It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Is BP Oil Apocalypse The Beginning Of WWIII?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:20 AM
I'm watching the news, and the forums, and the tension between the US and UK is growing exponentially.

From British citizens burning US flags, to tensions between the two governments, anger is on the rise.

LONDON — London Olympics organizing chief Sebastian Coe says he has confidence in BP's continued sponsorship of the 2012 Games.

The troubled oil company is a top-tier sponsor of the London Olympics in a deal valued at around $58 million. BP has come under criticism in the United States for its handling of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Coe described BP on Friday as a "valued and trusted partner." He says "they clearly have a big issue to deal with and are dealing with it as a world-class company.

Dealing with it as a world-class company?? They have been shifty and suspicious since the beginning...

Some of my concern rises from the wording used by a couple of US leaders concerning the oil spill. For example;

an insidious enemy that's attacking our shores
-Thad Allen

Now, apparently he's talking about the oil. But the spill is generated because of BP's lack of whatever, so he could be insinuating that BP is attacking our shores.

See CIA field manual for further understanding of psychology of this type of doublespeak.

Then, he goes on to say;

holding the Gulf hostage
-Thad Allen

Who is holding the Gulf hostage? BP, or the oil. I would suggest BP.

"This is literally a war we're in,"
-James Carville

Literally a war? Those are pretty heavy words coming from someone who used to work in Whitehouse.

Some, have been calling for the US to seize BP's assets. What if they go bankrupt? Their assets will then be protected, and the US wouldn't get squat! How much you wanna bet BP's lawyers are working on it right now?

The amount of money lost and used to clean up the disaster, could bankrupt the US!

BP has a LOT of assets in the US...

London would be devastated if the US did this, and that is the reason London is stepping up their rhetoric.

WASHINGTON -- The United States on Thursday dismissed the notion that the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster involving British energy giant BP had become a source of tension between London and Washington.

Hmm, that mostly likely means there has been some tension.

Then, with Obama going around saying

We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick, right?

Barack Obama 44th President of the United States

Obama is an idiot.

He hasn't even talked personally to Tony Hayward!!

Why is it that people in the government and news like to declare war on everything they can't control?

"For Adm. Thad Allen, a three-front war on oil"

War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Obesity, War! War! War!

[edit on 12-6-2010 by OurskiesRpoisoned]

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 10:34 AM
Hardly know what to say about this....And I can most definitely say that war wont help it....we are already in wars that we don't need to be....adding more to the pile seems over ambitious and self defeating...not to mention if the US and UK started fighting what would stop Russia or China (or both) swooping in on the top 2 super powers while they are making each other weak...

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 10:40 AM
I think what will be somewhat interesting is what Iran "could do" to the Persian Gulf if attacked by Israel. Combine an oil crisis in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Mexico and you have quite a catastrophe I would say. Oil spilling everywhere and War is a disaster I cannot get my brain around.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:06 AM
Having a war on terrorism is like having a war on war.

Just thought I would bring that up, since it is pretty true.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:07 AM
World depopulation/wars/disasters/The Coming Changes which will encounter for many deaths because people will NOT be prepared in due time to escape to safer zones/areas.

The New World Order finialization date 21st of December 2012.

BP Oil Spill in The New Gulf of Mexico - To be alert and pay attention to the environment.

MSM/BP/ISRAEL/IRAN - Fear-mongering tactics/Keep the sheeple/people distracted from The Coming Changes

October 2011 - The Coming Changes

November 2011 - New North Pole = Iceland

Tetonic plates move under fresh water current/North Sea/Alaska Oil Spill/BP Oil Spill conclusion The New Gulf of Mexico BP Oil Spill/August 2010 pollutes fresh water current is carried towards the UK and circulated back into the North Sea.

Get prepared now Martial Law plays out in the coming months July 2010/August 2010/Sept 2010.


Stay local/eat local/get to know your neighbours.

Stay safe/be AWARE and look after eachother.

Have a Good Day.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:15 AM
No way would this result in war, if it did, Europe would support UK, Canada also. Huge loss on each side.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:23 AM
Not the start of WWIII, but the start of the 2nd American War of Independance.

You see, us Britons have gotten fed up with you young upstarts in America trying to tell everyone what to do. So we came up with the fiendishly clever plan of filling the Gulf with oil. Then setting it alight. Then, under cover of the ensuring firestorm, our 3 remaining soldiers and a dog will invade the USA in a canoe, capture your president and blow up the White House.

And we'd have succeeded too if it had been for ATS giving the game away

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:30 AM
Nobody is going to go to war over this - that's just hysterical

BP is a multinational company with shareholders on both sides of the Atlantic.

I never heard of any British citizens burning US flags either, though maybe I just missed that one, dunno..

Anyway, the UK is hardly a superpower these days and besides that, we're skint.

I'd laugh, but the idea is just too stupid.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:43 AM

Originally posted by skjalddis
Nobody is going to go to war over this - that's just hysterical

BP is a multinational company with shareholders on both sides of the Atlantic.

I never heard of any British citizens burning US flags either, though maybe I just missed that one, dunno..

Anyway, the UK is hardly a superpower these days and besides that, we're skint.

I'd laugh, but the idea is just too stupid.

I think your underestimating the patience the the American citizens have exercised so far. That patience, is quickly turning to anger.

At a joint command center in Houma, La., Coast Guard Capt. Meredith Austin and other coordinators watched controlled burns of surface oil in the Gulf.

It looks like a terrible battlefield with almost four million gallons burned so far.

"We are running the war from here," Austin said.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 12:24 PM

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned
I'm watching the news,
From British citizens burning US flags, to tensions between the two governments, anger is on the rise.

Source please.
If none then you Fail as a Disinfo Cointel Agent.
Your verbiage in your avatar says it all.

This thread is Trolling and should be placed in the Hoax Forum.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 12:48 PM
They MSM/Establishment seem to play this "special relationship" card over and over.. Especially with the Obama Administration playing the anti-British card (which is getting boring).. but it is all smoke and mirrors, and when it is used, it is being used to cover something else... Something the UK & US are deeply involved in hiding.

We saw the same smoke and mirrors special relationship game played out during the touted to be conflict in the Falklands..

The Obama Administration even going as far as calling the Islands by the Argentine name.. my, that got some ire this side of the pond in the MSM...


What was happening behind the scenes, Barclay's where appointed by Argentina to help Argentina out of their really dire sovereign debt issue, appointed I might add along with US banks.. Then some Argentine Humans rights lawyers try to create a criminal prosecution against the Argentine gov due to them appointing a British bank to help them out of the sh*t (hence all the buster about the Falklands)

Which was responded to by the US Congress agreeing to release information on past Argentine human rights abuses/violations thus calming that Human rights group, and all the war talk calms down, then in May Barclay's re-float the Argentine bonds.. It's all out there on Google as long as you know what to search for..

At what point did Obama and Brown NOT know what was going on behind the scenes that was driving the war talk.. I mean even CARICOM unanimously sided with Argentina, even tho CARICOM includes 5 British overseas Territories, and many Commonwealth nations.. Talk about red flag that we where being set up..

So my advise when the Special Relationship card is being played, look behind the smoke and mirrors to see what games they are really playing.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:09 PM
What we need to do is have a war against stupidity. Unfortunately, that would leave the U.S. and the U.K. with no one in the White House or Parliament respectively.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by Beach Bum

lol thank you for that bit of levity.

ON topic:

I don't believe this will lead to war for much the same reason an above poster mentioned. Much of the talk in the media is just that: talk.

Remember the Suez Canal crisis? France, Britain and Israel secretly arranged for Israel to invade the sinai and approach the canal zone while France and Britain would feign ignorance and call for egyptian and israeli forces to withdraw 16 KM from the canal zone. When egypt refused, Britain and France bombed their air installations, grounding the egpytian airforce.
That move actually caused the U.S to put sanctions against Britain and is arguably the most strained time in their relationship. Publically words were condemning. Privately, the anger was more to do with Britain and France's timing as the Soviets were crushing the Hungary revolution at the same time thereby elminating any possibility at galvanizing world oppinion against the soviets.

In public, american was strong in is advesarial stance, behind the scenes they lamented the lost opportunity.

I think its likely something similar here. We now have a new all pervasive threat in "Terrorism" (capital T intended). To get in any conflict with Britain weakens the image of solidarity against a common enemy. A face saving response for the public, but behind the scenes the discussion is far more calculated I would imagine.

My two cents anyways.


edited for clarity

[edit on 12-6-2010 by thebulldog]

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:54 PM
reply to post by Violater1

It seems a keen football fan who dislikes Americans owning Liverpool FC expressed his disgust by burning a US flag .....

Somehow I don't think it'll lead to all out thermo nuclear war between Britain and the USA

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:56 PM
I'm not defending BP, but why the f**k aren't the US doing more to stop it?

With all the resources the US has, surely this could be stopped, then go after BP once the problem is over.

At the scene of an accident, you deal with casualities first, then carry out an inquest after. Not go after the culprit and leave the casualities bleeding to death.

BP is a diversion - why isn't every resource being used by the US, the give BP the bill?

Something is wrong

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:41 AM
reply to post by sinthia

I think Obama is a Muslim plant. He is working in cahoots with the Queen of England to start a civil war in the US, where the UN steps in and takes control, because the US military will be in shambles.

The elite US politicians have all been promised cozy position in the New World Government.

Need to get rid of that pesky constitution first.

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:44 AM
why not? the US is already trying to fight or pick a fight with many other countries.

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:52 AM

Originally posted by dontbealala
why not? the US is already trying to fight or pick a fight with many other countries.

The US government, not the citizens. Most of us in the US have some form of family oversees. We just all want to get along.

It's our governments pushing war. Not the citizens, except maybe to oust the government so we can all get along.

I say, close all US foreign bases, and give the land back to the people in the area. If they want to keep the base, we could make them into points of international commerce, as they already have airstrips, ports, etc.

The people in the overseas military can either come home, or opt out with no repurcussion because many US citizens have developed families from foreign countries.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by OurskiesRpoisoned]

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:56 AM
Well, it's all about ruling the world,spreading like the RISK popular game.

Spain have done it ,greece, Rome ,England, it's America's turn
It's what we do
let's remain on this rock

ET's phone is rigning-> ah it's the humans again
->dont answer that !

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:58 AM
No, this will not leed to world war III or any other war between the United Kingdom and the United States.

If there was, which there won't, what would be the objectives of the war? Simple bombing of ports? What would happen in Afganistan? Would our troops, who probably share bases, start shooting each other?

Our repective governments may well get angry with each other, but we will never go to war with each other over something like this. We are allies and friends.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in