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.
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.
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….