U.S. versus U.K.

View Comments (18)

• As a result of this declaration of war by the White House on the UK I would like to see the UK take some positive retaliation. Firstly, to refuse to be an 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' for the US, and order all American airbases to close forthwith and to remove all nuclear weapons from UK territory. Secondly, to close the joint bases operating on Ascension Island and Diego Garcia, for which the US has not paid a dime to the Brits for the privilege in all the years they have been allies. Thirdly, for all UK military to be immediately withdrawn from Afghanistan. Too much British blood has been expended on behalf of America. It is sad the US has lost so many friends in the world, one more won't hurt.

• Look. Speaking as a Brit there is one area in which we completely outclass the Yanks. That is our ability to produce politicians who will suck up to those who treat them like shit. Churchill is the exception not the rule. Think Chamberlain and you have the measure of Cameron.

  • well said TDK. But, the democrats do a great job of it-think NK, Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinijad, etc-our WH is sucking up to them all, at a pace that is actually causing a dip in the O2 levels on earth!

• Well, Obama has already threw the state of Israel to the wolves, so why stop there? Pretty soon he'll chum up with Kim Jong Il right after they nuke someone around them, like Japan, or South Korea.

  Who needs enemies, with a president like Obama?

• Why the surprise? Idiot-boy's first executive decision was to File-13 the sculpture Of Winston Churchill in the People's House. His every act is within that norm.

• Is it not the exact same corporation that it was twelve years ago? The move to call themselves BP was a rhetorical shift that occurred as the company was trying to rebrand itself as a 'greener' more compassionate oil company. I don't understand why you are defending them as if its unfair to draw attention to their origins rather than just go along with their marketing and pr scheme.

  • Can I ask you whether Bhopal is a problem for the US or a problem for Union Carbide? If BP created the problem then they alone should be liable for the damages.

  • BP acquired several companies when they made the name change.

    I'd like to see how Obama would react if the execs at BP called him by his old name, Barry Soetororel="nofollow">.

    • LOL to that 2nd point!

    • It isn't that they are calling them their old name. It is that barry, by calling them British Petroleum, is making it seem like Great Britain is somehow culpable in this mess. It turns the whole of the left on the UK.....remember when they boycotted Arizona Iced Tea(made in brooklyn) to get back at Jan Brewer?
      The point isn't that they aren't acknowledging their new brand, but they are ostensibly dragging Great Britain into this mess, by making them appear to have something to do with BP.

• I think the set of DVDs is a good start. It certainly did the trick the first time.

  But I think a much more effective tactic to repair relations would be to seek UN sanctions against the UK.

  While that might sound counter intuitive at first, you need to remember that every country that has had UN sanctions imposed has immediately prospered with huge back-door oil and trade contracts and endless shipments of humanitarian and medical supplies from those who voted in favor of the sanctions. I think the medical supplies would be especially welcomed in the UK.

  This would be a win-win move for everyone.

  The UN would gain prestige and praise from 3rd world dictators and tyrants for imposing sanctions against a western country.

  The UK would see a significant surge in oil and trade from front companies set up by those who voted for the sanctions. UK hospitals would be completely renovated.

  Obama would see a surge in popularity from his base--the radical left--for kickin' ass.

  And here's the best part of all; nothing would change, so no harm done.

  Anyway, I think that it's as good of an idea as any that Obama or Hillary have had so far.

  • Brilliant!

• Remember, he and his band of gypsies have unleashed attorneys to ruin everyone that has been in their way-going back to his state senate run. He is of the 60's era ilk that thinks that anyone with a paycheck or an allegiance to capitalism is the enemy. So, the opportunity to level BP to dust was one that he and his marxist team of douchenozzles wouldn't miss for the world. He had attorneys down there faster than he had the EPA and FEMA. So, I think it is safe to say he was involved in the disaster. He has been closely involved with the exponential growth of the disaster by way of barring BP from doing their work, barring LA from building their berms, baring all of the volunteers who could help fix this from getting involved, etc. The only way he could chase a foreign based capitalist enterprise from the US is to decimate them-which is what his plan has been, and is what he will do.
  He is slowly but surely dismantling all of the biggest political contributors he has, because he has a plan to guarantee his dictatorship. He will continue on with this plan, via killing free elections in November, by changing election law to skew to his agenda, and block out parties who are not the progressive one, and by impeaching character and backgrounds of all who would oppose him. One doesn't have to look past the history of Nazi Germany and hitler's rise, or Pol Pot, or Mao, or Stalin, or any other dictator to get a very good look at the exact blueprint he is using. This ain't rocket science. He is following a strictly prescribed logistical progression to accommodate his end game. He will not stop. He will not relent. His plan of a communist state is 60% complete. And soon when he starts jailing those who do/would oppose him, everyone will finally see, hear, and BELIEVE what those of us who have seen it from the start have been saying. The man is evil. The man is bent on totalitarian rule. The man doesn't believe in our way of life. The man will not stop until our constitution and bill of rights are all repealed. And if you don't believe that is the agenda-hang out and watch it happen, and understand I will be saying I told you so, as I do every day to those morons I know who voted for him. This is a small beginning-and it will get terribly worse in short order. God help us all when all of our viable allies are out of NATO due to fear that barry will launch similar "nuclear" reprisals to the ones leveled at his detractors here in the US.
  Oh yeah-and have a nice weekend!

  • At a glance it looks like you may have some good points but I'm not going to read this. I have a one word suggestion - paragraphs.

    • Hey, there were two paragraphs there... ;-)

    • Ken-I am not a writer for the site-I comment in "stream of thought" form-I type very fast, while working...so on a good day when I have time-I use proper formatting-but on days when I am multitasking-it is like this. And yes-I have better than "good points" and insights that you sometimes won't find anywhere else because of the work I do with the people I do it with! (wink wink)

• If a great leader was handling the BP problem, he (or she) would have said on day one:

  "The government is pledging whatever is needed to help solve this problem. We will work hand in hand with BP to address this crisis and solve the problem. After we get it fixed, we'll see what further steps need to be taken to assure this doesn't happen again."

  Instead, our President threw a hissy fit and started directing the blame anywhere but to himself. I suspect he's furious only because this crisis displays his total ineptitude and lack of leadership. As they say in Texas, he's all hat and no horse.

  • Don't forget he didn't even turn an eye to the problem until something like three weeks later...