# Obama's anti-British rhetoric.



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

There is an increasing, and possibly justifiable reaction in the British news media to President Obama's increasingly anti-British rhetoric in his speeches about the Gulf of Mexico disaster. Having read his speeches, there does seem to be some truth in this assertion. 
Has anybody else noticed this? What do you think? Should Britain be concerned about the USA's President's anti-British stance?


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

I don't think he's anti-British, just anti-British _Petroleum_.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Who cares, just cap the damn well already. And President Obama's rhetoric isn't nearly as anti-British as was President Washington's.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Or maybe Obama's just getting into the spirit of the World Cup?


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

I wonder if anyone else has taken notice that... um... "we" (I'll use that term "we") have apologized for America to many countries with which we have had controversial interactions, we are now building TWO Islamic mosques next to the World Trade Center site, (one of which will be dedicated on Sept 11th, 2011, the 10 year anniversary of the attacks) but yet somehow "we" have managed to derail relations with England and Israel, two of our all-time strongest allies?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.............


----------



## Cavebear58 (Jan 31, 2010)

Chouan said:


> There is an increasing, and possibly justifiable reaction in the British news media to President Obama's increasingly anti-British rhetoric in his speeches about the Gulf of Mexico disaster. Having read his speeches, there does seem to be some truth in this assertion.
> Has anybody else noticed this? What do you think? Should Britain be concerned about the USA's President's anti-British stance?


Interesting question, Chouan.

Yes, I too had noticed this, and agree with the assertion being made in the media.

Tony Hayward, within a few days of the explosion, said that BP were 'absolutely responsible' and would settle all legitimate claims for compensations. I'm sure that the company lawyers will have groaned inwardly at that, but it is what he said. The explosion and subsequent venting of oil are pretty much unprecedented and yet BP very quickly began to devise new ways of trying to tackle it. It would have been extraordinarily good luck if the first had worked.

The oil companies are no different from all other global businesses, having a complex network of inter-relationships and dependencies. It would have been easy for Hayward to try to pass the buck onto Transocean or anyone else, but they didn't.

Everyone with a modicum of common sense knows that oil exploration, especially at sea, is fraught with safety issues. We are all equally to blame for accepting those potential risks while they remain 'potential' because we want to be able to buy fuel at the lowest possible cost. There are bound to be differences between operators, but BP has as good a reputation as any other for the safety of its work. This could just as easily have been a project run for a US operator.

I am very surprised at the rhetoric from Obama. Whether or not he has a reason for criticising BP, his continuing to do so, and not so subtly extending this to Britain generally, seems a far shallower approach than I would have expected of him. While he has no reason to be concerned about the views of a simple Brit like myself, I do feel that he is running a dangerous tack if he thinks that it is only Americans with whom his reputation needs to be strong. He is in serious danger of undermining the popular support he has elsewhere.

I am far from convinced that the so-called 'special relationship' is anything more than a common cultural link through the English language. As both countries continue to dilute that commonality, I don't see this persisting for much longer.

Should Britain be concerned? Yes and no. I don't think the US has significantly changed in its treatment of Britain since 1941, when it took two years to enter the conflict that became World War II, or 1956 when it forced us to withdraw from Egypt, a move which effectively contributed to the growth of terrorism among Arab nations, nor the relatively passive support provided in 1982 in the South Atlantic. These were all complex situations, and I am sure that each was treated individually. I don't see any evidence of a 'special relationship'.

In recent years, I get the impression that many Britons feel that this relationship is pretty much one sided anyway.

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

You were pumping along pretty good until you got to this part.:



Cavebear58 said:


> I don't think the US has significantly changed in its treatment of Britain since 1941, when it took two years to enter the conflict that became World War II.


You are an ungrateful apologist and you're damn lucky we came at all, particularly since we'd spent 100,000 men to ensure your little land wasn't renamed West Prussia a scant 20 years prior. And enough of this 'it could have happened to any rig' stuff. It could have, but it didn't. It happened to yours. Save yor internet breath on how to get it fixed and leave Obama alone.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

I just want to say I still like our British friends. If you're unwelcome at the White House, you're always welcome at my house.

Andy B.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

And what color is your house then?


----------



## njkyle (Oct 11, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> You are an ungrateful apologist and you're damn lucky we came at all, particularly since we'd spent 100,000 men to ensure your little land wasn't renamed West Prussia a scant 20 years prior.


Allow me to return to the original question. As a person who chose to become a US citizen, I think your comment is harsh when directed towards a country that gave 1M lives ("the flower of a generation") in the Great War, and entered WWII, totally unprepared against a powerful war machine, in 1939 to fulfill a commitment to Poland. But that might be my roots showing through. Nonetheless, I understand your reaction to the sentence you quoted.

The oil spill is a complex problem, and I think we are witnessing the effects of frustration. The people who are directly affected are righteously angered, and the politicians and media who are unable to help are showing the symptoms of powerless frustration. I do not believe that Obama was being xenophobic when he referred to BP by its old name, _British_ Petroleum. Although BP is a multinational corporation, I have read in the media that it provides 12% of all dividends paid in the UK and its stock is a significant proportion of most British pension plans.

The UK tabloids and some of the "quality press" are making a mountain out of a mole hill, while the real tragedy - the leak - continues unabated. The US media is picking up on this story for pretty much the same reasons - they are helpless to contribute in any other way.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

njkyle said:


> I do not believe that Obama was being xenophobic when he referred to BP by its old name, _British_ Petroleum.


BP may have changed its legal name, and may have even tried to obfuscate the matter by adopting the tagline "Beyond Petroleum", but we all still know what its name stands for. And despite what it stands for, thinking that anger at BP, a private-sector corporation, equals anger at the nation for which the company was originally named is just plain stupid, in my opinion.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> And what color is your house then?


Half grey and half yellow. I haven't finished painting it yet. 
And to answer the follow-up question before you ask it, the house will end up all yellow.

As to the frustration comments, I don't really see the reason for it. Why worry about something you can't change? There is only one way to stem the flow of oil from the well, that is to get the relief wells drilled and plug the main well 10,000' below the sea floor between the failed pipe casings. Placing "your boot on someone's throat" and "kicking someone's ass" aren't going to change that fact. As my wise old grandfather frequently said, if you wish in one hand and crap in the other, all you'll end up with is a hand full of crap.

Andy B.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

andy b. said:


> Half grey and half yellow. I haven't finished painting it yet.
> And to answer the follow-up question before you ask it, the house will end up all yellow.


You should leave it half-and-half. In fact you might even want to add a tan accent color, maybe do it all in a repeating diagonal stripe pattern...something like this, perhaps:


----------



## Dempsy444 (Dec 3, 2009)

I agree with "peak and pines'" retort. Well said. 
As for the original question on presidential tone, of course it has changed, he is reflecting the citizens' anger at BP. If he didn't, he would pay a political price for what? So he doesn't hurt the British people's feelings? That's politics, no matter where you live. 

The real and more important issue is when will BP get this fixed and how much effort 
will they actually make to bring NOLA whole? I don't believe many British appreciate the damage done, and continuing to be done.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Cavebear58 said:


> Everyone with a modicum of common sense knows that oil exploration, especially at sea, is fraught with safety issues. We are all equally to blame for accepting those potential risks while they remain 'potential' because we want to be able to buy fuel at the lowest possible cost. There are bound to be differences between operators, but BP has as good a reputation as any other for the safety of its work. This could just as easily have been a project run for a US operator.


The early indications are that BP ignored some basic safety concerns and appeared to be operating with a disregard for the consequences. If that is true, I wonder what the reaction would be in Great Britain if an American company did something similar there and created the same environmental nightmare on the British coast. The reaction in America would be the same if it had been an American company. Just ask the Enron executives how America treats companies that harm the public.

If BP put profits over public safety it warrants whatever criticism it gets, and it certainly doesn't deserve to be defended by the British public.

Cruiser


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

andy b. said:


> I just want to say I still like our British friends. If you're unwelcome at the White House, you're always welcome at my house.
> 
> Andy B.


I second that invitation. I've traveled a bit and no matter how remote a location one visits, there is always at least a couple of British ex-pats there. They are always great to associate with, very well mannered, well versed in business news and world affairs, and know exactly which bars are having ladies night or beer promotions on any given night. I would be happy if the Americans that I have met at home and abroad were just half as polite.

Oh yes, my house is red brick, and much smaller than the White House. It doesn't have a fancy chef either, but there is a Taco Bell not far away. :icon_cheers:

As for Obama, well folks, that's what you get when you elect a community organizer. The man does not even understand the elementary principles of business, let alone know what a corporation is. To him, all corps are bad, so if he shows anger towards BP, please don't take it as him being against your country or people. Besides BP was one of his largest campaign contributors, so he better watch what he says, or whose hand he bites.


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

JJR512 said:


> BP may have changed its legal name, and may have even tried to obfuscate the matter by adopting the tagline "Beyond Petroleum", but we all still know what its name stands for.


Is that a bit like Kentucky Fried Chicken changing its name to KFC? One name change and BAM! all the saturated fat disappears.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

While I agree with your description of the frustration factor regarding the oil spill, I can't do so regarding this:



njkyle said:


> I think your comment is harsh when directed towards a country that gave 1M lives...in the Great War, and entered WWII, totally unprepared against a powerful war machine.


It's the _totally unprepared against a powerful war machine_ part that confounds. The war machine to which you refer is the same one responsible for the earlier 1M British dead. It was not some surprising new enemy from out of the clouds. And it had lost more than twice as many lives as your country did, completely changed its form of government, paid billions to you in reparations, but most importantly, it _lost_ that war and you didn't. So why two decades later are you all of a sudden _totally unprepared against a powerful war machine_? Especially since London is about as far from Berlin as El Paso is from San Antonio. Couldn't you have figured a little something out? But that's not what this thread is about, though you and Cave Bear seem to want to make it about that.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

blue suede shoes said:


> As for Obama, well folks, that's what you get when you elect a community organizer.


Whadda you, in the 6th grade? To say that we elected a community organizer (an occupation that I find admirable and probably a lot more so than whatever the hell it is that you do) and totally neglect the fact that sandwiched in there was a job as a United States Senator representing one of the largest states in the Union is little different from me overlooking the fact that the previous President had been Governor of Texas and instead was elected President straight from being a drunk, which he had been and had been actually arrested for not thirty miles from where I write. A+ to you in the category of convenient omissions.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> You are an ungrateful apologist and you're damn lucky we came at all, particularly since we'd spent 100,000 men to ensure your little land wasn't renamed West Prussia a scant 20 years prior. And enough of this 'it could have happened to any rig' stuff. It could have, but it didn't. It happened to yours. Save yor internet breath on how to get it fixed and leave Obama alone.


Peak and Pine, I find your bombastic outrage quite amusing, if incoherent. To get back to the original issue, however, what some people find slightly troubling is the US administration's apparent amnesia concerning certain other environmental disasters when the corporation concerned happened to be American, rather than British. What about Union Carbide in Bhopal? - up to 30,000 people died then, but as far as I'm aware the only deaths associated with the Gulf incident occurred on the rig itself (actually operated, it seems, by an American company) when it exploded. 
Obama's rhetoric seems misguided to me - how can BP devote all their efforts to fixing the oil leak as quickly as possible if, figuratively speaking, he has his boot on their neck? Whipping up some entirely spurious and simulated anti-British hysteria won't help the Louisiana fishermen. It also overlooks the fact that about 30% of BP is owned by Americans.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Centaur said:


> ...when the corporation concerned happened to be US, rather than British. What about Union Carbide in Bhopal?


The US is not a corporation, and Union Carbide does not represent the US Government or the American people as a nation anymore than BP represents the British Government or the British people as a nation. These are _private-sector_ corporations.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Perhaps the "conspiracy theory" fears of the far right Republican camp prior to the Presidential election, which were dismissed as nonsense, weren't (and now aren't) as far-fetched as they seemed to be i.e. Obama's alleged pro-Arab, anti-British and anti-Israeli views....maybe even anti-Imperialist. Only time will tell.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> The US is not a corporation, and Union Carbide does not represent the US Government or the American people as a nation anymore than BP represents the British Government or the British people as a nation. These are _private-sector_ corporations.


Thanks JJR for avoiding any potential confusion, although I was not under the impression that the US was a corporation. I used the term as an adjective - Union Carbide was, I understand, incorporated in the US, so was (is?) a US corporation, just as BP is incorporated here so is a British corporation. My point was to do with the difference in official reaction and the suggestions of partiality implied.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

Centaur said:


> Thanks JJR for avoiding any potential confusion, although I was not under the impression that the US was a corporation. I used the term as an adjective - Union Carbide was, I understand, incorporated in the US, so was (is?) a US corporation, just as BP is incorporated here so is a British corporation. My point was to do with the difference in official reaction and the suggestions of partiality implied.


+1

And how has Transocean got of the hook?


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

:wink2:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

As has been pointed out, the rig itself was owned and operated by an American company, with an American crew, with American operating procedures. 

"The early indications are that BP ignored some basic safety concerns and appeared to be operating with a disregard for the consequences."
The operation was being carried out by Transocean, an American company owned and managed by Halliburton, another American Company. BP had charted the platform to operate on the oilfield that it had leased. I would suggest that it was Transocean and its parent who were responsible for the day to day operations of the rig, not its charterer.

"If that is true, I wonder what the reaction would be in Great Britain if an American company did something similar there and created the same environmental nightmare on the British coast."
They did. Look up "Piper Alpha" and see what happened on that US owned and operated, although British manned, platform. See what the reaction was in Britain. I don't remember the British government making comments that could in any way be construed as anti-American.
Furthermore, I don't remember the same kind of invective and intemperate language being used towards the operators of the "Exxon Valdez", but, of course, that was an entirely American operation.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

*Mau Mau connection?*

Of course it's only right that BP take ultimate responsibility - they may have subcontracted the work to Transocean but it was still BP's operation. However, there's no sign that they have tried to evade their responsibilities, frustrating as it must be that the oil is still seeping out. Obama's xenophobic outbursts must, one assumes, be intended to serve some domestic political purpose - either that, or as has been suggested elsewhere, he secretly nurses resentment against us for suppressing the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, 50+ years ago.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Another interesting set of statistics I saw over the weekend was one of BPs ownership - 40% of the company shareholding is British owned and 39% US owners. I suppose in part from it's merger/takeover of Amoco. 

But yeah, Obama has really (blindlly) politicised this and bizarrely, I feel a certain sympathy for BP.

But corporate responsibility is corporate responsibility. The book stops with BP and this incident was off the US coast, not India or anywhere esle. The Americans have the might to make them pay.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

And the right. BP has acknowledged this, and did so immediately. It's the intemperate language used by Obama that seems unfortunate. 
Potentially alienating one's main foreign supporter to gain political points at home doesn't seem very statesmanlike.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Chouan said:


> And the right. BP has acknowledged this, and did so immediately. It's the intemperate language used by Obama that seems unfortunate.
> Potentially alienating one's main foreign supporter to gain political points at home doesn't seem very statesmanlike.


Seconded.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Chouan said:


> I don't remember the same kind of invective and intemperate language being used towards the operators of the "Exxon Valdez", but, of course, that was an entirely American operation.


Are you kidding? I remember all manner of outrage. Criminal charges were filed by the government, record fines were assessed, and Congress enacted new legislation in an effort to hold companies liable for such disasters. For months Americans boycotted Exxon in a show of protest. Perhaps the reaction in America was not fully conveyed to the British public.

The American anger is directed at BP, not the British people or government.

Cruiser


----------



## njkyle (Oct 11, 2009)

VictorRomeo: Now, that is just hitting below the belt


----------



## njkyle (Oct 11, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> While I agree with your description of the frustration factor regarding the oil spill, I can't do so regarding this:
> 
> It's the _totally unprepared against a powerful war machine_ part that confounds.


The British were impoverished by the Great War and the Great Depression. Prior to the Great War, the Brits had approximately 180% of their GDP held in foreign assets. After the WWII, that percentage was deeply negative. Britain was a democracy add did not turn its economy towards building a war machine (as did Germany), and unlike the French, did not exploit Germany after the Great War through reparations. Ever heard of _Lend Lease_?


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

culverwood said:


> +1
> 
> And how has Transocean got of the hook?


And Cameron International and Haliburton.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> You were pumping along pretty good until you got to this part.:
> 
> You are an ungrateful apologist and you're damn lucky we came at all, particularly since we'd spent 100,000 men to ensure your little land wasn't renamed West Prussia a scant 20 years prior. And enough of this 'it could have happened to any rig' stuff. It could have, but it didn't. It happened to yours. Save yor internet breath on how to get it fixed and leave Obama alone.


He doesn't speak for me, I remember your fallen along with ours and give your countrymen the same slack that I give to my own for that (and other) reason(s). That's what buddies are suposed to do.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> It's the _totally unprepared against a powerful war machine_ part that confounds. The war machine to which you refer is the same one responsible for the earlier 1M British dead. It was not some surprising new enemy from out of the clouds. ... So why two decades later are you all of a sudden _totally unprepared against a powerful war machine_? .


As you say, it's slightly off topic, but let's just challenge the assertion that Britain was 'totally unprepared' for WW2. There was a powerful pacifist movement in the 1930s, and very little public desire for a war which admittedly few seemed to see coming and which Britain could ill afford. Nevertheless, by 1939 the RAF had been equipped with radar and the best aircraft yet invented. Otherwise, by the time of Pearl Harbor, who knows how the war might have ended?


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10307782.stm

So is he ramping it up or just using the spill to push through environmental legislation he had already in the "pipeline" (no pun intended)?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Centaur said:


> Of course it's only right that BP take ultimate responsibility - they may have subcontracted the work to Transocean but it was still BP's operation. However, there's no sign that they have tried to evade their responsibilities, frustrating as it must be that the oil is still seeping out. Obama's xenophobic outbursts must, one assumes, be intended to serve some domestic political purpose - either that, or as has been suggested elsewhere, he secretly nurses resentment against us for suppressing the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, 50+ years ago.


Centaur: The racial connotations/slurs in the above are unsupportable and an insult. Such indignities will not be tolerated in these fora. Explain yourself or face the consequences


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

*Racial slur?*



eagle2250 said:


> Centaur: The racial connotations/slurs in the above are unsupportable and an insult. Such indignities will not be tolerated in these fora. Explain yourself or face the consequences


I'm not aware that there are any 'racial connotations/slurs' in my posting. I was referring to statements that have been widely reported elsewhere in the British media (e.g. the Daily Telegraph) to the effect that Obama is thought to harbour anti-British sentiments because one of his ancestors - either a grandfather or grand uncle - was imprisoned by the British in Kenya and supposedly mistreated in some way. This was at the time of the Mau Mau rebellion (early 1950s) when Kenya was a British colony. Is there a racial connotation in all of that? Just possibly, but not intentionally on my part.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Centaur said:


> As you say, it's slightly off topic, but let's just challenge the assertion that Britain was 'totally unprepared' for WW2. There was a powerful pacifist movement in the 1930s, and very little public desire for a war which admittedly few seemed to see coming and which Britain could ill afford. Nevertheless, by 1939 the RAF had been equipped with radar and the best aircraft yet invented. Otherwise, by the time of Pear Harbor, who knows how the war might have ended?


Good point. For backstory on some of the key things that Britain did to prepare, I recommend Michael Korda's recent _With Wings Like Eagles: _

https://www.amazon.com/Wings-Like-Eagles-History-Britain/dp/0061125350

Strategic bombing had been hyped throughout the 20s and 30s as a military "game-changer," with the bomber cast as a weapon that could win wars almost by itself. So arranging--and paying for--the world's most sophisticated air-defense system was no small matter. As Korda points out, the whole system was built on the watches of the appeasers Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, who seldom get credit for it; it wasn't jerry-rigged or snapped magically into existence in the summer of 1940.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Thank you Centaur, for that classification. It seems the British media are as flawed as the the media on this side of the pond, as they embellish the facts with spurious assumptions, creating added intrigue and perhaps enhancing reader interest at the expense of responsible journalistic standards.

Please. let us not stoop to their level!


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

I don't disagree at all with what you say. However, it's always interesting to speculate why politicians behave the way they do (and a matter of legitimate public debate, surely?) - whether there may be underlying psychological or other causes? We certainly have our share of interesting cases on this side.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

njkyle said:


> Britain was a democracy and [after WWI] did not turn its economy towards building a war machine (as did Germany)...


Well perhaps they should have. You're misunderstanding me. I agree with you that Britain was wracked heavy after WWI. It's that you, or someone here, won't acknowledge that Germany was wracked worse: thrice the casualities, loss of territory, billions in reparations, national humiliation, destruction of their form of government, yet somehow (and unfortunately we all mostly know "how") they phoenixed it out of their flames while you, and I say you because you take the British line on this, made tea and looked for sympathy. And I have heard of _lend lease_. Have you heard of _Lady Ga Ga?_ Both questions seem equally pertinent.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

JJR512 said:


> BP may have changed its legal name, and may have even tried to obfuscate the matter by adopting the tagline "Beyond Petroleum", but we all still know what its name stands for.


BP ingraciated itself with the left with this ad campaign and by embracing Global/Warming and Cap and Trade.

They realize, like Al Gore, that there is money to be made thar!!


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

VictorRomeo said:


> But yeah, Obama has really (blindlly) politicised this and bizarrely, *I feel a certain sympathy for BP.*


If that's because the black slime that's forming a ring around Florida hasn't yet had a chance to break for the North Sea nearby where you live, give it a little more time.


----------



## MR MILLER (Feb 23, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> I don't think he's anti-British, just anti-British _Petroleum_.


I have to agree with jjr512 i dont think its anti british just anti bp and rightfully so in my opinion


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Forum rules, as I well know, disallow public questioning of moderation even if, as here, the questioner (me) is in full agreement with the moderation or at least the fact that a moderator stepped in, but my haggle is not with the moderation, but with the remark that rightfully prompted it. It was racist, is racist, is false and forms a very crooked and very wicked line between the real topic of this thread and a personal and foolish attack on the President. That Centaur was just quoting the media may be true, but just _why_ was he just quoting the media?


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> . It was racist, is racist, is false and forms a very crooked and very wicked line between the real topic of this thread and a personal and foolish attack on the President.


How so?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Did you read the post in question?


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Forum rules, as I well know, disallow public questioning of moderation even if, as here, the questioner (me) is in full agreement with the moderation or at least the fact that a moderator stepped in, but my haggle is not with the moderation, but with the remark that rightfully prompted it. It was racist, is racist, is false and forms a very crooked and very wicked line between the real topic of this thread and a personal and foolish attack on the President. That Centaur was just quoting the media may be true, but just _why_ was he just quoting the media?


I can't decide whether you're trying to wind me up, Peak and Pine, but in any event I disagree with you and rather take exception to being called a racist. I was commenting on the possible or conjectured background to your President's stance, which has been quite widely reported in the media, as it is/may have been relevant to the discussion at hand. I think it may have been you who tried to digress somewhat into the broader historical context of US/UK relations, but the original posting concerned perceptions of an anti-British bias, apparent in some of Mr Obama's statements concerning the regretable Gulf oil fiasco. (I take it I can comment on a person's Kenyan ancestry without being racist?)


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Obama's MO is to attack "popular targets", BP in this case, to achieve various goals, including getting legislation pushed through, or improving his public approval poll numbers. He's taking quite a lot of hits for his repsonse to this calamity (many from his own party) so, his attacks on BP are particulary sharp.

Not that BP doesn't bear the great majority of the blame here and shouldn't be held responsible for the cost of all the damage this event has caused. They more certainly are and should be. To the fullest extent possible. 

In the end, it's clearly an attack on BP, not the British people, but, since many are invested in BP, they will take a big financial hit (as thousands in the United States already have and will continue to suffer due to the damage BP caused and cannot halt).


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Centaur said:


> I can't decide whether you're trying to wind me up, Peak and Pine, but in any event I disagree with you and rather take exception to being called a racist.


Whether or not I was trying to wind you up is moot and not my intent, but it seems you are wound. Perhaps this will unwind you.

Consider,

The Mau Mau uprising was not only race based, it was racial in its totality. Unlike the American Civil War which had whites fighting whites about the_ philosophy_ of race, the Mau Mau deal was actually whites and blacks killing each other, though to say_ each other_ connotes some sort of parity when in fact less than 100 Brits were killed, while the toll of Kenyans may have reached 10,000. It is something of which you as a Brit may not be proud.

But to say that somehow Obama scorns the Brits because of what they did to his grandfather is little different than if you were to conjecture that tough talk from me about Native Americans is not because they rip me off at glitzy casinos, but because one of their tribe shot my great grand daddy at little Big Horn. You would be not only grasping at straws but attributing my present day reaction to past indignation, indignation fueled by a racial motivation in that everything Native Americans and settlers did to each other was racially inspired. However, since there is zero evidence that President Obama was thinking about his grand daddy when he chastised Britain, then to say so appears equally racial tinged, if not inspired. I had never heard of this accusation before you thrust it at me and a quick Google hunt shows it apparently to be the exclusive domain of British media. That figures. I retract the charge, if ever it was there, that you are racist. And I hope we can be friends because I really like Keane and have just purchased their latest CD, Night Train. You should hear it.


----------



## alcon (Apr 15, 2005)

I'm an American and lived in England for four wonderful years. As a U.S. Air Force member stationed at RAF Chicksands, Beds. I lived in the towns of Stotfold and Potton and interacted with my British friends every day. Myself and my family were treated with the utmost respect and consideration and I consider the people of Great Britain WONDERFUL. Our President's remarks must be taken with a box of salt not just a grain. We have learned long ago he will say anything and everything with no regard to the truth. Do not allow yourself to get roped into hateful anti-British talk.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

alcon said:


> We have learned long ago he [Obama] will say anything and everything with no regard to the truth. .


Who's the _we,_ you and Limbaugh?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Can anyone provide any examples of "Obama's anti-British rhetoric"? (Tabloid headlines don't count for much but what a person actually has said might.)


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Whether or not I was trying to wind you up is moot and not my intent, but it seems you are wound. Perhaps this will unwind you.
> 
> Consider,
> 
> ...


Thank you for the graceful retraction.

The grandfather theory, as you have found, was not my invention and I would be hard-pressed to say exactly where it has come from, but nevertheless it is there in the media, at least here in the UK where, rightly or wrongly, columnists and business pundits feel Obama has been far too outspoken in attacking BP. Whether there is any truth in the theory that he dislikes the British, or for whatever reason, no one but Obama can definitely say.

With regard to Kenya and the Mau Mau - well why not broaden things and say the whole British Empire and its former subject nations all around the world - no doubt many things happened which, seen in isolation, we have no reasons to feel particularly proud about. Seen in its totality, however, and judged by the standards of the time, one can say the empire was generally a Good Thing. Many of the countries which were once British have chosen quite voluntarily to remain in the Commonwealth, which may suggest we managed to leave with some credit to our name.

I was distressed to read about your misfortunes at the hands of Native Americans; I hope you enjoy Night Train!


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Centaur said:


> Thank you for the graceful retraction.


I didn't think it was that graceful and I got lost halfway thru the reread. What exactly was I taking about? No matter now I suppose. The formation of tricky sentences takes precedence over coherency with me; probably not a good thing.



> With regard to Kenya and the Mau Mau - well why not broaden things and [include] the whole British Empire and its former subject nations all around the world? No doubt many things happened which, seen in isolation, give us no reason to feel particularly proud.


Because I know little of what went on in the rest of the empire and don't want to tar the entire 500 year history of it with that single Mau Mau brush. I'm not a slippery slope guy, just slippery. Best. P&P


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Just to offer some perspective, can I just say that most of the 10,000 or so casualties reported for the Mau Mau uprising were the victims of the Mau Mau themselves in their effort to acheive Kikuyu hegemony in Kenya. That isn't to say that I don't deplore the over-reaction of the Kenyan Authorities. I would suggest that Mau Mau was racist and racial in its entirity, involving as it did, attempts by the kikuyu to terrorise and control other ethnic groups in Kenya. That it worked in its racist context is apparent in the kikuyu domination of Kenya, and the tribal conflict that occurred during the recent elections.
The anti-British bias is apparent in Obama's book, 'Dreams From My Father', and, possibly can be seen in his immediate removal of Churchill's bust from the White house on his becoming President. It can also be seen in his constant use of "British Petroleum", stressing the British part, when we all know that it's been BP for years.
As a final point, as far as British and US Imperialist History is concerned, both nations have episodes that we aren't, or shouldn't be, proud of.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

For a very insightful and thought provoking article on this, please see:
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...-to-sound-like-a-bit-of-an-arse-201006102804/


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

He certainly does seem to be coming over in the way the article describes. This morning my paper reported that he is likening the oil spill to 9/11. I presume he just means in terms of its impact, rather than that he suspects BP are a front for Al-Qaida and it was a deliberate attack on the USA, but obviously it's just another nail in the coffin for BP.

Let's wish Obama and the USA the best of luck when BP's share price is finally hammered right down and its remaining assets are acquired by some faceless, Chinese state-owned corporation.

Another thought - what will Obama do when he finds out we have weapons of mass destruction?


----------



## njkyle (Oct 11, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> Well perhaps they should have. You're misunderstanding me. I agree with you that Britain was wracked heavy after WWI. It's that you, or someone here, won't acknowledge that Germany was wracked worse: thrice the casualities, loss of territory, billions in reparations, national humiliation, destruction of their form of government, yet somehow (and unfortunately we all mostly know "how") they phoenixed it out of their flames while you, and I say you because you take the British line on this, made tea and looked for sympathy. And I have heard of _lend lease_. Have you heard of _Lady Ga Ga?_ Both questions seem equally pertinent.


If you refer to _phoenixing_ after WWI, we have Mr. Hitler and his methods to thank for that. And you refer to phoenixing after WWII, let's not forget the Marshall Plan in which we rallied to rebuild Europe - including Germany - unlike as in previous wars in which the victor took the spoils. As for the American, Lady Gaga, I will not disparage her in this forum; should you be especially found of her, it might start a fight.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> You should leave it half-and-half. In fact you might even want to add a tan accent color, maybe do it all in a repeating diagonal stripe pattern...something like this, perhaps:


That would be so cool! My wife would dump the buckets of paint on my head if I tried that.

Andy B.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

Centaur said:


> Let's wish Obama and the USA the best of luck when BP's share price is finally hammered right down and its remaining assets are acquired by some faceless, Chinese state-owned corporation.


This is something I don't understand. It appears certain government officials in the US want to see BP go bankrupt. By my way of thinking, if there is no BP, there is only one entity that will end up paying to clean up the mess in the GoM and make payments to the people of the region who have had their livelihoods destroyed. That entity already has somewhere north of $13 trillion in debt. Oh well, I guess another trillion or two won't make it any worse.

Andy B.


----------



## clotheshorse69 (Jun 4, 2010)

+1

Seems ridiculous to be worrying about any anti-British tone's in the president's speeches right now...


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

My view is that this anti British rumor was initiated by BP to foster support from back home. So far I have seen no bias against the nation and the only claims I have encountered of such action are from England. One even focused on the claim that cleaning up the spill would cause people to lose their pensions. Silliness, but not initiated here. If there are specific citations of our President or congress blaming the British as a whole please post them. If it was some private party making the accusations, please ignore them. We do have our share of nuts, just like Britain.


----------



## njkyle (Oct 11, 2009)

njkyle said:


> <snip>... we have Mr. Hitler and his methods to thank for that...<snip>


Oh my: I am replying to my own post because, unwittingly, I engaged Godwin's Law: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

I believe this means that I have lost the argument


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> And Cameron International and Haliburton.


Reports show Halliburton and Schlumberger made recommendations that BP overruled. I don't know that will obviate any liability, but I suspect it would limit it.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> My view is that this anti British rumor was initiated by BP to foster support from back home. So far I have seen no bias against the nation and the only claims I have encountered of such action are from England. One even focused on the claim that cleaning up the spill would cause people to lose their pensions. Silliness, but not initiated here. If there are specific citations of our President or congress blaming the British as a whole please post them. If it was some private party making the accusations, please ignore them. We do have our share of nuts, just like Britain.


Justified or not, it's a perception that enjoys wide currency here. Try googling 'Obama' and 'Anti-British' for a flavour.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Or try listening to, or reading, what he has said. Add that to his earlier writings about Britain, and there you have it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Mad Hatter said:


> Reports show Halliburton and Schlumberger made recommendations that BP overruled. I don't know that will obviate any liability, but I suspect it would limit it.


True, but if they, the experts, worked in a manner that they knew, or believed, to be unsafe, they are still liable, morally as well as legally.
I used to work in the oil industry, on tankers, at sea. If a charterer of the ship I was on told us that they only wanted us to use half the mooring lines that we would ordinarily use, in order to save time and money, the Master's response would be to advise against it. If the charterers insisted, he would be likely refuse to follow their instructions, possibly incurring a penalty clause on the Charter Party. My understanding is that Halliburton and Schlumberger were, arguably, in a similar position, but accepted BP's directions.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

Chouan said:


> True, but if they, the experts, worked in a manner that they knew, or believed, to be unsafe, they are still liable, morally as well as legally.
> I used to work in the oil industry, on tankers, at sea. If a charterer of the ship I was on told us that they only wanted us to use half the mooring lines that we would ordinarily use, in order to save time and money, the Master's response would be to advise against it. If the charterers insisted, he would be likely refuse to follow their instructions, possibly incurring a penalty clause on the Charter Party. My understanding is that Halliburton and Schlumberger were, arguably, in a similar position, but accepted BP's directions.


I'm no lawyer, so this is something I can't give an opinion on. For all I know there are some waivers that will show a good-faith effort to dissuade BP was made; if so, I guess they'll appear in due course.

That said, even with a waiver, I wouldn't know if liability is completely eliminated. And whether or not you're referencing US or UK laws. As far as moral responsibility, I don't necessarily see it. Given that there is so many variables, everything still could've turned out well. Or had this happen six months into the future.

In the rush to point fingers, the one thing not getting any press to speak of is this administration not availing themselves of international help and dithering on Gov. Jindal's request to build berms. I guess talking a tough line gives the impression of meaningful, decisive leadership.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Mad Hatter said:


> Reports show Halliburton and Schlumberger made recommendations that BP overruled. I don't know that will obviate any liability, but I suspect it would limit it.


 Discussion of their liability, if any, seems academic as BP have in any case assumed all liability for the incident and its aftermath. It rankles a bit that Halliburton are paying a dividend, though.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Or try listening to, or reading, what he has said. Add that to his earlier writings about Britain, and there you have it.


It all started when he took down the bust of Churchill and gave the Queen a DVD collection!!

That Black Suit wearing Huckleberry of a President!!


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It all started when he took down the bust of Churchill and gave the Queen a DVD collection!!
> 
> That Black Suit wearing Huckleberry of a President!!


Take care there! I've been called a racist on this forum for less.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Country Irish said:


> My view is that this anti British rumor was initiated by BP to foster support from back home. So far I have seen no bias against the nation and the only claims I have encountered of such action are from England. One even focused on the claim that cleaning up the spill would cause people to lose their pensions. Silliness, but not initiated here. If there are specific citations of our President or congress blaming the British as a whole please post them. If it was some private party making the accusations, please ignore them. We do have our share of nuts, just like Britain.


Well written, I think, and accurate. No one has yet produced a quote from President Obama that is anti-British. All that other stuff seems to be propagated by tabloids and tabloid-like sites and those that enjoy such things. Profitable gossip and nothing more.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

Sheesh... such animosity here. I am thoroughly disappointed and embarassed, that the very "top leadership" has allowed or even CAUSED this to flair up into a nation-vs-nation thing, from their very top level of government, all the way down to this internet forum.



JJR512 said:


> And despite what it stands for, thinking that anger at BP, a private-sector corporation, equals anger at the nation for which the company was originally named is just plain stupid, in my opinion.


Hear, hear. I'll just flat-out state once and for all, despite whatever my government is doing or saying, I as just one private citizen find you Brits A-OK in my book. And YES, our two countries DO still have a strong special relationship, that the **people** of America will continue to observe and cherish.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

clotheshorse69 said:


> +1
> 
> Seems ridiculous to be worrying about any anti-British tone's in the president's speeches right now...


 Why? I think the direction our country's current President is taking our #1, MOST SPECIAL alliance, is VERY important!


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Centaur said:


> Justified or not, it's a perception that enjoys wide currency here. Try googling 'Obama' and 'Anti-British' for a flavour.


I did that and immediately found that somehow saying "British Petrolium" instead of "BP" is supposed to be biased and in the same article another reference to pensioners whining that the cleanup will cost them their retirement.
Somehow failing to give a joint press conference was another slight. In that article Brown gave Obama an ink pen and somehow it was supposed to confer a special relationship. If Obama missed a special meaning I can't blame him. I miss the message also. And England is welcome to have their own press conference if it is so important.
Then I see that somehow our being neutral in the Falklands tiff with Argentina is a slight in the eyes of Britain. How is neutrality viewed as bias? Are we supposed to go to war over Britains inability to manage one small island? 
Then somehow if we are pro Europe then we are somehow anti British.

Let's face it. If this is what you are talking about, there is no reason for claiming bias but plenty of reason to claim an over indulgent sense of self pity by a couple of British writers.We are not a colony, we are an ally. That means Britain does not call the shots. If any are offended it is an offense only in the minds of a few and a British invention since we did nothing to instigate a negitive attitute.
As for BP are we supposed to let them make obscene profits and ignore their slipshod management?
Are we supposed to get into a Vietnam type situation in Argentina because Britain can't hang on to a colony any more?

No. Only a few claim there is somethng wrong with Obama's relationship with Britain and even those claims are mere invention. BP will clean up their mess and hopefully be barred from conducting business in the USA ever again. We should remain neutral in the Falklands because it is not our fight and Britain doesn't need a colony anyway. And if an ink pen is so important, I will send you a couple of Bics and we can call it even.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> I did that and immediately found that somehow saying "British Petrolium" instead of "BP" is supposed to be biased and in the same article another reference to pensioners whining that the cleanup will cost them their retirement.


I gotta call BS on that*. I have a tendency to say "British Petroleum" because that's the name for the company that I originally learned. Apparently, they changed it, but I did not know that until it was remarked upon very early in this thread. I still have a tendency to think of KFC as Kentucky Fried Chicken, FedEx as Federal Express, and my local utilities company as BG *&* E. I don't think of them as Baltimore Gas and Electric because I've always known them by the short BG&E, but they've changed their name to BGE, without the ampersand, but I still say it BG&E. I still say "black" not "African American" (and, completely off the point, I have no intention of trying to change that habit as long as I'm still called "white"; I'll start using "African American" as soon as I'm being called "European American").

None of these are due to any bias, it's just that old habits die hard for me.

* For the record, I am calling BS on the opinion that Country Irish discovered, not on Country Irish himself.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Now, if those who wish for drama and funny quotes are interested, read what the Chairman of BP said about the "little people" they are apparently so fond of. Accurate statement or translation problem?


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Quay said:


> Now, if those who wish for drama and funny quotes are interested, read what the Chairman of BP said about the "little people" they are apparently so fond of. Accurate statement or translation problem?


I am afraid I can't say. Since I am one of the little people, my views can be of no significance to the godlike creatures of BP.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"I gotta call BS on that*"

Looks like we are flying the same flag!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Country Irish said:


> Then I see that somehow our being neutral in the Falklands tiff with Argentina is a slight in the eyes of Britain. How is neutrality viewed as bias? Are we supposed to go to war over Britains inability to manage one small island?
> 
> Are we supposed to get into a Vietnam type situation in Argentina because Britain can't hang on to a colony any more?
> 
> We should remain neutral in the Falklands because it is not our fight and Britain doesn't need a colony anyway.


How is Britain unable to maintain one small island? I'm unaware of any administrative issues in the Dependency, whose British population seem to be determined to remain British despite the renewed aggressive stance of Argentina.
I would suggest that the sentiment displayed in your faulty appreciation of the situation in the Falklands rather betrays your attitude to Britain.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"I would suggest that the sentiment displayed in your faulty appreciation of the situation in the Falklands rather betrays your attitude to Britain. "

Hmmm. My "appreciation" might be different than yours but it does not make it faulty. Perspective varies. It also varies for each issue and does not depend on some overall attitude.
If you mean assessment, I can assure you that I can separate "assessment" ,an intellectual process from an "attitude", an emotional position. My assessment is that the Falklands are not our territory and since both Argentina and Britain are our friends we should remain neutral We should want both sides to win. My attitude is that if you want a foreign outpost you should talk to Argentina, and don't bug us about it.. While both have the same end result , the paths to the conclusion differ.
I don't think that "administrative issues" were what you really perceived from the quote you present. If so I will expand it by a few words and say that this is an unstable political situation which has been replayed many times. They do not have the stability that would be present in a properly managed endeavor. Management means controlling the situation. 
The Falklands situation is definitely erratic and NOT well managed. 

INTERMISSION 
While you decide what you really meant regarding management I will editorialize and point out that the British have their own diplomats and military force. It is not our place to jump in and create hostile feelings between US and Argentine governments. Other than harboring Mark Sanford while he was attempting to be a bad, bad boy it is unlikely that we have any grudge with them unless an argument can be made that they should have done the honorable thing and just kept him there.
On a separate track, England has a long history of using military might against ill prepared foreign nations for the purpose of its own enrichment. If Argentina decides to "liberate" the Falklands from a well armed nation, you should understand completely. Thus I don't see why we should need to come to anyone's aid. Dump the colonial mindset or embrace it when others engage in the same behavior. End of editorial.

Now back to the main point. If you have figured out the management issue above,tell me about it then let's move on to one more question. 
How do either my alleged assessments or attitudes have anything to do with what Obama might or might not think about Britain and how does any of this reflect on the fact that it is only a couple of British journalists that are trying to make anything of this imagined bias. 
I am not the enemy, Obama is not the enemy, the British people are not the enemies. Lonely, disillusioned, British clones of Rush Limbaugh seem to be the real enemy.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

*Kicking ass*

Chouan, you started this thread - you must post up some extracts from that book of Obama's to illustrate the point.

The main issue however is that BP is a very important company in this country. The Gulf oil escape is a terrible tragedy both for America and BP, which BP have unconditionally promised to put right and pay for, without anyone twisting their arm or putting the boot in, yet perversely Obama continues to demand that 'asses are kicked', that BP must be held to account, like some demented headmaster with a recalcitrant schoolboy, knowing the effect that has each time on BP's share price - the effect being to weaken BP and, in the end, make it harder or even impossible for BP to clean up the mess and restore people's livelihoods (I mean the 'folk down there' Obama mentions). Country Irish can be dismissive of 'whining pensioners' whose retirement funds shrink each time Obama opens his mouth, but it doesn't quite deal with the perception here of Obama the enraged master kicking BP the fumbling servant when the company is already metaphorically (and financially) on its knees, scrabbling to pick up the pieces of broken crockery.

Another thing, Country Irish - your appreciation of the Falklands issue is _completely_ wrong, but that's a separate matter.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Country Irish;I don't think that "administrative issues" were what you really perceived from the quote you present. If so I will expand it by a few words and say that this is an unstable political situation which has been replayed many times. They do not have the stability that would be present in a properly managed endeavor. Management means controlling the situation.
The Falklands situation is definitely erratic and NOT well managed..[/QUOTE said:


> True. As long as Argentina continues to threaten stability, the Falklands situation will remain erratic. I'm not sure how this equates to "Britains inability to manage one small island? ", which is what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

Country Irish said:


> My assessment is that the Falklands are not our territory and since both Argentina and Britain are our friends we should remain neutral We should want both sides to win. My attitude is that if you want a foreign outpost you should talk to Argentina, and don't bug us about it.


Just don't expect anyone to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with you if you take an isolationist stance. If you need allies you need friends.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

This article is also quite thought provoking.
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...on-of-country-and-western-music-201006172824/

And for balance
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...iculum-to-include-abject-terror-201003252596/


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

My earlier post said your appreciation of the Falklands issue is completely wrong. As you will probably ask why, I will explain. Earlier you said:



Country Irish said:


> Are we supposed to go to war over Britain's inability to manage one small island?
> ... it is not our fight and Britain doesn't need a colony anyway.


As far as I am aware, notwithstanding that we in the UK have fought/are fighting side by side with the USA in two Gulf Wars and Afghanistan, no one here has asked the USA to go to war on this or any other issue for quite some time.
Secondly, there is no 'inability to manage' the Falklands, which in any case aren't a 'colony we don't need'. 'Need' doesn't really come into it - the Falkland Islanders are all British, whom we have a duty to protect against aggressive and entirely unjustified Argentine neo-colonialism. To put it another way, I'm sure most Americans would expect their government to protect absolutely their fellow Americans living in, say, Hawaii, against a hypothetical threatened invasion from hostile Polynesians elsewhere in the Pacific. The Falkland Islands may seem a long way from the British mainland, but they're a long way from everywhere else too, including Argentina; just as Hawaii is a long way from continental America.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Whadda you, in the 6th grade? To say that we elected a community organizer (an occupation that I find admirable and probably a lot more so than whatever the hell it is that you do) and totally neglect the fact that sandwiched in there was a job as a United States Senator representing one of the largest states in the Union is little different from me overlooking the fact that the previous President had been Governor of Texas and instead was elected President straight from being a drunk, which he had been and had been actually arrested for not thirty miles from where I write. A+ to you in the category of convenient omissions.





Peak and Pine said:


> Well perhaps they should have. You're misunderstanding me. I agree with you that Britain was wracked heavy after WWI. It's that you, or someone here, won't acknowledge that Germany was wracked worse: thrice the causalities, loss of territory, billions in reparations, national humiliation, destruction of their form of government, yet somehow (and unfortunately we all mostly know "how") they phoenixed it out of their flames while you, and I say you because you take the British line on this, made tea and looked for sympathy. And I have heard of _lend lease_. Have you heard of _Lady Ga Ga?_ Both questions seem equally pertinent.


After all, Mr. Obama's organizational skills are what got us the $20b fund :teacha:. I don't know what's worse, a drunk from Texas or Lady GaGa :icon_headagainstwal.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Centaur said:


> Chouan, you started this thread - you must post up some extracts from that book of Obama's to illustrate the point..


I would if I could find my copy of the bloody thing!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

And then, on yesterday's evening news, the BP Chairman, after his meeting with President Obama and other White House officials, is broadcast saying, "As is the POTUS, BP is also concerned about the little people suffering in the Gulf region!" BP sure has a way of endearing themselves with the American public(?)! :crazy: Just wondering what it would cost to surgically remove the Chairman's foot from his (out-of-control) mouth? Perhaps we are well past the point where BP should have secured some corporate leadership, smart enough to know when to close their proverbial "pie-holes?"


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

I know, not the best formulation of words. He's a Swede - not that that helps.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
True dat but, the BP CEO is a Brit and when questioned as to the adequacy of the BP response effort (at an earlier point), he response was; "BP cares...I care...I just can't wait to get my life back!" Not presuming to speak for others but, I'll bet those little people in the Gulf region would love to get their lives back...regardless of how pathetic they might seem, to BP's corporate Execs! :devil:


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

The whole thing is a PR disaster for BP, I'm taking a close if rather grim interest in seeing just how bad the situation can get.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> True dat but, the BP CEO is a Brit and when questioned as to the adequacy of the BP response effort (at an earlier point), he response was; "BP cares...I care...I just can't wait to get my life back!" Not presuming to speak for others but, I'll bet those little people in the Gulf region would love to get their lives back...regardless of how pathetic they might seem, to BP's corporate Execs! :devil:


There was a very interesting interview on the BBC news the day before yesterday, with a Louisiana fisherman. He was annoyed at Obama's rhetoric. As far as he was concerned, BP was welcome to stay as he'd earned more money through working for BP than he ever could have earned as a fisherman.

I can't see anything slighting of the lives of the "little people" of the Gulf of Mexico in what he said. Perhaps we're all being oversensitive?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Chouan said:


> I can't see anything slighting of the lives of the "little people" of the Gulf of Mexico in what he said. Perhaps we're all being oversensitive?


 The phrase was "small people", said thrice. Let's not say _we're all_ being overly sensitive, 'cause it's pretty obvious you're not.

And a shout-out to Camorristi for bumping two of my earlier posts. I thoroughly enjoyed rereading them. And he added post-enhancing picures! Thanks, Camo.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Centaur said:


> The Falkland Islands may seem a long way from the British mainland, but they're a long way from everywhere else too,* including Argentina*.


Huh? Not according to the Peak & Pine Farmer's Atlas. The Falklands --- or the Malvinas as I prefer to call them --- are plopped in the ocean just of the Argentine mainland. One could swim there. But once ashore and toweling off, that stupid swimmer would find just rocks, sheep and a tiny race of white people living in a time warp.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

I am a little short of time today so I will skip most of the questions designed to expand the discussion beyond the presumed original intent. Over all the situation is that Obama has not distanced himself from the British. You have yet to show otherwise. The Falklands thing is oil related which could easily be avoided with rational discussions between the Argentine government and the British. Somehow you, the posters have determined that by spreading propaganda here you can somehow "prove" hostility without a shred of evidence of malice by our nation or our President. While you might take a few snippets out of context and claim it is our entire philosophy, it won't work. You are acting as puppets for big oil. Most of the alleged distancing of your nations can be directly traced to marketing by BP and companies who support it and are intended to work up a frenzy among the British to support their positions.
Of the items I mentioned earlier, financial interests seem to be the root of most of the supposed anit-British rhetoric. These are not the actions of our nation but the propaganda of a couple of your reporters working as stooges for financial (not government) interests. They are simply hyping a fictional enemy to draw support and downplay the irresponsible management of their own companies, BP included.

I'll try to pop in tonight and see if you can find something to say that goes beyond what BP is telling you to say.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

And when you do pop back, write more because you're writing good, meaty stuff. I particularly liked where you put that intermission thing in an earlier post, allowing me to light up before finishing your screed. Thank you.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> One could swim there. But ....


It's over 400 miles, for God's sake!!


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> The Falklands thing is oil related which could easily be avoided with rational discussions between the Argentine government and the British.


Rational discussions? We got rather beyond that stage nearly 30 years ago, after which I don't think there was much more that needed saying to the Argies. I'm just surprised they've tried to revive the issue now; disappointed that Hilary Clinton takes them seriously.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

Falklands to Argentina 486 miles - quite a swim.

Russia to Alaska 59 mile - a little easier. In fact you could walk it in the winter.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Chouan said:


> I would if I could find my copy of the bloody thing!


You mean you haven't ritually burned it yet?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Centaur said:


> It's over 400 miles, for God's sake!!


You come late to the party of geographical knowledge. Originally, you said this...



Centaur said:


> .The Falkland Islands may seem a long way from the British mainland, but they're a long way from everywhere else too, including Argentina


The Falklands...or the Malvinas as I prefer to call them...are eight thousand freakin' miles from Britain, yet a scant 400 or so from Argentina, or roughly one third of the distance I am from Calle Ocho and a good cup of cafe con leche.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

I take my hat off to you P&P, you must be one hell of a swimmer...

But seriously, geography doesn't really enter into the matter. The people there are British - end of discussion.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Centaur said:


> ...seriously, geography doesn't really enter into the matter. *The people there are British - end of discussion*.


End of the _anthropologica_l part of the discussion perhaps, but not of the political one in that while the inhabitants of the Falklands...or the Malvinas as I prefer to call them... are indeed British, they shouldn't be. Maybe Argentina could parachute a few Mau Maus in there to stir things up.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

culverwood said:


> Falklands to Argentina 486 miles - quite a swim.
> 
> Russia to Alaska 59 mile - a little easier. In fact you could walk it in the winter.


...and, LOL, Sarah Palin can see Russia, from her kitchen window...on a clear day of course! What's with just a few miles, among all us girls?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Centaur said:


> But seriously, geography doesn't really enter into the matter. The people there are British - end of discussion.


Not trying to take sides here but hasn't the dispute always been about who owns the land rather than who owns the people? And if the discussion is about land, how can geography not enter into the matter? Just wondering.

Cruiser


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

camorristi said:


> I don't know what's worse, a drunk from Texas or Lady GaGa :icon_headagainstwal.


Ah, you know who is worse, but damn-it her music is addicting. (goes off singing,"Can't read my,Can't read my No he can't read my Pockerface....")


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> Not trying to take sides here but hasn't the dispute always been about who owns the land rather than who owns the people? And if the discussion is about land, how can geography not enter into the matter? Just wondering.
> 
> Cruiser


See, I knew Cruiser would come in on my side regarding the Falklands...or the Malvinas as I prefer to call them.


----------



## Pembers (May 3, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> End of the _anthropologica_l part of the discussion perhaps, but not of the political one in that while the inhabitants of the Falklands...or the Malvinas as I prefer to call them... are indeed British, they shouldn't be. Maybe Argentina could parachute a few Mau Maus in there to stir things up.


Your argument is ridiculous. You honestly believe that geography is a more important issue than the right to self-determination of the islanders? Argentina has NEVER had sovereignty over the Falklands. They actually have less of a right to claim it against the wishes of its inhabitants than, say, the Comanches do to do the same in Idaho...or ídaahę́, "as I prefer to call it". The Native Americans, at least, could accurately claim that the land was originally theirs. Clearly they'd have a lame argument, as it hasn't belonged to them for a long time...but it would be less baseless than the one that successive incompetent Argentinian leaders have contrived over the years in order to stir up jingoism at home.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> Not trying to take sides here but hasn't the dispute always been about who owns the land rather than who owns the people? And if the discussion is about land, how can geography not enter into the matter? Just wondering.
> 
> Cruiser


What dispute? We own the land ... and the people are British. What is there to be disputed?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Well, you owned Kenya til the Mau Mau thought differently.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Pine and Peep, Poop and Post, Johnny Weissmuller, whoever you are - you do like trying to wind us limeys up don't you, with your "Malvinas as I prefer to call them"! Come off it old boy!!- are you really saying you prefer those tango-twisting brilliantined smoochers, whose tanks have got five reverse gears, to us?? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Pembers said:


> Your argument is ridiculous. You honestly believe that geography is a more important issue than the right to self-determination of the islanders? Argentina has NEVER had sovereignty over the Falklands. They actually have less of a right to claim it against the wishes of its inhabitants than, say, the Comanches do to do the same in Idaho...or ídaahę́, "as I prefer to call it". The Native Americans, at least, could accurately claim that the land was originally theirs. Clearly they'd have a lame argument, as it hasn't belonged to them for a long time...but it would be less baseless than the one that successive incompetent Argentinian leaders have contrived over the years in order to stir up jingoism at home.


Pems, easy. I'm not making the geographical claim, that was Cruiser. I merely pointed out to sense-of-distance impaired Centaur that the Falklands...or the Malvinas as I prefer to...never mind...are TWENTY TIMES closer to Argentina than to Britain. I believe Centaur was confusing them with the Channel Islands, you know those little cuties Sark, Gurnsey, etc.

Whoever's actually correct in all this, why doesn't Britain just make nice and let them go? Speaking for America, which I'm often called on to do, I'd be willing to let the current residents set up shop in Guantanamo. They'd no doubt class the place up a bit, say what?


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Hey Pooperscoop, you do like dishing up nonsense don't you!! Let's ask the Falkland Islanders who they want to have in charge.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> Well, you owned Kenya til the Mau Mau thought differently.[/QUOTE
> No, we didn't. We administered it, until we realised that the indigenous people no longer wanted us there. We do own the Falklands, and the indigenous people, who are British, want to remain British.
> Whatever rights Argentina had claimed were legally renounced, peacefully, by treaty in 1850:
> *Argentina signed the Convention of Settlement and Friendship (the Arana Southern Treaty) with Britain in November 1849, and ratified it on 15th May 1850. Both sides regarded it as a peace treaty that settled all disputes with Britain, and hence confirmed Britain's possession of the Falklands. The destructive effect of this Convention on any Argentine claim to the Falklands was pointed out in a book by Carlos Pereyra, published in Spain in 1919, and reprinted in Argentina in 1944; it was discussed in a debate in Argentina's Congress in 1950 and mentioned in a book by Alfredo Burnet-Merlin published in Buenos Aires in 1974 and 1976.*


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Well that settles it then, gentlemen! Next!


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

As a variant of this discourse on whether or not, or why, Americans are anti-British, I've never understood why, nine times out of ten in an American movie, the baddy is played by an English actor, or sometimes even just an American actor who can do a semi-convincing English accent. Even when the character is meant to be a nazi stormtrooper, they still get someone like Alan Rickman to play the part.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Centaur said:


> As a variant of this discourse on whether or not, or why, Americans are anti-British, I've never understood why, nine times out of ten in an American movie, the baddy is played by an English actor, or sometimes even just an American actor who can do a semi-convincing English accent. Even when the character is meant to be a nazi stormtrooper, they still get someone like Alan Rickman to play the part.


For _Star Wars_ movies, there were two reasons why many of the bad guys had English accents. First, the original movie, from which all others continued, was filmed largely in England, where it was cheaper to hire British actors. Second, Lucas really wanted Peter Cushing for the Tarkin role, so he felt that the other bad guys should have similar accents to make it seem like they all came from the same place or culture.

I can't speak with as much authority on other movies, but I can say that "nine times out of ten" is an extremely gross exaggeration. There certainly are notable examples, and perhaps they stand out so much that they seem the norm, but they are not.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Centaur said:


> As a variant of this discourse on whether or not, or why, Americans are anti-British, I've never understood why, nine times out of ten in an American movie, the baddy is played by an English actor, or sometimes even just an American actor who can do a semi-convincing English accent.


Nine times out of ten? Come on now.

I've always wondered why so many American companies use advertising spokespersons with British, or maybe Australian, accents. Actually I know why. Many Americans think that a British accent sounds sophisticated and companies think that people are more likely to buy the product if there is a sophisticated spokesperson. Heck, there is even a local company that sells bricks in Tennessee that uses a British accent in their advertising. And who can forget this character?










This is the same principal at work when clothing enthusiasts in America use British terminology like waiscoat instead of vest or braces instead of suspenders. They feel like it adds an air of sophistication not found in American terminology. That's the same thing they are doing in TV and the movies.

Cruiser


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Heads up. Member JJR512 who has posted about Star Wars above and whose one-month anniversary here today is, will, when least expected, try to shovel sci-fi into a thread. Be on the look-out for this. He had me pinned the other night when we got caught in a clothing thread and he began to analogize using numbered Star Trek episodes. I had to beam my a** all the back to the home page to escape. I took a couple of anti-groan pills and eventually revitalized.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> And who can forget this character?


Say, I've always wondered: What is the _exact_ accent of the Geico gecko? I mean, being as precise as possible, even down to a specific neighborhood, where is that accent from?

(I've been trying to learn where the various British accents come from, specifically, and this will help.)


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

I don't know about English villains, but my favorite hero is James Bond.

Andy B.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> Well, you owned Kenya til the Mau Mau thought differently.





Chouan said:


> No, we didn't. We administered it, until we realised that the indigenous people no longer wanted us there.


You remind me of my first love. She was quite sharp, but she liked to make stuff up. (Unfortunately, Doris is no longer with us, having been offed by another of her johns, but that's off topic). Read the following pls, then consider pasting it_ over_ the Mau Mau section in the revisionist history you've been reading:

"We [the 30,000 Brits] administered it [the 5,000,000 Kenyans, here collectively referred to as "it"] until we realized [after taking 80% of the land for ourselves] the indiginous people no longer wanted us there [a realization which took eight years during which time we killed our allowed to be killed over 10,000 of these little indigenous peoples]."

As for your citing of various treaties of concession regarding Argentina and the Malvinas, they like to reopen that treaty every so often, with guns, and they will continue to do this every couple decades until you save yourself some fury and just give it to them. The Falkland Brits can bunk with the Palestinians for awhile; they can commiserate together on what its like to be tossed off your land.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

I'm a late-comer to this thread, so forgive me if this is totally redundant. Isn't BP the merged companies British Petroleum and American Oil Company (or Amoco)? I thought, as well, that the resultant merger was roughly 40 per cent owned by British private investors and 40 per cent by American ones. And the merged company employs 40,000 Americans. How do we view this as a national issue--except for the damage caused to significant elements of the United States?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Seldom do large entities actually merge, it's more like one swallowing the other and the swallower gets to use its name for the 'new' company and the swallower names the CEO and calls the shots. British interest in BP is greater, tho only marginally, than American and since the American share is way under 50%, we do not consider it American. About the 40,000 Americans that work for BP. I believe the figure is somewhat smaller, maybe 25,000. We have that many working in the US plants of Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai, but we do not consider those to be American car companies or even that we have a share in them.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Peak and Pine,
You're like a dog with a bone when it comes to the wicked, wicked British Empire. How any sane person can prefer those polo-playing hoochy-coochy jackasses down south to the upright British is deeply mystifying to me.

Let's just hope BP manage to put a cap on that well. It would be too dreadful if some of that oil started to come ashore, say at Maine woods, until it was ten feet deep...


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> Nine times out of ten? Come on now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry - I exaggerated of course.

Although I may be wrong, I don't think this creature has ever been seen on British TV, so I can't help with placing its accent. It has a slightly South Wales look to it, I should say.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> You remind me of my first love. She was quite sharp, but she liked to make stuff up. (Unfortunately, Doris is no longer with us, having been offed by another of her johns, but that's off topic). Read the following pls, then consider pasting it_ over_ the Mau Mau section in the revisionist history you've been reading:
> 
> "We [the 30,000 Brits] administered it [the 5,000,000 Kenyans, here collectively referred to as "it"] until we realized [after taking 80% of the land for ourselves] the indiginous people no longer wanted us there [a realization which took eight years during which time we killed our allowed to be killed over 10,000 of these little indigenous peoples]."
> 
> As for your citing of various treaties of concession regarding Argentina and the Malvinas, they like to reopen that treaty every so often, with guns, and they will continue to do this every couple decades until you save yourself some fury and just give it to them. The Falkland Brits can bunk with the Palestinians for awhile; they can commiserate together on what its like to be tossed off your land.


Perhaps an analogy might be that you give Hawaii to Japan on the grounds that they want it. Or give Okinawa to China, or Puerto Rico to Venezuela, or New Mexico, Nevada, California and Texas back to Mexico. Or Oregon, Florida and Washington State to Mexico on the grounds that they used to belong to Spain.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

Chouan said:


> ... New Mexico, Nevada, California and Texas back to Mexico.


We already have. Maybe that is where the misunderstanding is coming from.

Andy B.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> And when you do pop back, write more because you're writing good, meaty stuff. I particularly liked where you put that intermission thing in an earlier post, allowing me to light up before finishing your screed. Thank you.


Actually, I went to make a pot of coffee and stuck that in while I waited for it to brew. It was not style, it was caffiene cravings!


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Centaur said:


> Rational discussions? We got rather beyond that stage nearly 30 years ago, after which I don't think there was much more that needed saying to the Argies. I'm just surprised they've tried to revive the issue now; disappointed that Hilary Clinton takes them seriously.


I think we take both sides seriously. It seems that from our perspective, we we should avoid turning this disagreement into a three cornered wrestling match.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Centaur said:


> Hey Pooperscoop, you do like dishing up nonsense don't you!! Let's ask the Falkland Islanders who they want to have in charge.


The originals or the cast offs you sent there to colonize the land and kill any natives?


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> The originals or the cast offs you sent there to colonize the land and kill any natives?


Now that really is naive, coming from an American. The islands were completely uninhabited of course, until we arrived. Not like the USA ...


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> I think we take both sides seriously. It seems that from our perspective, we we should avoid turning this disagreement into a three cornered wrestling match.


The USA seems to have a long if not very distinguished history of sitting on fences, regardless of the rights or wrongs of an issue - until self-interest kicks in.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"and he began to analogize using numbered Star Trek episodes."

BEWARE! There are British reading this. They will counter attack by sending the Tardis in to make weird noises and kidnap Princess Leia. 

Personal message inserted:
Oh Rose, I miss you so much. Come back and bump of that new time boy.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Centaur said:


> Now that really is naive, coming from an American. The islands were completely uninhabited of course, until we arrived. Not like the USA ...


I was refering to the penguins! Sheesh, I have to spell everything out for you don't I?


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Centaur said:


> The USA seems to have a long if not very distinguished history of sitting on fences, regardless of the rights or wrongs of an issue - until self-interest kicks in.


Let's get real. The Falklands issue is simply an instance of oil men desiring to drill for more oil in their inherently unsafe manner to make a few bucks. That is not even a fence to sit on. It is an oil spill to swim through. I have yet to read that you are going to get off your ass to go down there and fight for your right to destroy the environment. You want us to do it for you. 
This is not a matter of nations or people. It is a matter of greed.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> I was refering to the penguins! Sheesh, I have to spell everything out for you don't I?


Oh the penguins - they're still there, so I believe. Let's ask them too.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> Let's get real. The Falklands issue is simply an instance of oil men desiring to drill for more oil in their inherently unsafe manner to make a few bucks. That is not even a fence to sit on. It is an oil spill to swim through. I have yet to read that you are going to get off your ass to go down there and fight for your right to destroy the environment. You want us to do it for you.
> This is not a matter of nations or people. It is a matter of greed.


Personally, I hope someone does go down there and drill for oil. I don't think it's got to the point of war yet, nor is it likely to, but we managed without your help last time and would do so again, no doubt.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Centaur said:


> The USA seems to have a long if not very distinguished history of sitting on fences, regardless of the rights or wrongs of an issue - until self-interest kicks in.


When they usually come down on the side of the militarist dictator, even if they change their mind later. Batista, Somoza, Pinochet (they even helped him organise his coup!), Papa Doc Duvalier, Saddam Hussein, Noriega, the bloke in the Dominican Republic etc etc. 
Mind you this isn't colonialism, or even neo-colonialism, it is simply fulfilling the Monroe Doctrine, except for Iraq, of course when it is, ermm, I'm not sure, but its when you arm and support a dictator because his country is next door to a country that has annoyed you. Like Iran. I'm sure that you'll be able to think of a very good sounding euphamism to describe it. That won't sound anything like colonialism or imperialism.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL. I'm thinking that this thread should be retitled as, "Chouan and Centaur's Anti-American rhetoric!" Just a thought? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Country Irish said:


> Let's get real. The Falklands issue is simply an instance of oil men desiring to drill for more oil in their inherently unsafe manner to make a few bucks. That is not even a fence to sit on. It is an oil spill to swim through. I have yet to read that you are going to get off your ass to go down there and fight for your right to destroy the environment. You want us to do it for you.
> This is not a matter of nations or people. It is a matter of greed.


Rather like the US intervention in Kuwait and Iraq. I didn't see many countries that bothered about Sudan, or Eritrea.
Of course Argentina is interested in the potential for oil. That is a major reason why the Falklands are important to them again. 
I'm unaware of the US being asked to intervene militarily. Indeed, I think you'll find that from the 1950's onwards it has been the US that has been trying to get the UK, and anybody else, to fight for them! Viz the Koreans, Australians and New Zealanders in Vietnam; you even asked us to fight for you there!


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> LOL. I'm thinking that this thread should be retitled as, "Chouan and Centaur's Anti-American rhetoric!" Just a thought? :icon_scratch:


It seems to be a two-way street, if you count Country Joe and Peak and Pine.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Centaur said:


> Personally, I hope someone does go down there and drill for oil. I don't think it's got to the point of war yet, nor is it likely to, but we managed without your help last time and would do so again, no doubt.


You hope? Oil is the core reason for this contriced issue. The last time has no bearing on this time.
Just to be clear I did not mean "get off your ass" as a call for Britain to go down there and fight. I meant for you personally (and maybe a few other posters) to go do something instead of just talking about what we should be doing for you.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> You hope? Oil is the core reason for this contriced issue. The last time has no bearing on this time.
> Just to be clear I did not mean "get off your ass" as a call for Britain to go down there and fight. I meant for you personally (and maybe a few other posters) to go do something instead of just talking about what we should be doing for you.


I think the last time has a lot of bearing on this time - if the argies have got any sense.

And I can think of one or two somethings you can go do personally.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"Of course Argentina is interested in the potential for oil. That is a major reason why the Falklands are important to them again. "
And to BP via several smaller companies. They already have test wells planned and an assortment of hardware for the drilling ready although I don't think they have actually started drilling yet.

"the Australians and New Zealanders in Vietnam; you even asked us to fight for you there!"
I am no expert on the Vietnam war, but as I recall our involvement came only after the French Colonial period, followed by the British interferance (a quick search suggests Douglas Gracey was the key in that). Only after France and Britain showed they could not make a big enough mess of things in Vietnam did the USA intervene to show how to screw things up to the extreme. You were not there fighting for us, we were there supposedly correcting the mistakes of our allies which left an opening for dreaded comunism to rear its ugly head.. I have no idea how Australia got talked in to that mess! However belated appoligies are applicable for them with the advice not to be pulled in to the arguements of others so easily.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Centaur said:


> I think the last time has a lot of bearing on this time - if the argies have got any sense.
> 
> And I can think of one or two somethings you can go do personally.


Unless you are on a no fly list, stop in and tell me personally. Just wear your track shoes.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Centaur said:


> The USA seems to have a long if not very distinguished history of sitting on fences, regardless of the rights or wrongs of an issue - until self-interest kicks in.


For those coming late to this thread, the above is an undercurrent which runs thu it, first stated by Cave Bear in the 6th post, kept alive by Centaur in the 137th.

It refers to Britain and France going it alone for a couple years before the US entered WWII. It overlooks the life jacket made of 100,000 soon-to-be-dead Americans we threw them 20 years prior. At the armistice signing in 1918 the US had 1,000,000 scrubbed up young guys with guns and matching uniforms all lined in France waiting for orders. Because I hadn't yet invented the giant C130 Lockheed transport plane, they had to be brought back here boat by boat, just as they'd gone over. Except on the return trip the boats were lighter, if you catch my macabré drift. So, yes, there was a collective groan over here in 1939,_ sheeesh, again?_


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Please keep posting, I shall miss your dry wit otherwise. (Message for Country Joe)


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Wha? You're switching allegiances here. You said the exact same thing to me in a PM last night.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Wha? You're switching allegiances here. You said the exact same thing to me in a PM last night.


Now, now, you know I'd miss yours too.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> It refers to Britain and France going it alone for a couple years before the US entered WWII. [/I]


You're making my point for me, I think. And the First World War began in 1914, not 1917.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Centaur said:


> You're making my point for me, I think. And the First World War began in 1914, not 1917.


_August,_ 1914 to be precise. "The worst August in the history of the world", Sir Arthur Conan Doyle called it. (He also said December, 2009, when the Robert Downey/Jude Law Sherlock Holmes was released, was "the worst _December_ in the history of the world")

Now, Sir Centaur, grab your glasses please, go back, find and bring forth any quote where I said that WWI began in 1917. Thank you in advance for the fruitless task upon which you are about to embark.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> _August,_ 1914 to be precise. "The worst August in the history of the world", Sir Arthur Conan Doyle called it. (He also said December, 2009, when the Robert Downey/Jude Law Sherlock Holmes was released, was "the worst _December_ in the history of the world")
> 
> Now, Sir Centaur, grab your glasses please, go back, find and bring forth any quote where I said that WWI began in 1917. Thank you in advance for the fruitless task upon which you are about to embark.


Ok Ok, I'm spending so long on this thread my wife thinks I'm conducting some sort of online relationship, and it doesn't help matters when I explain it's with a tailor called Andy.

Perhaps I'm using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but my original point, in response to Country Joe's insinuations that we (the UK) were in some way asking the USA to fight our wars for us, was that:

1 we aren't;
2 in point of fact, in recent times we seem to have been fighting _your_ wars;
3 when you have faught with us (1917-18 and 1942-45), it's been after a bit of a delay while you made up your mind what to do, leading to the impression that the USA only piled in when its own interests were at stake.

It goes without saying that I'm very sorry for all the Americans who died in both wars.

I think you said earlier that one reason America hesitated in 1939 was that you had taken so many casualties in the First War. Unfortunately we had too - in fact a lot more. Honouring a treaty with Poland meant there was no choice but to make war on Germany, although there were _some_ who wanted to appease Hitler.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"Please keep posting, I shall miss your dry wit otherwise. (Message for Country Joe)"

In remembrance of your eloquent pleas, I think that the IRISH will have fish today. 

Hint, there are two or more meanings here.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Look at him, how confident in those Red Wings, What a statement :cool2:!


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

At least he's smart enough to know you only wear brown outside the city. 

Why does that photo remind me of this one?


Andy B.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

andy b. said:


> At least he's smart enough to know you only wear brown outside the city.
> 
> Why does that photo remind me of this one?
> 
> Andy B.


Why does this one remind me of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory?


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

camorristi said:


> Look at him, how confident in those Red Wings, What a statement :cool2:!


HMMM, this sounds like shoe size envy to me. Maybe the new forum will cover that topic.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Country Irish said:


> "Of course Argentina is interested in the potential for oil. That is a major reason why the Falklands are important to them again. "
> And to BP via several smaller companies. They already have test wells planned and an assortment of hardware for the drilling ready although I don't think they have actually started drilling yet.
> 
> "the Australians and New Zealanders in Vietnam; you even asked us to fight for you there!"
> I am no expert on the Vietnam war, but as I recall our involvement came only after the French Colonial period, followed by the British interferance (a quick search suggests Douglas Gracey was the key in that). Only after France and Britain showed they could not make a big enough mess of things in Vietnam did the USA intervene to show how to screw things up to the extreme. You were not there fighting for us, we were there supposedly correcting the mistakes of our allies which left an opening for dreaded comunism to rear its ugly head.. I have no idea how Australia got talked in to that mess! However belated appoligies are applicable for them with the advice not to be pulled in to the arguements of others so easily.


My understanding was that SEAC, was effectively led by Britain and the US, but with the US becoming increasingly dominant in policy making. Indochina was allocated to Britain to administer, at the Potsdam Conference, led by Truman, Churchill and Stalin. A conference decision was that Gracey, and his Division fulfill that role.
"_British General Douglas Gracey appointed Commander Allied Forces for the occupation of French Indochina, south of latitude 16 degrees north and head of the Army Control Commission for French Indochina.
Gracey is to command all French forces in his area until the Commander-in-Chief, Allied Land Forces, South East Asia, decides that the French can set up an independent command. His mission is to: _

_Disarm all Japanese forces _
_Maintain law and order _
_Protect and evacuate Allied prisoners of war _
_Liberate Allied territory_ "
This he did, despite severe problems, and with very few men. I don't really think that an appointment made jointly by Truman and Churchill could really be described as "British interference"? 
Once the French considered themselves ready to resume authority, Indochina reverted to French control. French control faltered against increasing Viet Minh pressure, despite US involvement, including the deployment of Special Forces, US Aircraft, and the lending of aircraft carriers, the "Lafayette", "Bois Belleau", "Dixmunde", which reverted to being US vessels afterwards, and the "Arromanches", ex HMS Collossus, which also reverted to the RN.

It was the US that were determined that self-determination did not occur in South East Asia, if it meant that the countries with self-determination voted for communism. Indochina was hardly "our mess", any more than the Malayan Emergency was "our mess", as Malaya had gained independence before the coomunist attacks began. In Malaya Britain stepped in at the request of the Malayan government, solved the communist problem, then withdrew again.
What role Britain was supposed to play in Indochina, given that Britain had no historical link to the area, is as beyond me as it was beyond the British Goverment at the time. Nevertheless, the US requested that the UK show solidarity and send British forces into Vietnam, in support of US policy. Other Commonwealth countries, as I suggested above did so, under considerable US pressure.

In 1917 the US joined in to protect its investments; afterall, if UK and France were defeated, what guarantees did the US have that the loans and the monies owed for materials bought on credit would ever be repaid?
In 1941 Germany declared war on the US. The US, as far as I'm aware, didn't intervene because the UK wanted the US to fight their battles for them. The US did very nicely out of Lend Lease as well, and did very well out of the transfer of some obsolete destroyers to the UK, especially as that class of destroyer were in the process of being scrapped!

You've yet to show our membership any other occasion where the UK called upon the US to fight it's battles.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> LOL. I'm thinking that this thread should be retitled as, "Chouan and Centaur's Anti-American rhetoric!" Just a thought? :icon_scratch:


Is a response to an American member's criticism of Britain anti-American? Just so we know what the rules are.


----------

