# American hating Brits for oil spill?



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2010)

There's been a lot of talk here about the 'hate' that Americans are throwing our way over the BP oil spill. There's been numerous media focus on the 'hate', it didn't help when the President said he would have sacked the CEO of BP implying that our government should have but people do realise that BP is a multi national company not owned by Britain don't they? It has it's main headquaters in the UK but isn't owned by the British.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...-sacked-BP-boss-Tony-Hayward-fumes-Obama.html


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/09/battle-bring-bp-account-oil-spill

_"Earlier this week Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner showed how little respect many on Capitol Hill have for BP. He told TV viewers that the company was essentially lying about the disaster: "Whenever you hear someone with a British accent talking about this on behalf of British Petroleum they are not telling you the truth. That's the bottom-line," Weiner said."_

Er thanks mate. Buts there's plenty more in this vein.

You do realise too that Amoco an American company amalgamated with BP in the 90s? As I said we don't own the company though there's obviously British shareholders as well as other nationalities. Blame the company, blame their bosses but please the British public haven't done wrong in this instance!


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 13, 2010)

Honestly, I don't think most people even realize that BP is *British* Petroleum...  The blame I've heard is squarely pointed at the company, not Britain.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Jun 13, 2010)

I've hated BP ever since they changed thier logo to this obscene green and yellow sunflower.  I don't hate the British for this spill anymore than I hate New Jersey for Prince William Sound's current state.


----------



## seasoned (Jun 13, 2010)

I don't think there is hate aimed toward anyone pertaining to the name of any company. I do feel that things are so multi faceted these days that it does no good to pinpoint blame, unless it is toward incompetence and arrogance, and a quest to make more and more money, at the expense of innocence people everywhere.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 13, 2010)

I knew what the BP stood for, but I blame the company, not the country.  

People who are this stupid to blame Britain over what 1 multi-national company does, are as dumb as the Canadians in Toronto who blame the US for all their pollution problems, while having their annual city wide garbage strike.  They are nucking futs I tell you.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 13, 2010)




----------



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2010)

The story going round here is that Obama dislikes the UK because his father was allegedly tortured by the Brits in Kenya so he was furious with BP and there had to be a phone call between David Cameron and himself yesterday to try and sort things out. There is sufficient concern about the anti Brit thing that the President felt he had to say he doesn't hold the UK responsible but the company.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0612/gulf.html

The problem is that it was the President calling it *British* Petroleum that started a lot of the comments, it hasn't been called British since 1998.
This didn't help either lol!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/dec/03/obama-cameron-lightweight


http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeeho...at-are-shaking-the-special-relationship.thtml

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/pos...nd_afghanistan_from_the_british_point_of_view

The thing about America telling the UK it wants more UK troops in Afghan hasn't gone down too well, we aren't a big country and our forces are seriously stretched as it is, to ask us for more is unfair. I'm not saying more Americans should be sent more than perhaps the rest of Nato or even other countries could contibute. We have been seriously hit by casualty figures which apart from being upsetting, undermines our manning levels.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 13, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> The thing about America telling the UK it wants more UK troops in Afghan hasn't gone down too well, we aren't a big country and our forces are seriously stretched as it is, to ask us for more is unfair. I'm not saying more Americans should be sent more than perhaps the rest of Nato or even other countries could contibute. We have been seriously hit by casualty figures which apart from being upsetting, undermines our manning levels.


 
Same here. We're ready to pull our troops in 2011. That is a general consensus in the country. And being asked to stay lomger in a combat role is not going over too well either.


----------



## girlbug2 (Jun 13, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Blame the company, blame their bosses but please the British public haven't done wrong in this instance!


 
No hating here. If it makes any difference, nobody in my neck of the woods is grumbling about the UK.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Same here. We're ready to pull our troops in 2011. That is a general consensus in the country. And being asked to stay lomger in a combat role is not going over too well either.


 
It's been mentioned a lot here that the Canadians are leaving in 2011 and the expection of the public is that ours should go with them. It's a very unpopular war through the support for the troops is very good, it's being called Britain's Vietnam. The Labour government got us into this by doing as America told them and now our troops are suffering for this folly. One of our regiments here on the Garrison, the Mercians, has lost four and 17 injuried some horrendously, the Scots Guards, our hosts for the martial arts club has lost one and five badly injured. We haven't even reached half way through the tour yet.


----------



## Brother John (Jun 13, 2010)

I've been reading and discussing the oil spill issue a LOT and I've not read or heard of "Americans" blaming Brittain, the Brittish or those with a UK accent for anything at all. From what I've picked up almost everyone aims their vitriol at the company it self.

Obama, I think, hopes to prevent this whole incident from reflecting poorly on him, his administration and his 'leadership'. But I think it does. I think that 'shifting' or 'refocusing' blame FAR away from himself is a key in his aproach to that.

From my perspective: Most Americans look at Great Brittain as the closest friend and ally we've got, along with Canada & Australia. That's MY opinion, but I don't think it's too far off the mark. 

Your Brother
John


----------



## geezer (Jun 13, 2010)

Back to the topic of Americans blaming Britain for the BP oil spill. I don't buy it. It may make sensational news in some British tabloids, but it's nonsense. Oh I'm sure if you beat the bushes (no not George!) you can find a wacko who'll say just about anything. But that doesn't reflect American sentiments in general. 

IMO, of course the corporation BP is _hugely_ to blame, but they aren't alone. I'll bet any of the other big oil companies could have had this happen to them as well. And yes, we can also crucify our politicians... but we already know the pitiful limits of governmental competency. And tell me, how the hell is Obama supposed to take care of this? If you think this is within his powers, you must really believe he is the _messiah!_ Nope. You want to know who is really behind this guys. Well, first join me and take a look in your garage, then let's all take a long, hard look in the mirror.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jun 13, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/dec/03/obama-cameron-lightweight



:lol:


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 13, 2010)

We don't hate the Brits.

The Belgians though...

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/213


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 13, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> There's been a lot of talk here about the 'hate' that Americans are throwing our way over the BP oil spill. There's been numerous media focus on the 'hate', it didn't help when the President said he would have sacked the CEO of BP implying that our government should have but people do realise that BP is a multi national company not owned by Britain don't they? It has it's main headquaters in the UK but isn't owned by the British.



Irene, don't lose sleep over this.
A year or so ago, a man tried to ram the Dutch royal carriage on queens day with his suzuki. After that, some people started insulting and harassing people driving a suzuki, as if the fact that they drove similar car somehow meant they sympathized with the would be assassin...

People are generally stupid like that.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2010)

geezer said:


> Back to the topic of Americans blaming Britain for the BP oil spill. I don't buy it. It may make sensational news in some British tabloids, but it's nonsense. Oh I'm sure if you beat the bushes (no not George!) you can find a wacko who'll say just about anything. But that doesn't reflect American sentiments in general.
> 
> IMO, of course the corporation BP is _hugely_ to blame, but they aren't alone. I'll bet any of the other big oil companies could have had this happen to them as well. And yes, we can also crucify our politicians... but we already know the pitiful limits of governmental competency. And tell me, how the hell is Obama supposed to take care of this? If you think this is within his powers, you must really believe he is the _messiah!_ Nope. You want to know who is really behind this guys. Well, first join me and take a look in your garage, then let's all take a long, hard look in the mirror.


 


Well the fact is it's not the tabloids that are carrying this story, it's the heavyweights such as the Financial Times. the tabloids are busy following the footballer's wives and girlfriends.

I don't think I quite understand what you mean though when you say aboput Obama taking care of things, which do you mean the oil spill or the fact it looks like he's blaming the UK? I'm also not sure why you think I should look in the mirror and think I'm behind.....what exactly?


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 13, 2010)

It's a totally media-driven controversy.  Nobody blames the British for the oil spill.  We do blame them, however, for Russell Brand.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> It's a totally media-driven controversy. Nobody blames the British for the oil spill. We do blame them, however, for Russell Brand.


 
Ugh, he's a little creep! A nasty little creep at that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/27/russell-brand-andrew-sachs


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 13, 2010)

I blame Britain for that Harry Potter fad, but I forgive you because you gave us Daleks.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jun 13, 2010)

> American hating Brits for oil spill?


 
In a word, no Tez3.

Now the utter incompetency of Obama and his whole Administration is another matter.

Obama's REFUSED to use foreign help, as in high tech sweep ships, when offered by the Dutch and other countries in just the very first days of the oil spill. And we find out it was because of the UNIONS, UNIONS that paid millions into Obamas elections coffers, he then refuses help.

Obama REFUSED to even talk to the head of British Petroleum, yes the very CEO of the company that is trying to stop the oil leak. 

On Wednesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs ... said Obama hasnt called CEO Tony Hayward becauseaccording to what Gibbs called the executive structure of corporate governance ... Im telling you, based on the corporate governance structure, in order to implement whatwhatever you get from BP the CEO has to get clearance from the board to do. Thatsthats the corporate governance structure isis laid out. 

Now that is the most stupidest thing Ive ever heard out of Gibbs mouth. Its so devoid of logic (like Obama could have called any of the board of directors ya know!)

And now we find out a letter that has been on Admiral Thad Allen s desk since May 21st stated Auburn, Maine, company Packgen had miles of oil spill containment boom on hand and has the capacity to produce upwards of 100,000 additional feet of boom a day. Yet the Admiral went on TV the very day the news of the letter was exposed and LIED, saying they had no idea any of this was available. 

So they KNEW were containment booms were from almost DAY ONE of the oil spill, AND OBAMA DID NOTHING.

And now we find out the White House Ban on Offshore Drilling, which was supposed to be vetted by scientist, was done with the very scientist DISAPPROVAL! Yes, they said it was a bad idea, but Obama did it anyway, and told the world it was approved by them! Yes a LIE. 

And then Obama has partied and took vacations from the very first day of this catastrophe, failing to take charge, failing to delegate anyone with the authority to take charge, failing to even communicate he was even really aware of a semblance of an emergency.


The HUGE damage to the GULF was caused by Obama and his UNION ties. The BILLIONS of dollars it will cost to even attempt to repair the damage to the Gulf could have been avoided, and yes would have been avoided, by any simi-competent President.

He is the worst combination of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Jimmy was honest but incompetent, Bill was dishonest but compentent. We now have a dishonest incompentent president!


So you see Tez3, we don't have a beaf with the U.K., but we surely do have one with our own president!


Deaf


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 13, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I don't think I quite understand what you mean though when you say about Obama taking care of things, which do you mean the oil spill or the fact it looks like he's blaming the UK?


 
I think what he means is that from the perspective of some of the American public they expect their president to go one better than Canute and turn back the tide of oil heading for their shores.




Tez3 said:


> I'm also not sure why you think I should look in the mirror and think I'm behind.....what exactly?


 
He means the car in the garage, Tez i.e. that all of us are 'to blame' in the sense that we all demand the fuel to make our engines run.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Tez3 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think I quite understand what you mean though when you say about Obama taking care of things, which do you mean the oil spill or the fact it looks like he's blaming the UK?{/quote]
> ...


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 14, 2010)

Aye, I know .  That's why I said "go one better".  

One thing I have often meant to do is try and trace how and why it is that the story of Canute has come down to us over the centuries.  He was a magnificent king and it is odd that the only 'common knowledge' story about him is the one about failing to turn back the tide {and even that one is usually used in the wrong context, as you noted}.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Aye, I know . That's why I said "go one better".
> 
> One thing I have often meant to do is try and trace how and why it is that the story of Canute has come down to us over the centuries. He was a magnificent king and it is odd that the only 'common knowledge' story about him is the one about failing to turn back the tide {and even that one is usually used in the wrong context, as you noted}.


 

http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/vikings_2.htm

It may well not be a true story but it's still a good lesson.

I'm always amazed by the way history remembers our leaders (perhaps another lesson to our current ones lol) Richard the Lionheart is seen as a hero but was one of the worst kings we've ever had while his brother John is vilified but made a much better fist of things. Guess it depends on your spin doctor!


----------



## MJS (Jun 14, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> There's been a lot of talk here about the 'hate' that Americans are throwing our way over the BP oil spill. There's been numerous media focus on the 'hate', it didn't help when the President said he would have sacked the CEO of BP implying that our government should have but people do realise that BP is a multi national company not owned by Britain don't they? It has it's main headquaters in the UK but isn't owned by the British.
> 
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...-sacked-BP-boss-Tony-Hayward-fumes-Obama.html
> ...


 
As JKS said in his first post, I too, have only heard negativity aimed at the company.  As for my feelings...its the companies fault.  I dont harbor ill feelings towards British people, just the careless actions of the company.  Wouldn't matter if it was a US company, Russian, or one from Japan....doesnt matter to me who the people are.  Again, its the poor planning.  I mean, why would anyone drill in water that deep, and not have plans in effect, should something happen?


----------

