The Dead Zone (or, BP and the Oil Well That Keeps on Giving)

[Vladimir]

"Know though, that France supports your side, and that our support is with you, with our good overseas friends."
Well said, watever the sea...
Louis, do you think about becoming a politician?

Louis is actually a DGSE committee who's mission is to expand French influence through internet-based information operations.

And it's working!

[Beskar]

I've only ever heard british people talk about the "special relationship". To me it sounds like "america is violating the special relationship" is your politicians equivalent of "britain to blame for bp" i.e. it's something they say to gain political capital in a "we britons won't be bossed around by arrogant americans" sort of way.

Completely the opposite. David Cameron is dropping his pants as we speak. The politicans suck up to America as if it was the breast of the Virgin Mary herself. It is just the populace is fed-up of them doing it, and thus attack it, saying "If our relationship is so special, how come it is only one-way?", etc.

What is even more amusing, your post pretty much hits it on the head. You don't even recognise there is a special-relationship and just some political mumbo-jumbo and you wonder why British posters might derail a 'special relationship' where America screws everyone over for its own interests, with zero interest in any of ours, then we get repeatedly told "protect the special relationship! protect the special relationship!". They can stick the special relationship where it doesn't shine, as it costs us far more than it is worth.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Completely the opposite. David Cameron is dropping his pants as we speak. The politicans suck up to America as if it was the breast of the Virgin Mary herself. It is just the populace is fed-up of them doing it, and thus attack it, saying "If our relationship is so special, how come it is only one-way?", etc.

That's not how it was in "love actually" beskar.

What is even more amusing, your post pretty much hits it on the head. You don't even recognise there is a special-relationship and just some political mumbo-jumbo and you wonder why British posters might derail a 'special relationship' where America screws everyone over for its own interests, with zero interest in any of ours, then we get repeatedly told "protect the special relationship! protect the special relationship!". They can stick the special relationship where it doesn't shine, as it costs us far more than it is worth.

Yeah, but we aren't telling you "protect the special relationship". That's just the excuse your politicians have for why they go along with our plans and stuff. And that's just regular diplomacy, countries look out for their own interests.

[Vladimir]

Another example of the lesser role the UK plays in the "special relationship", the evils of lend-lease, and the Marshal plan: http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/sea...e-guided-tour-

No doubt Beskar's furious.

[rory_20_uk]

Completely the opposite. David Cameron is dropping his pants as we speak. The politicans suck up to America as if it was the breast of the Virgin Mary herself. It is just the populace is fed-up of them doing it, and thus attack it, saying "If our relationship is so special, how come it is only one-way?", etc.

What is even more amusing, your post pretty much hits it on the head. You don't even recognise there is a special-relationship and just some political mumbo-jumbo and you wonder why British posters might derail a 'special relationship' where America screws everyone over for its own interests, with zero interest in any of ours, then we get repeatedly told "protect the special relationship! protect the special relationship!". They can stick the special relationship where it doesn't shine, as it costs us far more than it is worth.

But those who do insert themselves far enough up the Presidential rectum can then join the American Lecture Circuit a la Blair and rake in a vast fortune, when they aren't off on an expenses-paid jaunt elsewhere.

[Beskar]

But those who do insert themselves far enough up the Presidential rectum can then join the American Lecture Circuit a la Blair and rake in a vast fortune, when they aren't off on an expenses-paid jaunt elsewhere.

Indeed, unfortunately.

[Furunculus]

Joining with Russia and China? I said joining in with them by also voting down anything the U.S proposes, I expect France could be persuaded to do the same if it would increase the chances of EU intergration, don't be so god damned arrogant.
I don't care what China thinks of us, that's not the issue. If the U.S lost the support of the UK, what major allies would it have left? The EU suffers from absurd amounts of hubris alot of the time and I expect it would love to supprt the U.K in giving the middle finger to America, kicking you off our collective military bases and such. Ace! Then we can all leave NATO and leave you guys nice and isolated in the Middle East and wherever else you touch down with boots. Oh! Then we can start backing the Palestinians and gain precious diplomatic relations with our Middle Eastern neighbours.

We would be better off without this "special" relationship.

that might be a position you would support, but it certainly doesn't get my vote.

[rvg]

I don't get it. Britain is more than just an ally, Britain is our friend, and we do respect it and back it up regardless of who happens to be running the show at the 10, Downing St . Why throw away such a good relationship?

[Vladimir]

I don't get it. Britain is more than just an ally, Britain is our friend, and we do respect it and back it up regardless of who happens to be running the show at the 10, Downing St . Why throw away such a good relationship?

You've stumbled into his argument: The relationship is only good for the U.S.

[Incongruous]

that might be a position you would support, but it certainly doesn't get my vote.

Yes I expect you would vomit if that showed up in the news, fair enough, however it does highlight that we are not without other options.

I don't get it. Britain is more than just an ally, Britain is our friend, and we do respect it and back it up regardless of who happens to be running the show at the 10, Downing St . Why throw away such a good relationship?

Im afraid old boy that you are rather behind on your history.

[rvg]

Im afraid old boy that you are rather behind on your history.

As far as I remember, we've had a good relationship ever since Queen Victoria's death.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is not that we in the USA do not value Britain's friendship. We do, we have, and we will continue to do so. Unfortunately, when a relationship lasts for a time it tends to fall into predictable patterns and it is far to easy for one or both partners to take the other for granted. I think it's pretty clear that some of that has been going on.

[Hosakawa Tito]

It is not that we in the USA do not value Britain's friendship. We do, we have, and we will continue to do so. Unfortunately, when a relationship lasts for a time it tends to fall into predictable patterns and it is far to easy for one or both partners to take the other for granted. I think it's pretty clear that some of that has been going on.

It's been like this ever since Monty Python went off the air.

[Incongruous]

As far as I remember, we've had a good relationship ever since Queen Victoria's death.

I expect you mean as far as you have read, and if that really is the case then you must have pushed certain historical facts to the back of your mind.
I don't place the U.S' treatment of Britain and the other old European powers onto a pedestal of complete evil as some may, but simply as the acts of a great power attemptimng to give itself hegemony over them. Mass media and sentiment and denial have allowed some to construct the nice warm fantasy of the "special" relationship. But it is just that, fantasy, the ones to blame here are not the Americans, who act like any other hegemonic nation, but we the British who have become so stupid and slow that we actually imbue PR stunt (i.e the special relationship) with some kind of real value.

For a start, we love Churchill, the man who invented the "special" relationship, who also happened to be the man who was a military incompetent and who as prime minister lead us into an unecessary war which we were not ready for. Then, due to his inhereted fascination with America, we had to nod politely when Roosevelt stupidly took Stalin for good guy.

If the relationship was special, the U.S would have demanded that the great titans of German industry who had helped fuel the Nazi war machine, were torn apart and distributed amongst the Western Allies, they would have scrapped the debt we owed them and they would have suppoerted us in the Suez crisis. None of this happened, fair enough as I can understand the reality of the relationship.

It is time we stopped this nonsense.

[Beskar]

If the relationship was special, the U.S would have demanded that the great titans of German industry who had helped fuel the Nazi war machine, were torn apart and distributed amongst the Western Allies, they would have scrapped the debt we owed them and they would have suppoerted us in the Suez crisis. None of this happened, fair enough as I can understand the reality of the relationship.

Indeed, they built up Germany and Japan and left us to rot.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Indeed, they built up Germany and Japan and left us to rot.

The UK got a quarter of the marshall plan money, according to wiki.

[Incongruous]

Indeed, they built up Germany and Japan and left us to rot.

No, they did not, we got alot of money which meant unfortunately that the Labour government got alot of money. You may see how this was a bad thing.
To be sure the Americans have often acted to ensure their own economic well being even if it meant the end of ours, I seem to remeber some jet planes...
But that, for me at least, is to be expected.

The problem I have, is with us and our government, who keep applying the face paint long after the play has eneded. Germany and France have grown up, we should too.

[Furunculus]

all this bombast and synthetic outrage rather misses the point, nations have interests and the special relationship never meant the the US/UK had only one set of interests, today it is a reflection of the truly titanic amount of data-sharing in the spheres of defence/technology/intelligence, a sharing that only happens because both partners trust the other.

there is nothing immature about this sharing, and claiming that france and germany have grown up rather ignores the fact that they never had this trust, and thus never had the sharing.

[Husar]

there is nothing immature about this sharing, and claiming that france and germany have grown up rather ignores the fact that they never had this trust, and thus never had the sharing.

I don't know about data sharing because I don't work in law enforcement or intelligence but we even allow police cars to cross the (unsecured) borders in pursuit of criminals. I hear you guys even quarantine harmless pets because you don't trust them.
France and Germany have a long history of trust toward eachother, we were the same country for several periods of history as well, your shameless propaganda won't change that.
I'd like to know more about this sharing though, what data is it that they share except the presidential outlook calendars? AFAIK most of the western world shares data about terrorists and big criminals anyway, I can't think of anything outstanding in terms of military hardware that Britain has put out because of information sharing with the USA, but then I'm not a military expert and hardly have any insight into such things. So please enlighten me about that special information sharing, what's it all about?

[Furunculus]

I don't know about data sharing because I don't work in law enforcement or intelligence but we even allow police cars to cross the (unsecured) borders in pursuit of criminals. I hear you guys even quarantine harmless pets because you don't trust them.
France and Germany have a long history of trust toward eachother, we were the same country for several periods of history as well, your shameless propaganda won't change that.

my point was that france and germany never had this relationship with the US, but it may not have been clear. as to your point about sharing between france and germany............ lovely, but how does that compare with america which spends ~£40 billion on intelligence gathering when France and Germany each spend about £1-2 billion, the former is obviously the more useful partner.

I'd like to know more about this sharing though, what data is it that they share except the presidential outlook calendars? AFAIK most of the western world shares data about terrorists and big criminals anyway, I can't think of anything outstanding in terms of military hardware that Britain has put out because of information sharing with the USA, but then I'm not a military expert and hardly have any insight into such things. So please enlighten me about that special information sharing, what's it all about?

try here:
http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/cerwp4.pdf

and here:
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1462

oh, and here too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship

and here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...World-War.html

here too:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...w/article/7661

oops, and here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/baker.html

let me know if you need some more........................?

[Beskar]

From Wikipedia article posted:

Friendly fire

More British servicemen were killed in the 1991 Gulf War by US fire than by Iraqi soldiers.[210] A public controversy arose after US military authorities refused to allow USAF pilots to give evidence at a 1992 British inquest into the deaths of nine British soldiers killed in a US air strike, saying they had already supplied all the relevant information.[211] The inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing. Families of those killed accused the United States of 'double standards' after three US military officers were reprimanded for negligence after a separate incident involving the similar death of a US soldier. Tammy Groves, solicitor for the families, said: 'We have been denied any inquiry in the US; there have been no reprimands; and the pilots have not been named. The contrast could not be greater.'[212] Anne Leech, whose son was one of the British soldiers killed, said: 'They are supposed to be a friendly country, but it shows it only goes as far as they want it to ... Unless people are made accountable for what they do in these situations it will continue to happen.'[213]

President George H. W. Bush responded: 'My heart goes out to their families. But I see no reason in going beyond what we've already done to fully account for this terrible tragedy of war.'[211] Peter Atkinson, whose son was also killed, said: 'We met George Bush. He was trying to slide out of meeting us so I ran after him, collared him and told him what I thought. He said to me "You want the facts? ... Right, you'll get them." Months later they sent us a report. It was rubbish. All the relevant details had been censored out.'[214]

Further friendly fire incidents in the 2003 Iraq War brought assurances from officers and politicians that they would not hurt the close alliance: 'A situation like this does not mean anything of harm to the coalition, but in many ways it brings us closer together,' said RAF Group Captain Jon Fynes.[215] However the US government again refused to co-operate with the coroner’s investigations. This culminated in the United States attempting to prevent the release of cockpit videos—later leaked to The Sun—showing events leading to the death of Lance-Corporal Matty Hull of the Household Cavalry, and threatening newspapers that published them with prosecution.[216] The coroner slammed US 'intransigence', and the British press accused the Pentagon of operating 'in a no-fault zone', with the Daily Telegraph commenting: 'This will reaffirm the view of many in the British military that while the US has the best kit, it does not necessarily have the best training ... Uninhibited by the risk of any sanction, is it any wonder that they go about their lethal business with such apparent insouciance?'[217] The Spectator described the British forbearance towards American evasiveness as "a bleak parable of the flaws at the heart of the U.S.-U.K. 'special relationship'."[218]

[Furunculus]

is this relevant............?

[Lemur]

I'm thinking this thread should be locked, and a new one about the British/U.S.A. alliance started in its stead. We haven't been talking about the spill in the gulf for a few pages now ...

[Banquo's Ghost]

I tend to agree.

However, one last push to get back on track.

Tony Hayward is to stand down as CEO of BP (with a £10m pension, poor baby) in favour of an American. Will an accent really make all that difference?

[rory_20_uk]

I imagine it will. Any American will be better, but a WASP will not be as good as having one of the inbreds from the Bush family heading it (a good ol' Southern Gent).

People trust those with similar accents / cultures as they have and are less likely to beat them up than a perceived foreigner.

The last person got closer to £40 million to leave. This one was a snip...

[drone]

I imagine it will. Any American will be better, but a WASP will not be as good as having one of the inbreds from the Bush family heading it (a good ol' Southern Gent).

Sooooo much wrong with this statement...

[Hosakawa Tito]

I tend to agree.

However, one last push to get back on track.

Tony Hayward is to stand down as CEO of BP (with a £10m pension, poor baby) in favour of an American. Will an accent really make all that difference?

Appearances and perceptions do matter, but to what degree...who knows? I would think that what matters to the public now is the success of the relief well and the speed and effectiveness of the payment of damages to the affected locals.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So it takes an average of 13 dead Americans to bring down a BP CEO. With a golden parachute, of course.

At least they finally stopped the gushing oil.

CR

[Tellos Athenaios]

So you're saying what exactly? Any ideas of how many dead Nigerians it would take to get a Shell CEO? Or how many dead Americans it takes to put pressure on Halliburton? How many Americans would have to be evicted from their homes before Deutsche Bank will be stopped from fore-closing every single mortgage in their American properties?

If you are finally coming to see that large faceless companies are not the works of good and charity and that they will generally speaking do nothing if it does not benefit them and certainly not take their responsibility if they can get away without: why, are you actually surprised?

[Beskar]

If you are finally coming to see that large faceless companies are not the works of good and charity and that they will generally speaking do nothing if it does not benefit them and certainly not take their responsibility if they can get away without: why, are you actually surprised?

I have to admit, I am surprised at Crazed Rabbit. It seems that he is forgetting that is speaking about his beloved Free Market. Talking about tying down corporations to regulation, accountability and restrictions. How can such a corporation be free to exploit, if it wasn't for that pesky red-tape and that thing called human rights? Bah humbug. Where is the praise of how the CEO of BP must an awesome individual because he gets a massive pay check (which should be tax-free, because it is well earned) and anyone who says otherwise is just a jealous, lazy, simpleton.