Cheeky young pup...

Except for what is going on down at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico I haven't really followed this disaster much and haven't heard any of the jawboning associated with it. I can't see any reason why the USA and Britain should be at odds over it. The adversaries are and should be the US and local governments and BP and soon it will be the world against BP. It's toast. The sooner evryone accepts that fact the better, so they can do whatever it is necessary to do with no ulterior motives.

I think US politicians just want to distract as much as they can from their own possible roles in the mess. Just because the B in BP stands for British it helps add to the distraction - despite it being almost half owned by Americans. The Brits are also upset because I guess a lot of UK pensioners have invested in BP and if Obama keeps talking like he's going to make them pay to the point of bankruptcy, then a lot of UK pensions are screwed. Something like that.

I doubt any pension fund would have all their eggs in one basket, a reputable fund would spread their investments over a range of companies. Certainly, some individuals may have the majority of their funds in BP but I suppose stock market investment is rarely risk free.

Followers of Doonesbury will be aware that BP have hired Duke as their spin doctor, a decision they appear to be rapidly regretting.

Doonesbury@Slate - Daily Dose

I doubt any pension fund would have all their eggs in one basket, a reputable fund would spread their investments over a range of companies. Certainly, some individuals may have the majority of their funds in BP but I suppose stock market investment is rarely risk free.

According to recent articles in UK newspapers British pension funds receive 17% of their income from BP dividends.

Except for what is going on down at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico I haven't really followed this disaster much and haven't heard any of the jawboning associated with it. I can't see any reason why the USA and Britain should be at odds over it. The adversaries are and should be the US and local governments and BP and soon it will be the world against BP. It's toast. The sooner evryone accepts that fact the better, so they can do whatever it is necessary to do with no ulterior motives.

I think US politicians just want to distract as much as they can from their own possible roles in the mess. Just because the B in BP stands for British it helps add to the distraction - despite it being almost half owned by Americans. The Brits are also upset because I guess a lot of UK pensioners have invested in BP and if Obama keeps talking like he's going to make them pay to the point of bankruptcy, then a lot of UK pensions are screwed. Something like that.

Well, hhe can bluster all he likes, and they can pay lip service to their obligations, but at some point they will either balk or the situation grows far beyond the. The courts will eviscerate them with treble damages and their could be millions of claims. If they Go the Exxon route they can get the courts decisions down over time but I think the numbers are going to be just too big in this case.

I doubt any pension fund would have all their eggs in one basket, a reputable fund would spread their investments over a range of companies. Certainly, some individuals may have the majority of their funds in BP but I suppose stock market investment is rarely risk free.

According to recent articles in UK newspapers British pension funds receive 17% of their income from BP dividends.

So it's not only the greedy, evil, "war for oil" US variety-Republican polluters of Mother Earth who stand to gain from big oil? Talk about your inconvenient truths. Kidding aside, it must suck to be in that position and see the POTUS try to destroy 17% of your pension. Although, I think I heard were he has started to back track, saying good things about BP as a company, etc. Maybe he's wised up or maybe he woke up and found an oil-saturated dolphin head in his bed.

Tricky.. BP are (potentially) balls deep in Afghanistan and Iran... probably Iraq

I wonder how much they could really mess up the grand chessboard if they wanted.

Nobody mentions the human rights problems with Shell in Nigeria, nor the oil spill 10 times worse that has been going on there.

Soon Africom will be set up by the US near Sao Tome in Africa.. the new gulf of mexico.

The players may change but game is still the same.

Anyone seen that new movie about the mining company and its role in bringing about an end to apartheid south africa?

Tricky.. BP are (potentially) balls deep in Afghanistan and Iran... probably Iraq

I wonder how much they could really mess up the grand chessboard if they wanted.

Nobody mentions the human rights problems with Shell in Nigeria, nor the oil spill 10 times worse that has been going on there.

Soon Africom will be set up by the US near Sao Tome in Africa.. the new gulf of mexico.

The players may change but game is still the same.

Anyone seen that new movie about the mining company and its role in bringing about an end to apartheid south africa?

Speaking of oil in Nigeria, has anyone hear ever heard of NIGAZ?

BBC NEWS | Africa | Nigaz name sparks racism debate

Maybe our next president will try to get the relationship back on track.

Good to see Americans are starting to think about the NEXT PRESIDENT.

What are you going to elect next time?

A chimpmonk or a hamster?

How about Glen Beck? He is a real nut and will probably outdo all the other losers. 

^Do you mean Glenn Beck?

UG, I really think they need to call everyone thats 'political' to the white house and then drop a nuke on the roof. Then start again.

^Do you mean Glenn Beck?

Glen can be spelled with either one or two Ns. You must be a big fan if you are so picky about spelling it the same way that he does. 

Tricky.. BP are (potentially) balls deep in Afghanistan and Iran... probably Iraq

I wonder how much they could really mess up the grand chessboard if they wanted.

Nobody mentions the human rights problems with Shell in Nigeria, nor the oil spill 10 times worse that has been going on there.

Soon Africom will be set up by the US near Sao Tome in Africa.. the new gulf of mexico.

The players may change but game is still the same.

Anyone seen that new movie about the mining company and its role in bringing about an end to apartheid south africa?

Speaking of oil in Nigeria, has anyone hear ever heard of NIGAZ?

BBC NEWS | Africa | Nigaz name sparks racism debate

"The fact is that whenever there is a blunder like this it delights people, it gives them something to talk about and it gives them a bright moment in what might otherwise be a dull day,"

It did, thanks for that.

^Do you mean Glenn Beck?

Glen can be spelled with either one or two Ns. You must be a big fan if you are so picky about spelling it the same way that he does.

Or it could be possible that theres a well known 'Glen Beck' and another well known, "Glenn Beck" .

You bad.

I was trying to think about something nice about this phony president BO, but there isnt anything. Poor old states has gone from tool to fool, I wonder whats next. When will the USA finally put someone back into power, someone with a bit of substance, some balls, for example someone like Margaret Thatcher.

Anyway, back to BO, is it the case that he is constantly being misinformed or are they smoking some new brew at the whitehouse.

ps: for those of you who have trouble understanding me, I am aware that Margaret Thatcher was never president of the USA

Must be snowing in Thailand. I completely agree with neverdie.

I was trying to think about something nice about this phony president BO, but there isnt anything. Poor old states has gone from tool to fool, I wonder whats next. When will the USA finally put someone back into power, someone with a bit of substance, some balls, for example someone like Margaret Thatcher.

Anyway, back to BO, is it the case that he is constantly being misinformed or are they smoking some new brew at the whitehouse.

ps: for those of you who have trouble understanding me, I am aware that Margaret Thatcher was never president of the USA

Must be snowing in Thailand. I completely agree with neverdie.

Fekk, I must be going mad. How on earth did I ever end up catching this? Can it be cured? LOL, just kidding marky.

Tricky.. BP are (potentially) balls deep in Afghanistan and Iran... probably Iraq

I wonder how much they could really mess up the grand chessboard if they wanted.

Nobody mentions the human rights problems with Shell in Nigeria, nor the oil spill 10 times worse that has been going on there.

Soon Africom will be set up by the US near Sao Tome in Africa.. the new gulf of mexico.

The players may change but game is still the same.

Anyone seen that new movie about the mining company and its role in bringing about an end to apartheid south africa?

Speaking of oil in Nigeria, has anyone hear ever heard of NIGAZ?

BBC NEWS | Africa | Nigaz name sparks racism debate

"The fact is that whenever there is a blunder like this it delights people, it gives them something to talk about and it gives them a bright moment in what might otherwise be a dull day,"

It did, thanks for that.

Back in the mists of time there was a man called Jack De Manio who was an announcer with the BBC:

His career nearly crashed in 1956 when he was duty announcer for the BBC's Home Service. A major radio feature, The Land of the Niger was broadcast worldwide to mark a Royal visit to Nigeria. Carelessly, he back-announced it as 'The Land of the Nigger'. There was outrage; he was immediately suspended and then returned to the General Overseas Service.

Wimps in the White House'

McChrystal was quoted as saying he felt betrayed by the man the White House chose to be his diplomatic partner, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry.

The article also claims McChrystal has seized control of the war "by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."

Top general recalled to U.S. over remarks - White House- msnbc.com

Interesting article.

I see he's busy apologising.

Serves him right for talking to Rolling Stone, they probably laid a little forbidden weed on him to loosen his lips...

There does seem to be a lot of phone apologies going around lately. Hypocrites!

DESPERATE OBAMA MOVES LEFT

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN Published on DickMorris.com on June 21, 2010

Drowning in oil, the Obama Administration is pulling out all the stops to halt the hemorrhaging of liberal support which is driving his ratings down to the low 40s--previously unexplored territory. Obama has already lost all the Republicans and almost all of the Independents. But he has kept his head above water with the solid support of liberal Democrats and African-Americans. But now that the Gulf oil spill enters its eighth week, with no sign of abating, he is shedding Democrats. Rapidly. It is not that the gushing oil will drive a single Democrat to vote Republican. The GOP's strong support for off shore drilling will bar such switches. But the increasing image of incompetence, arrogance, conceit, aloofness, and poor management skills may induce millions of Democrats to stay home during the midterm elections of 2010. The oil spill will not cost Obama the presidency in 2012. It is too far away for that. But it may be a big part of his losing Congress this year. To forestall this possibility, the Administration is sending every possible signal to the left of its fidelity. To assuage the environmentalists, it is pushing new energy legislation, possibly resurrecting the cap and trade proposal. To bring back Latinos, he is espousing immigration reform, a cause he never got around to pushing until now when he needs their votes desperately. He has Rahm Emanuel out there knocking Republican Congressman Joe Barton of Texas for his knuckle-headed defense of BP. And he may be preparing to throw Rahm to the wolves and force his resignation as a sop to the leftists who feel that his pragmatism has hijacked the Administration. But none of these measures will stop the gushing of oil. Obama acts as if he and BP are in a zero sum game where the company's loss translates into his gain. But BP is not his opponent. Building up the company's negatives won't help Obama keep control of Congress. And flagellating it in public will make people feel good, but it will just serve to emphasize the fact that the oil is still gushing. Confronting a crisis that they cannot solve, presidents have a choice: Move the national attention to other issues even at the risk of appearing unconcerned or uninvolved in the crisis or focus on the crisis to prove that you care and are working hard to resolve it. Clinton chose the first response to the Lewinsky/impeachment drive. Carter opted for the second in the Iran hostage crisis. Now Obama appears drowning in oil. He can't change the subject. He can't stop the spill. Even his attacks on BP just serve to keep the oil at the top of the national agenda. If he moves on to other issues, he risks alienating the environmental left by appearing to let the oil gush while he turns his back. To the right and the center, the oil spill is a management issue, indicative of Obama's lack of administrative experience. Community organizers and law professors don't know how to handle oil spills. But to the left, it is an environmental issue pure and simple. Each barrel of oil that flows into the Gulf is a sin against nature and alienates those for whom environment is the key issue. And Obama can ill afford to lose them. So Obama is stuck, drowning in oil with no relief in sight.

www.DickMorris.com

Frustrated general wanted to send message to White House about Afghan war: writer

GENERAL Stanley McChrystal and his staff wanted to convey their "frustration" with the Afghan war policy in a magazine article, its author says.

General McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, has been summoned to face an angry Barack Obama over remarks in a Rolling Stone magazine article critical of the White House.

Michael Hastings, the journalist who spent weeks with the blunt-talking commander, told ABC News in the US it became clear during his time with General McChrystal and his team that “there are serious sceptics (about the war) in the highest levels of his staff”.

In the article, General McChrystal and his senior aides criticised and mocked top officials, including Mr Obama, the commander-in-chief.

“I think they were frustrated with how the policy was going, and I think there was an intent on their part to get a message out about that frustration,” Hastings said.

Etc etc

Hey, everybody.... nobody has ever "won" in Afghanistan. Read a little history.

Edit: Read "Flashman" George McDonald Fraser's fictional account of the British Empire's retreat from Kabul if real history is too hard for you.

Hey, everybody.... nobody has ever "won" in Afghanistan. Read a little history.

Many have collapsed while trying though.

Afghanistan...... where empires go to die.

I'm not suggesting that the British Empire collapsed because of Afghanistan any more than the US one will.

It's just that in ten years after their withdrawal, whether they mark it up as a victory or not, the wretched Afghans will be back to living they way they were 2000 years ago. You, know, stoning their women to death and all that good stuff. (And they were doing it well before Mohammed's time too).

Hey, everybody.... nobody has ever "won" in Afghanistan. Read a little history.

Edit: Read "Flashman" George McDonald Fraser's fictional account of the British Empire's retreat from Kabul if real history is too hard for you.

Agree with your Afghanistan statement. I might also add that no politician has ever won a war....anywhere.

I'm not suggesting that the British Empire collapsed because of Afghanistan any more than the US one will.

It's just that in ten years after their withdrawal, whether they mark it up as a victory or not, the wretched Afghans will be back to living they way they were 2000 years ago. You, know, stoning their women to death and all that good stuff. (And they were doing it well before Mohammed's time too).

Well I think every empire that went in there suffered a collapse of sorts of course not in total... immediately but the strain financial & otherwise all added to it.

As for the 2nd half regarding stoning/good stuff etc...many countries have problems including ours...

Yet if these things are truly the reason for being there one has to wonder why not other places that have far worse such as genocide? Do other spots not offer sufficient rewards enough to warrant saving?

I'm not suggesting that the British Empire collapsed because of Afghanistan any more than the US one will.

It's just that in ten years after their withdrawal, whether they mark it up as a victory or not, the wretched Afghans will be back to living they way they were 2000 years ago. You, know, stoning their women to death and all that good stuff. (And they were doing it well before Mohammed's time too).

Proof that while the foreign powers don't win, neither does Afghanistan.

Proof that while the foreign powers don't win, neither does Afghanistan.

Not only not win but those that toss aside international law & are stained with war crimes or the destruction of their own constitution....that is a loss in my mind that they did not need to lose.

I'm not suggesting that the British Empire collapsed because of Afghanistan any more than the US one will.

It's just that in ten years after their withdrawal, whether they mark it up as a victory or not, the wretched Afghans will be back to living they way they were 2000 years ago. You, know, stoning their women to death and all that good stuff. (And they were doing it well before Mohammed's time too).

Proof that while the foreign powers don't win, neither does Afghanistan.

A large number of Afghans would certainly disagree with you there. Did you ever consider that they may not want well educated women's libbers, lawyers, divorce courts and flush toilets? These people are the ultimate conservatives, they pick up their Jezails if even a suggestion of change is even mentioned.