunday morning…

Consortium, the name change was not highly publicized and not widely known. I didn't even know they had changed their name until I read something on the oil spill itself that referenced "Beyond Petroleum" and got confused. Going to investigate, I found that British Petroleum had changed their name. It's not malice, it's not a deliberate attempt to smear the descriptor, 'British'. It's misinformation.

I’d insert “deliberate” in there prior to misinformation.

As I said above I don’t necessarily expect a man on the street to know that British Petroleum changed its name 10 years ago… but I damn well expect members of the administration for whom this is a huge freaking deal (and that’s an understatement) to get it right… unless they deliberately don’t want to.

As far as the pension system, I understand why it may have seemed like a good idea at the time, and possibly the investments in BP have saved said system from bankruptcy. However, if you invest in an oil company, then you run the risk of getting burned when there is an oil spill, or a leak, or some other thing. Don't tell me nobody could have conceived of this before; we know the effects of oil on the environment, and England itself is subject to intermittent spills, albeit on a smaller scale. There are people whose job it is to think of these eventualities - they are the emergency planners, the oversight committees, and certainly the people who invested public money (if I'm understanding correctly) into a private company should have taken a long look at the risks before doing so. If you're going to reap the benefit, you really do have to deal with the risks. I'm just sorry that it's a lot of retirees who have to feel the effects of the risks. It should be the people responsible for the fund in the first place.

I don’t want to come across (and I don’t think I do) as saying “Lot’s of vulnerable people hold BP shares, therefore no-one should do anything that might hurt BP.” Of course BP’s stock price is going to take a kicking and of course those who ought those shares are going to lose value… that’s what BP deserve and that’s the risk of investing. What I’m not a fan of is when politicians keeping shoving that share price down in a cheap attempt to make political capital.

While we have a responsibility to pay respects to other countries, I don't really expect Obama to give two thoughts about Brown coming into office right now, and I doubt many of his other constituents do either. I expect him to clean up his back yard first, and then he can make nice with the neighbours. Really, would you expect any different from your leaders? We elect people that we expect will put our country, our interests, our safety, our needs before those of another country, especially over a matter as small as welcoming someone into office. Come on, now.

Veks has caught the Cameron/Brown point so I won’t go into that.

The point is more that we’re not just friendly nations. Our troops are serving, fighting and dying together… and as it stands a sizeable number of UK troops either are or are going to be serving directly under US command. Comparing the number of troops serving and the number of deaths UK forces are paying a greater toll than any other country within the coalition (mainly due to self-inflicted reasons I must add). In this situation I’d expect our Prime Minister to be treated with at the very least the respect the Japanese leader is shown… and the respect that we in turn showed Obama.

Now, that might have just been a personality clash. Brown was notoriously hard to get on with and, by the time Obama came into power, seen as somewhat of a lame duck. In contrast Cameron (for all his faults) is a personable man who already seems to have good relations with Obama. Perhaps that will turn a corner.

But even so, it doesn’t really hide the fact that 25 DVD’s (that may or may not work in the UK) doesn’t really compare as a gift to a pen-holder carved from a ship that helped end the slave trade… and who’s sister ship was turned into a desk that has sat in the Oval Office since the 18 hundreds….

[Vekseid]

As I said, I'm not defending BP here. They've done a lot of scummy things during the aftermath... although it does have to be said compared to other industrial and environmental disasters the effort they've gone to (albeit under severe political pressure) with regards to paying claims is definitely on the positive side. Once again though, still doesn't excuse the scummy actions.

Or you could look at this... which as an article is fairly forgiving of Obama (and doesn't mention that the only real time they had together was when Brown literally caught him in the kitchen for 15 minutes...). While I can be somewhat forgiving of the lack of huge events for the Pm's visit to Washington... it still doesn't really explain why a joint press conference couldn't be held...

So they've had at least three times to meet over the course of six months, there (just from the articles we've linked so far, in March, April, and September here) - and your claim is that their only private time was 15 minutes in a kitchen?

Given the way the president's time is scheduled, that sort of claim seems spurious.

1) Calling it a "claim" is pretty deceitful. It's the equivalent of saying that the US only has a claim over Alaska or Texas... or hell, pretty much the whole United States actually. The UK only has a claim over Rockall... the Falklands are a part of under the UK’s jurisdiction

The Falklands are a territory, as Puerto Rico is of the US. The UK lays claim the the surrounding waters, which is what I'd thought this dispute was about.

Texas and Alaska are a part of the United States as Wales is a part of the United Kingdom.

2) Well, it started with offer of mediation which you may just about claim isn't "intervening"... but it then led on to full blown support of declarations demanding negotiations over the islands.

I wasn't aware of that. Though-

Let us e clear here. The Falklands are British.

Which explains why British only make up 30% of the population.

While there is historical flotsam with regard to each claim for the vast majority of their existence the ruling power over the Falklands (and not as an oppressor) has been the UK. There was no displacement of natives... it was legitimate (well, as far as 17-19th century colonisation ever was) settlement. Even beyond that, surely the most important thing is this; every poll ever taken of whether the islanders themselves want sovereignty to even be discussed with Argentina is a resounding no. The constitution of the Islands itself states self-determination is their right. If you support negotiations you believe that is wrong... simple as that really.

And that's a fine point to make, I wasn't aware of Clinton's gaffe here, however:

I'm trying to think of a good comparison... forgive me if these are lacking. If high ranking members of the UK State were to offer to lead negotiations between the US and Mexico/Russia over Texas/Alaska... and later voted for and supported a resolution demanding those negotiations which the people of the two respective areas fiercely opposed... while in Texas's case calling the area in question Coahuila y Tejas... I'd say that would be seen as a pretty hostile action,

Puerto Rico would be a much better comparison. It's a much larger territory (in terms of population), however, so you do have significant elements differentiating themselves from each other, as opposed to the strong bonds that form in a ~2k population as in the Falklands.

I can understand the man on the street getting the names wrong. I can understand someone who doesn't really know much about the company getting the name wrong. I can't understand pretty much the entire US administration repeatedly using a decade old name to deal with a company which, conveniently, also allows them to make pretty effective political capital off it, unless there's something slightly deeper going on then "aww shucks, I got the name wrong again..."

BP also stands for Boiler Plate, Base Power, Base Plate, Blood Pressure, Before Present, Blowout Preventer...

That genie isn't getting back in the bottle. Two letter acronyms are problematic as a rule (witness the linguistic headaches 'US' causes).

Of course it's not just an Obama administration problem, but, you know, seeing as they're still blocking extradition... it sort of is now...

Once again, I'm not defending BP here...

Which you follow up with...

You can't have it both ways... you can't say it's wrong to compare suffering and then compare suffering.

You engaged is a fallacy (two wrongs do not make a right) - this portion of your argument is fallacious on its face.

I pointed it out because you simply do not seem to grasp the scale of ecological and economic catastrophe that BP has caused. In case you don't get it yet, this will reach your shores too. Vastly diluted, but you will most likely get to see some of this oil.

That's how big this is.

*snip*

If it's hypocrisy, in what function is Union Carbide or Dow Chemical still operating in India? Did we actually block prosecution of Union Carbide India in some way that I'm not aware of? Would that make the liquidation and auctioning of all BP properties in the United States 'okay' then, according to you?

That's a third of BP's original assets, as I understand it.

Or should we instead do nothing to ensure that this absolutely does not happen again - not just for BP's sake, but for the other supermajors like Exxon-Mobile and Shell?

Likewise. Every other time I've debated with you previously you've been sharp and haven't resorted (even unintentionally) to misstating arguments.
...

I think you're misunderstanding my line of approach.

This is one rig - out of thousands.

The oil from this one rig may end up reaching you. One out of thousands.

Hurricane season is coming, and it's looking to be a strong one.

Do you or do you not understand the magnitude of what that means, if regulations cannot be enforced with criminal penalties backing them up?

So far, you don't seem to. The level of corruption BP has helped engender in the US should concern you - as a British citizen for purely selfish reasons alone.

[consortium11]

So they've had at least three times to meet over the course of six months, there (just from the articles we've linked so far, in March, April, and September here) - and your claim is that their only private time was 15 minutes in a kitchen?

Given the way the president's time is scheduled, that sort of claim seems spurious.

No, the claim was about the UN summit in New York where despite 5 requests for a face to face private meeting from Brown’s side the only private face to face meeting between the two was when Brown managed to catch him in the kitchen.

The Falklands are a territory, as Puerto Rico is of the US. The UK lays claim the the surrounding waters, which is what I'd thought this dispute was about.

Texas and Alaska are a part of the United States as Wales is a part of the United Kingdom.

The surrounding waters issue only came up once oil was found there… although Argentina are of course still framing the matter as overall sovereignty of the islands. Wouldn’t look good to have it seen as a shameless oil grab…

I wasn't aware of that. Though-

And it’s one of the main reasons that people on this side of the Atlantic see Obama’s actions with regard to BP with a certain amount of scepticism and suspicion.

Which explains why British only make up 30% of the population.

I thought the number of people of  British decent was around 70% of the population. Regardless, a long time ago the UK thankfully stopped judging someone’s citizenship entirely down to their ancestral history. The Falklanders are British citizens.

And that's a fine point to make, I wasn't aware of Clinton's gaffe here, however:

I doubt it’s a gaffe. Gaffes are generally one offs. Perhaps the first time it was a gaffe… but the second time? Using more aggressive language? Calling it by the Argentinean name? Standing with Chavez et al against the UK? There’s no way someone didn’t pull her aside after the first time and suggest perhaps this wasn’t a good idea… and in truth it was actually deeply insulting to the Islanders themselves, the UK and the troops who are currently standing side y side with US soldiers.

So she does it again anyway…

That’s not a gaffe… unless you believe the current US administration is incompetent on a level even George Brown  never reached… that’s a deliberate move.

Puerto Rico would be a much better comparison. It's a much larger territory (in terms of population), however, so you do have significant elements differentiating themselves from each other, as opposed to the strong bonds that form in a ~2k population as in the Falklands.

Puerto Rico probably is a better example although I don’t really know enough about their sovereignty issues to give insight. Do they have the right of self-determination? Do other countries have claims (legitimate or otherwise) over them? Is there any movement for a change from the current status quo or (as it is with the Falklands) do the vast majority wish to remain as they are? 

BP also stands for Boiler Plate, Base Power, Base Plate, Blood Pressure, Before Present, Blowout Preventer...

I’m fairly certain if a press secretary stood up and said “BP has reached numerous safety regulations with regards to this oil spill…” people would be able to work out that he wasn’t referring to a Boiler Plate clause or the like

That genie isn't getting back in the bottle. Two letter acronyms are problematic as a rule (witness the linguistic headaches 'US' causes).

Not if used in the proper context. The persistent and continued use of British Petroleum by people who should (and do) know better isn’t some nice gesture so people have a better idea what they’re talking about. I notice for example that Amoco’s name hasn’t really been used during these discussions…

You engaged is a fallacy (two wrongs do not make a right) - this portion of your argument is fallacious on its face.

No I didn’t. I pointed out the hypocrisy of someone talking about the need for criminal charges in one case while still preventing the extradition of people to face charges in a similar case. Those who are criminally responsible for what happened at Deepwater Horizon should face charges… Warren Anderson should be extradited to India to face charges. Yet because Anderson is American Obama seems to feel that obstructing justice and preventing him going to trial is fine and dandy…

I pointed it out because you simply do not seem to grasp the scale of ecological and economic catastrophe that BP has caused. In case you don't get it yet, this will reach your shores too. Vastly diluted, but you will most likely get to see some of this oil.

That's how big this is

I’m well aware of the scale of the catastrophe. I’m also not talking about the scale of the catastrophe. I’m talking about why people on this side of the Atlantic are seeing a distinct anti-UK trend emerge from the administration… a trend that (thankfully) isn’t seemingly spreading to or shared by the population as a whole
.

If it's hypocrisy, in what function is Union Carbide or Dow Chemical still operating in India? Did we actually block prosecution of Union Carbide India in some way that I'm not aware of? Would that make the liquidation and auctioning of all BP properties in the United States 'okay' then, according to you?

That's a third of BP's original assets, as I understand it.

Well, Union Carbide finally sold it’s Indian subsidiary to an Indian company in 1994… so for a decade afterwards it quite happily ran its other 14 (I think?) sites in India pretty much as before. They sold up because it made financial sense to do so.

As for Dow, they continue to market products in India and are planning on setting up a large R&D facility.

With regards to criminal charges there’s the standard half-conspiracy theories of the US government putting significant pressure on India about limiting the charges relating to Union Carbide itself. Whether you believe them or not is up to you… but I think we both agree $2,200 is a pretty small amount of compensation to receive.

With regards to the charges against Warren Anderson himself… yes the US has blocked prosecution. Warren Anderson has been a fugitive from justice since 1992… which the US has done nothing about.

I’m not sure where the idea of liquidation and auctioning off BP properties comes from. Could you expand please?

Or should we instead do nothing to ensure that this absolutely does not happen again - not just for BP's sake, but for the other supermajors like Exxon-Mobile and Shell?

Yes we should make sure it never happens again. I’ve never indicated we shouldn’t. You could make sure this never happens again without talking about putting your boot to the throat, getting the companies name wrong and preventing the prosecutions of those responsible for similar events all in the context of general insults and hostility to a supposedly allied country.

I think you're misunderstanding my line of approach.

This is one rig - out of thousands.

The oil from this one rig may end up reaching you. One out of thousands.

Hurricane season is coming, and it's looking to be a strong one.

Do you or do you not understand the magnitude of what that means, if regulations cannot be enforced with criminal penalties backing them up?

So far, you don't seem to. The level of corruption BP  has helped engender in the US should concern you - as a British citizen for purely selfish reasons alone.

Just as you misunderstood (and sort of still do) my position.

Remember, I’m not the one arguing against people having to face justice for causing massive environmental, economic and human damage… the US state… currently led by Obama… is.

Once again, let me restate. I’m not arguing about the magnitude of the disaster or that people shouldn’t e held responsible or defending BP. I’m talking about why people over here are viewing the way Obama has gone about this process with a certain amount of hostility, especially if put in the context of his prior actions with regards to the UK.

[auroraChloe]

Remember, I’m not the one arguing against people having to face justice for causing massive environmental, economic and human damage… the US state… currently led by Obama… is.

... viewing the way Obama has gone about this process with a certain amount of hostility, especially if put in the context of his prior actions with regards to the UK.

the pundit opinions and/or gov't representatives of 'obama led US' do not necessarily reflect /his/ views on the matter or that of the citizenry in general. 

the event is not bringing out the pretty that's for sure, and it is highly emotional, seemingly bringing out aggression and defense on both sides.  i can't say i've paid a lot of attention to the politics of it.  it is surely painful to watch and/or think about in general.

[Vekseid]

No, the claim was about the UN summit in New York where despite 5 requests for a face to face private meeting from Brown’s side the only private face to face meeting between the two was when Brown managed to catch him in the kitchen.

I wonder if he was on Obama's itinerary.

I don't know the politics of the scenario much. I do know enough about leadership to know that few complainers have an appreciation of the fact that their leaders are human.

The surrounding waters issue only came up once oil was found there… although Argentina are of course still framing the matter as overall sovereignty of the islands. Wouldn’t look good to have it seen as a shameless oil grab…

Argentina's actions really belongs in its own thread.

And it’s one of the main reasons that people on this side of the Atlantic see Obama’s actions with regard to BP with a certain amount of scepticism and suspicion.

...driven by the same company that's responsible for helping cover up American company involvement here. That should bother any sane Briton a great deal more than whether or not the use of the phrase 'British Petroleum' is demeaning to the people of those isles.

...

That’s not a gaffe… unless you believe the current US administration is incompetent on a level even George Brown  never reached… that’s a deliberate move.

It's rather clear at this point that Obama's lack of executive experience is showing - badly. Incompetent isn't  the word for it - naive.

It's important, however, not to let outside factors cloud your perception of the facts at hand. We really well and truly cannot afford for a hurricane to wade in, and in the process forcing shutdowns of various rigs, have a dozen more of these blow up.

Puerto Rico probably is a better example although I don’t really know enough about their sovereignty issues to give insight. Do they have the right of self-determination? Do other countries have claims (legitimate or otherwise) over them? Is there any movement for a change from the current status quo or (as it is with the Falklands) do the vast majority wish to remain as they are? 

They recently got self determination from Congress. They're probably far too big to make a perfect comparison.

I’m fairly certain if a press secretary stood up and said “BP has reached numerous safety regulations with regards to this oil spill…” people would be able to work out that he wasn’t referring to a Boiler Plate clause or the like

Not if used in the proper context. The persistent and continued use of British Petroleum by people who should (and do) know better isn’t some nice gesture so people have a better idea what they’re talking about. I notice for example that Amoco’s name hasn’t really been used during these discussions…

No, it's a linguistic trap. You are stuck with it, like it or not.

No I didn’t. I pointed out the hypocrisy of someone talking about the need for criminal charges in one case while still preventing the extradition of people to face charges in a similar case. Those who are criminally responsible for what happened at Deepwater Horizon should face charges… Warren Anderson should be extradited to India to face charges. Yet because Anderson is American Obama seems to feel that obstructing justice and preventing him going to trial is fine and dandy…

Then why even make the statement? If it's not relevant to the fact that yes, they should face trial, and yes, everything should be done to ensure that this does not happen again, it belongs as a different topic. Otherwise, at best, it is a red herring.

I’m well aware of the scale of the catastrophe. I’m also not talking about the scale of the catastrophe. I’m talking about why people on this side of the Atlantic are seeing a distinct anti-UK trend emerge from the administration… a trend that (thankfully) isn’t seemingly spreading to or shared by the population as a whole
.

And the belief that it is isn't even shared by the British population as a whole. On another site I run a Brit is complaining about the attitude of people such as yourself over this.

Well, Union Carbide finally sold it’s Indian subsidiary to an Indian company in 1994… so for a decade afterwards it quite happily ran its other 14 (I think?) sites in India pretty much as before. They sold up because it made financial sense to do so.

Indians had a 49% share of the company at the time of the disaster, it seems. in 1987 an American court ruled that it was essentially an Indian problem.

Why are you personally attributing this to Obama, anyway?

[qoute]
I’m not sure where the idea of liquidation and auctioning off BP properties comes from. Could you expand please?
[/quote]

Something that might begin to repay the scale of economic damage they are causing.

Yes we should make sure it never happens again. I’ve never indicated we shouldn’t. You could make sure this never happens again without talking about putting your boot to the throat, getting the companies name wrong and preventing the prosecutions of those responsible for similar events all in the context of general insults and hostility to a supposedly allied country.

This sounds like someone is intentionally inflaming every point they can to demonstrate a pattern whose existence depends on a spurious and single-minded view of the facts.

Once again, let me restate. I’m not arguing about the magnitude of the disaster or that people shouldn’t e held responsible or defending BP. I’m talking about why people over here are viewing the way Obama has gone about this process with a certain amount of hostility, especially if put in the context of his prior actions with regards to the UK.

Which to me is coming off as borderline schizophrenia.

Try this:

Take some time, for a moment, and consider what any major leader (pick one) has to keep track of and direct. Consider the scenarios they have to handle over the course of a week. Pick a few of them, and consider
* What do you know about those situations that they might not be aware of, due to time constraints?
* What might they know about those situations that you might not?
* How many situations are they dealing with that you have forgotten about?
* How many situations are they dealing with that you do not know about?
* Remember that they are human. They need to eat, sleep, think, make mistakes, have families, and often have to trust in others to do the right thing in their name. And they have all of the same failings when someone they do trust should not, in fact, be trusted.

Consider the flooding the United States has experienced during this spill. Should he be paying less attention to the floods? More? What about North Korea? Economic legislation?

...I'm all for expecting the most out of the people we elect, but they are human beings. Unless you're a fan of lizardpeople conspiracies.

[consortium11]

I wonder if he was on Obama's itinerary.

I don't know the politics of the scenario much. I do know enough about leadership to know that few complainers have an appreciation of the fact that their leaders are human.

If he wasn’t on the itinerary, he should have been. If he has time to see the leaders of Russia, China and Japan he should have time to see the leader of the US’s closest ally. Now I understand the importance of Russia and China and could perhaps justify it if he saw merely those two. But Japan? The only real major point of discussion would be the military base… and I’m not sure if that was even a large issue at the time.

Argentina's actions really belongs in its own thread.

On the whole agreed, but it’s important in the context. This isn’t merely a dispute about shipping rights (and oil rights), even though they’re the heart of the matter. Argentina want the constitution of a nation to be overridden against the will of the people… and the US are supporting them.

...driven by the same company that's responsible for helping cover up American company involvement here. That should bother any sane Briton a great deal more than whether or not the use of the phrase 'British Petroleum' is demeaning to the people of those isles.

It would take considerable foresight for BP to have brought up the poor gifts or lack of face-to-face meetings as a defence seeing as they happened considerably prior to the explosion at Deepwater Horizon. And I struggle to see our supposedly closest ally supporting an attempt to annex the Falklands not making the news regardless of BP involvement. The Argentineans were certainly crowing about it enough…

It's rather clear at this point that Obama's lack of executive experience is showing - badly. Incompetent isn't  the word for it - naive.

Yes he’s been naïve on a whole host of issues, domestic and international, but there’s a time when naivety moves over to either deliberate acts or incompetence. The first Clinton “gaffe” should have resulted in a swift retraction and distancing of the US administration from that position. The fact that it didn’t could be perhaps naiveté. To do the same thing again is either incompetence or the fact that it was always intended.

It's important, however, not to let outside factors cloud your perception of the facts at hand. We really well and truly cannot afford for a hurricane to wade in, and in the process forcing shutdowns of various rigs, have a dozen more of these blow up.

Agreed. Still doesn’t touch on my point that there has been constant anti-UK rhetoric from this Administration.

They recently got self determination from Congress. They're probably far too big to make a perfect comparison.

Ok. How would people in the US feel if the self-determination vote led to a resounding “Yes we want to remain part of America” and the UK stood side y side with the Spanish and said “we need negotiations over whether Puerto Rico should be returned to Spain, regardless of what the people think.”? Chuck in if there had been a war fought over Puerto Rico between the two within living memory. Would people see that as the UK being hostile to the US?

No, it's a linguistic trap. You are stuck with it, like it or not.

We’re stuck with people getting the name wrong for political capital? How positive. I haven’t used “British Petroleum” once to refer to BP (other than quoting the US administration)… has there been any doubt what I’m referring to?

Then why even make the statement? If it's not relevant to the fact that yes, they should face trial, and yes, everything should be done to ensure that this does not happen again, it belongs as a different topic. Otherwise, at best, it is a red herring.

Because in the context of the Obama administration being hostile to the UK then the fact that they’ll happily discuss the criminal prosecution of individuals within BP (and at a senior level) while remaining completely silent on Warren Anderson shows that this isn’t about an intention to prosecute those responsible or prevent it from happening again. If they came out and said Anderson would be extradited to India to face charges then the criticism would go away. Instead it seems that the Obama administration will do everything to prevent these things happening again… as long as they happen close to America.

Or put another way… they’ll do everything to prevent similar disasters happening again… unless the perpetrators are American. When we over here see the hostile language about Brits and a deafening silence about American’s responsible for similar actions people start to fill in the blanks, rightly or wrongly.

And the belief that it is isn't even shared by the British population as a whole. On another site I run a Brit is complaining about the attitude of people such as yourself over this.

Has he talked about the US stance on Argentina? The giving of two $15 plastic toys as presents? DVD’s in return for a deeply historically relevant historical items? Clear avoidance of the Pm? As a one off it may not be as serious… but it’s not a one off… it’s part of a series of events.

Indians had a 49% share of the company at the time of the disaster, it seems. in 1987 an American court ruled that it was essentially an Indian problem.

And the Indian’s charged Warren Anderson with manslaughter… which the US refuses to honour.

There are a whole host of issues about whether the punishment dealt out by the Indians was enough the deter future lax safety rules, but the key fact here is the prevention by the US of someone facing justice.

Why are you personally attributing this to Obama, anyway?

Em, because he’s the man in charge. Now, he could have aided in the extradition at any time but I accept that getting justice for victims of environmental and industrial disasters wasn’t really important to him a couple of months ago. But you’d have thought with industrial/environmental disasters being a big deal right now… and the criminal verdicts coming in the Bhopal case it would have been a perfect chance to show that he really was going to get serious about this.

Instead, silence.

Something that might begin to repay the scale of economic damage they are causing.

Ah, I thought you were talking about this because a similar precedent had been used before on a similar (if much smaller scale) incident.

This sounds like someone is intentionally inflaming every point they can to demonstrate a pattern whose existence depends on a spurious and single-minded view of the facts.

And this sounds like someone deliberately understating points to hide a pattern. Do you think it was/is strictly necessary (outside of political capital) to use language like “boot on the throat” or to keep getting the name wrong? Do you think that the US’s position on the Falklands is hostile or friendly to the UK? Do you think avoiding face to face meetings with the Pm is a sign of friendship and do you think DVDs and plastic toys are an acceptable gift for your supposedly closest ally (especially considering what he received in return)?

Which to me is coming off as borderline schizophrenia.

How very generous of you…

Try this:

Take some time, for a moment, and consider what any major leader (pick one) has to keep track of and direct. Consider the scenarios they have to handle over the course of a week. Pick a few of them, and consider
* What do you know about those situations that they might not be aware of, due to time constraints?
* What might they know about those situations that you might not?
* How many situations are they dealing with that you have forgotten about?
* How many situations are they dealing with that you do not know about?
* Remember that they are human. They need to eat, sleep, think, make mistakes, have families, and often have to trust in others to do the right thing in their name. And they have all of the same failings when someone they do trust should not, in fact, be trusted.

They also have a team of (apparently) highly skilled and experienced people beside and behind them to delegate to and give them advice on such issues.

For Clinton to screw up twice shows either that every system to prevent diplomatic gaffes and fallout failed or it is a deliberate policy decision. To think it’s not important to meet with Gordon Brown face to face or that it may not go over well to not hold a joint press conference with him when he did visit shows similar failures. To think that DVD’s are an appropriate gift for your closest ally doesn’t help when there’s an entire department dedicated to foreign visits. I mean, Kevin Rudd got an original copy of the score sheet to Star Spangled Banner, hell, the Czech’s at least got a vase…

As I said, a lot may well have just been that Obama and Brown just don’t get on and things will improve between Obama and Cameron. But it still doesn’t explain the Falklands… unless the US administration thinks it’s more important to appease the Argentineans and their supporters then it is to not act with hostility towards the UK.

Consider the flooding the United States has experienced during this spill. Should he be paying less attention to the floods? More? What about North Korea? Economic legislation?

I fail to believe that the entire might of the US can’t multi-task to the extent that it doesn’t deeply insult it’s supposedly closest ally multiple times and when it does doesn’t immediately rectify it.

...I'm all for expecting the most out of the people we elect, but they are human beings. Unless you're a fan of lizardpeople conspiracies.

Which is why we don’t rely on one person to do it… a whole host of people have the job. The fact that as far as I know Obama hasn’t done anything comparable to other allied states shows that it’s not mere incompetence at work here… the closest would be his interactions with Turkey. You can write one “gaffe” off as a mistake. When there’s a significant number of the it becomes a little harder to use that line… unless they’re genuinely incompetent.

[Serephino]

Okay, so I've been sorta reading this back and forth and I'm very confused.  As an American, I haven't noticed any anti-British sentiment.  I watch the news every night and have only heard the company called British Petroleum like once.  Wasn't that what the company was called?  Maybe somebody in the research department screwed up?

If it is happening more often and I'm just not seeing it, then it probably is hardcore conservatives.  In my experience, those tend to be some pretty hateful people like any other extremists.

And I still have yet to figure out what the Falklands and Argentina have to do with an oil spill...  Also, we have no idea what's going on behind closed doors.  The only things I know about the issue are what has been posted here, but why in the hell is the US even being put in the middle?  If it has something to do with oil, well, we are oil addicts, but still...  And isn't Argentina an ally too?  I can't keep track, but I know we as a country aren't real popular in South America except as a place for people to come illegally.  President Obama and people may be trying not to piss off Argentina because I believe they have oil.  Is it fair?  No, but it's politics and nothing personal.

On the subject of Obama not meeting with the PM, think about this a minute.  Our economy is collapsing, we have two wars in the Middle East, and now the oil spill.  We are in the middle of a giant clusterfuck.  I'm sorry, but if someone is smashing my hand with a hammer, and I'm stepping on your toe, I'm going to be more concerned about my hand.     
 

[Vekseid]

...

They also have a team of (apparently) highly skilled and experienced people beside and behind them to delegate to and give them advice on such issues.

...

Which is why we don’t rely on one person to do it… a whole host of people have the job. ...

...you didn't deny my comment about Obama's naivete in executive matters in the slightest, or even acknowledge my point about trust, so why ignore the basic meaning behind my entire post like this? I have no desire to 'debate' with people who will completely and utterly ignore me.

[Valerian]

Okay, so I've been sorta reading this back and forth and I'm very confused.  As an American, I haven't noticed any anti-British sentiment.  I watch the news every night and have only heard the company called British Petroleum like once.  Wasn't that what the company was called?  Maybe somebody in the research department screwed up?

According to the company website, in 1954, the company changed its name from Anglo-Iranian Oil to The British Petroleum Company.  They merged with Amoco in 1998 and the name became BP Amoco.  In 2001, the name was officially changed to BP, and its new tagline became "Beyond Petroleum".  (There are plenty of BP gas stations in the States, though, and I never saw any of them using that tagline; so for whatever reason, the change wasn't emphasized here.)  So it was British Petroleum for 47 years, and in the States, at least, the change nine years ago was made with very little fanfare.

BP isn't currently meant to stand for anything in particular, though, apparently.

In a press release announcing the change, the group said it had decided to retain the BP name because of its recognition around the world and because it stood for the new company’s aspirations: ‘better people, better products, big picture, beyond petroleum.’

[consortium11]

...you didn't deny my comment about Obama's naivete in executive matters in the slightest, or even acknowledge my point about trust, so why ignore the basic meaning behind my entire post like this? I have no desire to 'debate' with people who will completely and utterly ignore me.

I didn't deny Obama's naivete because it obviously exists; but it isn't a carte blanche to write off every "gaffe" or "mistake" as "oh, he's just naive." Was it naive of him to give such woeful gifts? Yeah... it's why I had it as one of the minor concerns. Naive to not have a big formal dinner and press conference when Brown? Sort of... I can understand the lack of a state banquet but no joint press conference is a pretty poor show. Naive to let Clinton talk about mediating negotiations over the Falklands Islands? Possibly although I think anyone, regardless of executive experience, could see that it wouldn't go down well with your closest ally. Not to offer an immediate retraction when it became clear it was a poor move to pull? Starting to look less naive and more intentional. To let her do it again with stronger language and still not retract it? Sorry... someone's naivete only stretches so far...

As for trust, apologies if I didn't expand on the point enough. I thought the main gist of your argument was that we should make sure events like these never happen again; which I agree with fully. That's why I'm for the prosecution of all those suspected (both as a company and as individuals) of being criminally responsible for such events, especially if they've already been charged, even under a different jurisdiction... a position Obama himself doesn't appear to hold when it comes to American citizens who are involved in such actions.

With regards to trust, Robert Gibbs is an experienced political operator well used to dealing with political PR. He's been with Obama directly for 6 years now and is by all accounts one of the most trusted members of his political circle. Thad Allen has had a distinguished career with the coastguard and had somewhat of a baptism in fire to the political implications of his job during Hurricane Katrina which he handled with considerable skill. Yet both have been happy to throw around "British Petroleum" at the drop of a hat. Clinton makes large mistakes and gaffes (of which her "sniper landing" is probably the most famous) and is also clearly deeply ambitious to carve out her own legacy. Yet surely Obama (or one of his advisors) could have pulled her aside after the first time and gone "what the hell are you doing?" and swiftly backed away from her comments. They didn't and they let it happen again. It seems to me that events like that aren't just trusting someone who really shouldn't be trusted... the lack of a response afterwards seems to show that those actions were instead supported. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Unless you weren't fooled to begin with...

Okay, so I've been sorta reading this back and forth and I'm very confused.  As an American, I haven't noticed any anti-British sentiment.  I watch the news every night and have only heard the company called British Petroleum like once.  Wasn't that what the company was called?  Maybe somebody in the research department screwed up?

The Wikipedia page can tell you what the companies name is, as would a quick look at Companies House or other such websites. As I say I can understand a member of the public with no particular interest getting confused, but not seemingly the entire press department of the Whitehouse.

If it is happening more often and I'm just not seeing it, then it probably is hardcore conservatives.  In my experience, those tend to be some pretty hateful people like any other extremists.

I'm not denying how hateful conservatives can be. As someone who believes in a decent amount of what the US conservative movement should stand for I hate to see that the most spiteful, venom dripping and often completely idiotic and hypocritical members of that group are the ones who hog the airtime and seemingly lead the ideological charge. That said they've generally been pretty silent on the issues we're discussing here. There was Rand Paul, who's a real example of complete political naivete... combined with some outrageously out there, if ideologically sound (by his ideology) ideas... and his stupid "attack on BP is an attack on business" line, although I have the feeling he'd have said that whatever Obama and the administration had said about BP and there was Barton's cringeworthy apology to BP where, while as you can see from this debate I agree with certain aspects of that viewpoint, came across far more as a whitewash for BP, saying that they shouldn't have to deal with any negative press... which I of course completely disagree with. The rest... as far as I know they've been nearly silent (as far as I know) with regards to the matters we're discussing here.

And I still have yet to figure out what the Falklands and Argentina have to do with an oil spill...  Also, we have no idea what's going on behind closed doors.  The only things I know about the issue are what has been posted here, but why in the hell is the US even being put in the middle?  If it has something to do with oil, well, we are oil addicts, but still...  And isn't Argentina an ally too?  I can't keep track, but I know we as a country aren't real popular in South America except as a place for people to come illegally.  President Obama and people may be trying not to piss off Argentina because I believe they have oil.  Is it fair?  No, but it's politics and nothing personal.

The Falklands were brought up as an example of a clearly hostile action by this administration against it's closest ally. The US put itself in the middle by breaking it's neutrality and supporting the Argentinian position. I'm not enough of a conspiracy theorist to think that the reason the US are doing so is to get oil rights off the Argentinians if they do claim the Islands... and if Chavez in Venezuela is an example of anything it's that people will happily sell oil to people they don't like.

On the subject of Obama not meeting with the PM, think about this a minute.  Our economy is collapsing, we have two wars in the Middle East,

and now the oil spill.  We are in the middle of a giant clusterfuck.  I'm sorry, but if someone is smashing my hand with a hammer, and I'm stepping on your toe, I'm going to be more concerned about my hand.

The Oil Spill came well after the events in question and, as I said earlier, there's a chance that it was just a personality clash between Brown and Obama that led to the negative actions. Obama seems to be getting on much better with Cameron which may lead to fewer of the minor insults mentioned previously.

With regards to the other two items you mention... if Oama should e talking to any world leader about the economic collapse it would be the British Pm. The way our two economies are linked, especially in the financial sector, is closer than any other two states and with the global nature of commerce and finance these days any action should be coordinated between the two.

As for the two wars no other state provides as many troops to aid the US as the UK. In Afghanistan there are more UK troops than the rest of Europe combined. Our two forces are highly integrated to the extent that the British Airforce provides a lot of the air support and, these days, British troops are actually coming under direct US command. Britain has had a catalogue of tragic errors in the two wars but we are still the country providing the most bodies outside of the US itself.

[Vekseid]

I didn't deny Obama's naivete because it obviously exists; but it isn't a carte blanche to write off every "gaffe" or "mistake" as "oh, he's just naive." Was it naive of him to give such woeful gifts? Yeah... it's why I had it as one of the minor concerns. Naive to not have a big formal dinner and press conference when Brown? Sort of... I can understand the lack of a state banquet but no joint press conference is a pretty poor show. Naive to let Clinton talk about mediating negotiations over the Falklands Islands? Possibly although I think anyone, regardless of executive experience, could see that it wouldn't go down well with your closest ally. Not to offer an immediate retraction when it became clear it was a poor move to pull? Starting to look less naive and more intentional. To let her do it again with stronger language and still not retract it? Sorry... someone's naivete only stretches so far...

As for trust, apologies if I didn't expand on the point enough. I thought the main gist of your argument was that we should make sure events like these never happen again; which I agree with fully. That's why I'm for the prosecution of all those suspected (both as a company and as individuals) of being criminally responsible for such events, especially if they've already been charged, even under a different jurisdiction... a position Obama himself doesn't appear to hold when it comes to American citizens who are involved in such actions.

...

I'm trying to focus on specific arguments at a time, rather than expand into a number of red herrings. You criticize Obama as a leader. Okay.

Have you ever been in a leadership position?

Have you ever been in a leadership position where you had to deal with manipulative personalities?

Have you ever been in a leadership position where you had to deal with manipulative personalities, who were the only ones appropriately talented in a given field?

Have you ever been in a leadership position where you had to deal with manipulative personalities, who you had to politically appease?

Have you ever been in a leadership position where you took over an organization?

Have you ever been in a leadership position where you took over an organization where a significant portion of the people under you think of you as subhuman?

Have you ever been in a leadership position where you took over an organization where the opposition is willing to sacrifice the greater good of the organization just to see you fail?

Just to toss out another example - all four Republican governors failed to activate the Guard troops they were assigned. How sick, how corrupt, do you think Bobby Jindal and his friends have to be in order to justify willfully endangering their own home states, just to make one black man look bad?

Do you even understand what I meant when I referenced Obama being naive?

Make no mistake - it was not disrespect on my part. I am under no illusions that I could do a better job.

Do you?

We have an entire media organization actively engaged in sedition, environmental catastrophes - not just floods (which you seem to think are trivial) and multiple oil spills - and an unprecedented level of political gridlock, which you should be well aware of but seem not to even acknowledge. This is ignoring the Asian political situation which you don't seem to consider important ("but Japan?").

Obama has twenty-four hours in each and every day, just like you. And so does each and every one of his staff. Each and every one of them are human beings - with all the failings that that entails - but you refuse to display the slightest bit of respect for.

There are all sorts of things I am perfectly willing to criticize Obama for. ACTA, whistleblower persecution, retention of executive powers, Chinese policy, and yes - Falklands too. His lack of experience in executive takeover is hurting him.

In engaging that criticism, however, I also have to consider the situation he's in. ACTA is being pushed by every media organization in the country. Hillary and McCain were both openly for additional retention of executive power before the campaign.

But you're focusing on Britain getting snubbed, in all of this.

Expecting flawlessness is easy, because there is always room for disappointment.

[Scott]

Have you ever been in a leadership position?

Have you ever been in a leadership position where you had to deal with manipulative personalities?

Have you ever been in a leadership position where you had to deal with manipulative personalities, who were the only ones appropriately talented in a given field?

Have you ever been in a leadership position where you had to deal with manipulative personalities, who you had to politically appease?

Have you ever been in a leadership position where you took over an organization?

Have you ever been in a leadership position where you took over an organization where a significant portion of the people under you think of you as subhuman?

Have you ever been in a leadership position where you took over an organization where the opposition is willing to sacrifice the greater good of the organization just to see you fail?

Just to toss out another example - all four Republican governors failed to activate the Guard troops they were assigned. How sick, how corrupt, do you think Bobby Jindal and his friends have to be in order to justify willfully endangering their own home states, just to make one black man look bad?

Do you even understand what I meant when I referenced Obama being naive?

Make no mistake - it was not disrespect on my part. I am under no illusions that I could do a better job.

Do you?

We have an entire media organization actively engaged in sedition, environmental catastrophes - not just floods (which you seem to think are trivial) and multiple oil spills - and an unprecedented level of political gridlock, which you should be well aware of but seem not to even acknowledge. This is ignoring the Asian political situation which you don't seem to consider important ("but Japan?").

Obama has twenty-four hours in each and every day, just like you. And so does each and every one of his staff. Each and every one of them are human beings - with all the failings that that entails - but you refuse to display the slightest bit of respect for.

There are all sorts of things I am perfectly willing to criticize Obama for. ACTA, whistleblower persecution, retention of executive powers, Chinese policy, and yes - Falklands too. His lack of experience in executive takeover is hurting him.

In engaging that criticism, however, I also have to consider the situation he's in. ACTA is being pushed by every media organization in the country. Hillary and McCain were both openly for additional retention of executive power before the campaign.

But you're focusing on Britain getting snubbed, in all of this.

Expecting flawlessness is easy, because there is always room for disappointment.

I SO want to call Rush Limbaugh and smack him with this!!!

[Serephino]

This is what I was talking about with the clusterfuck argument, only better put.  His campaign was all about change, and we the people are getting screwed by our Congressman so that we'll blame the President (and sadly it's kinda working) so that he'll lose the next election and everything can go back to the way it was, we the poor people getting tramped on and screwed....

He's yelling at Congress every other week because they are fighting him tooth and nail.  This country is a mess.  He could probably work on the issues from the moment he wakes up until the moment he goes to sleep, and still not have this country fixed by the end of the year.  Not to mention he has to try and repair the damage dumbass Bush did to our international reputation.