It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Barack Obama labelled anti-British

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Chairman of the RAS Insurance company John Napier has written a letter to President Obama in which he criticises the Presidents wording and stance on this issue...

From Sky News




He said: "I've just put on record my concerns about the tone that has developed, particularly about the personalisational issues, which is alien to us in our culture.

"And the fact it's being received over here as an anti-British rhetoric - that may not be his intent, but that is how it's reading."



I honestly don’t get this... I am British... and i haven’t found anything remotely offensive in what Barrack Obama has said... Sure he is angry, who wouldn’t be with millions of gallons of oil washing up onto their shores?

BP may be a British company but it is not Britain and does not represent the British people... it is a corporate entity that has nothing to do with the average British citizen.

I think that the President of the United States should be angry and should be showing it... What kind of president would he be if he just shrugged his shoulders?

In fact, i would like to see British politicians join forces with Obama in putting pressure on BP to clean up this mess and compensate the victims!!


However... I would like to ask the president this one simple question...

Once this mess has been sorted out... Will you then go after the likes of Union Carbide Corporation for killing 25,000 people in India? Will you insist that the executives go to India to face their Charges for the Bhopal disaster??

In fact, will you start applying pressure to ALL the corporate’s, both foreign and domestic, who regularly abuse Human rights and cause environmental damage all around the world??

I hope so!


Top Ten Corporate bad guys

bhopal.net





[edit on 10-6-2010 by Muckster]




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
The US government is directly responsible for the spill. They saved BP half a million dollars (a paltry amount to the company) by lifting a requirement in 2000 to install failsafes in the oil well.

When BP drills in European waters it has to use these failsafes, but not in US waters.

They will do anything except blame themselves.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Really?? Wow... i didnt know that... thanks


Although, if BP was as ethical and green as some of their advertising suggests... they would use this these failsafes regardless of the legislation of the territory they are drilling in.





[edit on 10-6-2010 by Muckster]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
The US government is directly responsible for the spill. They saved BP half a million dollars (a paltry amount to the company) by lifting a requirement in 2000 to install failsafes in the oil well.

When BP drills in European waters it has to use these failsafes, but not in US waters.

They will do anything except blame themselves.


Consequently, Obama is now running scared the chickens will come home to roost! He is desperately trying divert blame not only onto a multinational company, but by incorrectly calling BP 'British Petroleum' - It hasn't been called British Petroleum since 1996. I'm sure Obama is well aware of this fact - He is trying to imply that the UK is entirely to blame and the US is its victim. These are the tactics of a very scared man.

A few facts...

From Times Online...
As of December 2009, 40 per cent of BP’s shares were owned in Britain, but 39 per cent were owned in the US.

It has six British directors and six American, and employs 22,000 Americans against only 10,000 Britons.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Insomniac
 


It doesn't matter who owns shares at this point or where they live, it was BP in charge of the operation and BP that should be held accountable.
Certainly the MMS and the rest of the government has some blame in this for allowing poor practices to continue, and for being in the back pocket of big oil.
But, requiring BP to clean up the disaster that is caused by their people and equipment is not anti british, not in the least.

If the same thing had happened off the coast of britain by an american company, the british would be demanding we paid for the solutions and damage...that would not make them anti-american.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by gluetrap
 


Indeed BP should be held accountable, but so also should the MMS and the US government - as you rightly say.

The point is though President Obama is deliberately and incorrectly calling BP 'British Petroleum' in a pathetic attempt to divert blame onto the UK.

You seem to miss the point that BP is no longer a British company it is a multinational with the same number of Americans on the board as British. It also has more than double the number of American employees (they must be pleased - Not!).

The only regard with which BP is British is that it is registered in the UK. And yes it does matter where the shareholders are located as a lot of Americans will be very angry when their pensions are avertly affected.

Obama is playing a very dangerous game turning the tragedy into an international incident in an attempt to escape a share of the blame. Why doesn't he just blame Bush? The whole thing was set up on his watch after all!



Edit for getting a fact wrong


[edit on 10/6/10 by Insomniac]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
well first he refused to back the UK in the argentina falkland islands oil dispute which continues... then he demands and threatens the UK to send more troops to afghanistan... i think i could see how he could be anti-brit.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by TheCoffinman
 





well first he refused to back the UK in the argentina falkland islands oil dispute which continues... then he demands and threatens the UK to send more troops to afghanistan... i think i could see how he could be anti-brit.



I'm not so sure... Reagan didn’t back Britain over the Falklands either. In fact, I remember hearing an interview with one of his aides who said that the only time he ever see Reagan visibly shaken was after a phone call from Thatcher in which she blasted the president over his lack of support and asking him what he would do if Alaska was invaded!

Reagan was not anti Brit... Just playing politics as they all do...

Regarding more troops in Afghanistan... Haven’t heard of that one before... do you have in links to that? I'd be interested to see what was said!

Thanks.




top topics



 
6

log in

join