NASA sets up shop off the British coast, accidentally nukes a hole in the atmosphere

The problem with nukes in space are EMP's and that does not change in space.

The whole problem with this analogy that NASA is part of the US goverment
while BP is a company based in Britain.What you are proposing is like Canada blaming the USA for the Exxon Valdez.

Ok, I chose NASA for this analogy because it stands for North American Space Agency.

Hmmmm, I thought NASA stood for National Aeronautics and Space Administration.





Hmmmm funny I thought NASA stood for "Never A Straight Answer"

[edit on 14-6-2010 by trueblue]

[edit on 14-6-2010 by trueblue]

IS destroying the earth a new trend now?

reply to post by Ausar


Indeed it would, but that would never be allowed to happen.

However, I can see a societal war erupting.

The average Briton looks at Americans as gluttonous morons, and Americans have their opinions about those tea sippin' tarts.

Xenophobia is a beautiful thing.

In both countries involved, businesses are privately owned. The liability lies with the company whether an accident, a product of deceit or simple ineptitude.

Governments only role is oversight. Unless we morphed into the old Soviet style government overnight, which may well have happened. In that case, show me your papers.

Originally posted by alaskan

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
reply to post by alaskan

 

Could you provide a link to the story or is this something that needs to be moved into the HOAX files.


Maybe the MODs should take a look at this one?

This is sarcasm, right? You can't be that dense...

hy·po·thet·i·cal   [hahy-puh-thet-i-kuhl] –adjective Also, hy·po·thet·ic

1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.
2. of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical reasoning.
3. given to making hypotheses.
4. Logic . a. (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence. b. (of a proposition or syllogism) conditional.

Generally when trying to belittle another, it is wise to make sure that in doing so, one doesn't further showcase a complete lack of communication skills. The OP wasn't very clear and is a bit of a mess IMO, which has lead to some of the responses you've got.

Anyway I digress. I think it would be wise for you to take a step back and see this for what it is. BP may be called "British Petroleum" but one of the central themes here on ATS is that big business, in particular large multinationals like BP hold no allegiance to ANY country/person/organisation but themselves. Name or otherwise.

I would also suggest you research the role large American companies played in this catastrophy if you feel the need to impart blame somewhere (which BTW reminded me of a whiney young child).

reply to post by alaskan


Well it wuld depend if NASA was part british owned like bp is american

Oh right??

So I as a British subject should pay for this organisations error? Is that it??

What a stupid conjecture. And totally flawed logic.

If I were you i’d better hope that this never comes to pass as when you take a look at all the damage American companies have done over the years to the world environment, your laugh of glee at us BRITS, will be shortly followed by "bugger my tax bill just went up 100000000%.....”

Korg.

This thread really just turned into an example of how it's impossible to keep a discussion on-topic on here.

I've repeatedly pointed out what I am and am not talking about - in my original post even - yet we've got four pages of people whining about the things I specifically stated I wasn't hinting at.

Originally posted by alaskan
This thread really just turned into an example of how it's impossible to keep a discussion on-topic on here.

I've repeatedly pointed out what I am and am not talking about - in my original post even - yet we've got four pages of people whining about the things I specifically stated I wasn't hinting at.

I think you'll find it IS on topic, actually. You specifically saud you weren't hinting at these things? In you OP you say:

instead of putting all the responsibility on the offenders country of origin

So again, this is entirely on topic. You are saying the blame should be put on Britain (which, by the way isn't a country precisely) simply because the founders of BP were British. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the company is not only nothing to do with the British people or government, but is in fact not even owned by British people alone.

The only person whining, I'm afraid, is you. Senselessly. Even though we have all read the OP, you are trying to claim that you did not say what you did, in fact, say. I don't think this can go anywhere, as you are not listening to what's being said, and there's only so many ways it can be said.

EDIT: Actually, one thing this thread is, is proof that not everything has to decend into mindless insults. Many threads with Americans and English decend into such moronic crap, but not this one. So at least it's been good for something.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by ShadowArcher]

Your comparison is isn't accurate. Nasa is a government agency. BP is a publicly traded company. Great Britain doesn't own BP, the shareholders do. Nasa is a govt agency. Piss poor comparison in my opinion.

A more appropriate comparison would be a Ford dealership in London exploding and destroying big ben.

It's silly to hold a companies country of origin responsible for their actions.

If it's a government agency then of course the country of origin is responsible.

But BP is a public company. 40% is owned by UK based companies or individuals. 39% by US companies or individuals. As a matter of fact the primary shareholder for BP is Blackrock Inc headquartered in New York.

Research could have eliminated this waste of a thread. So since the primary shareholder is a US company you think that we should sue the US governement?