Lord Tebbit and Boris Johnson come to the aid of BP as Cameron backs Obamas stance

[dbgtz]

Obama sucks, end of. If he really wanted this "special relationship" then he would work with us then totally flame us, it's not our fault that it burst, thinks like that happen and he should live with it. Plus he isn't doing much in the way of peace. I'm hating on america atm, they can go **** themselves.

An accident doesn't exist anymore.

[RedStratocas]

it's not our fault that it burst

i think thats the problem with this whole debate, is people thinking that blaming bp is the same as blaming the entire british population for going underwater and cutting the pipeline. think of it in the way that you guys blame us for the global obesity epidemic, even though its not like everyone in the u.s. picked up some mcdonalds and brought them over to europe.

and jsyk obama is getting far far far more criticism for not being tough enough on bp. obviously hes been far too late and not very considerate of the response, but to act like bp is some innocent company that obama is bullying is silly. not only did they have exponentially more safety violations in the past three years than any other company drilling offshore (400 compared to less than 10 by the next leading violator), theyve been obstructing details of the spill (theyve had a high definition video of the spill for weeks but chose to let scientists who are helping to stop it see it only a few days ago), and theyre denying every new discovery of the scope of the spill, most recently underwater plumes. oh, and they're spending $50 million for ads apologizing for the crisis that has only gotten worse in the past week instead of spending that money on actually fixing it.

and im sorry but british troops in afghanistan is not a sign of the anglo-american bond, since i see you guys have just as big of a stake in the war as america does, we're not the only country attacked by terrorists. going to war together doesnt necessarily make you friends, as ww2 taught us.

[-:Undertaker:-]

While I agree with you in principal I do not think it's David Cameron you should be blaming. Instead you're just repeating the nationalist nonsense from the Daily Fail. How on Earth do you expect David Cameron to back up BP? He would severely damage Anglo-American relations and look a right fool if he were to do so. While BP is a British company and should not be bullied by the US government, it is BPs fault, they have caused an enormous environmental catastrophe and didn't have any plans to stop an oil leak should one of happened. They should not be let off scot-free and while I am pleased to see they're doing all they can, I can't fault their response, it lies with them and they are undefendable. You may have noticed that Lord Tebbit and Boris Johnson are not defending BP, they are defending the UKs interests and attacking the USA which is different.

That's not to say I don't have issues with the US though, I believe they're guilty of double standards, they won't be held accountable for the Bhopal disaster for instance. They are also failing to help BP in their efforts to clear it up, while it is not their responsibility, it is within their interests to clear up the Gulf of Mexico as it's their fishing and tourism industries which will be damaged for years to come and not BPs. They also have no right to criticise Britain or use us as a scapegoat, it is also worth noting that if Thatcher hadn't privatised BP in the 80s, the UK government would be to blame so thanks once again Thatcher

I do not believe it's up to Cameron to criticise the US's handling of the issue though, it's not his place to do so and at the end of the day it's their mess, Cameron would be just as guilty of damaging the Anglo-American relationship if he was to do so. So yes I do agree with you Dan, but I also think Cameron said the right things.

David Cameron as British PM should be making it clear that to call BP British Petroleum is unacceptable, especially when half of the company is owned by Americans anyway between the merger of British Petroleum and the American oil giant a few years back, creating BP (which, again, does not have the word British in its title). I can only imagine what would be the response from the United States if one of their jointly owned companies had a disaster here and our Prime Minister kept calling it something like 'American Chevron' when it is not called that.

It is also right that the company is defended as £1 in every £6 in the British pensions system is apparently paid for by BP - do America and Britain want a Chinese oil giant to takeover yet another corporation in the west?

Funny how I read the Guardian and talk to my working class friends about how Maggie saved Britain and brought us through the harshest times to a true modern era.

And I hate tea.

As I said, a generalisation. If people want to attack papers then so be it, but the Guardian is no knight in shining armour.

i think thats the problem with this whole debate, is people thinking that blaming bp is the same as blaming the entire british population for going underwater and cutting the pipeline. think of it in the way that you guys blame us for the global obesity epidemic, even though its not like everyone in the u.s. picked up some mcdonalds and brought them over to europe.

and jsyk obama is getting far far far more criticism for not being tough enough on bp. obviously hes been far too late and not very considerate of the response, but to act like bp is some innocent company that obama is bullying is silly. not only did they have exponentially more safety violations in the past three years than any other company drilling offshore (400 compared to less than 10 by the next leading violator), theyve been obstructing details of the spill (theyve had a high definition video of the spill for weeks but chose to let scientists who are helping to stop it see it only a few days ago), and theyre denying every new discovery of the scope of the spill, most recently underwater plumes. oh, and they're spending $50 million for ads apologizing for the crisis that has only gotten worse in the past week instead of spending that money on actually fixing it.

and im sorry but british troops in afghanistan is not a sign of the anglo-american bond, since i see you guys have just as big of a stake in the war as america does, we're not the only country attacked by terrorists. going to war together doesnt necessarily make you friends, as ww2 taught us.

There is a difference between blaming the company BP and calling it British Petroleum which is he doing on purpose to try and put some sort of blame on the United Kingdom. The man has nothing in common with the anglo world which was proved by him snubbing Gordon Brown and now this. The man is not stupid, he knows what the company is called and he is cynically calling the company British Petroleum to pin blame on Britain, in time for the November elections.

The United States only entered World War II because it was attacked afterall (although I am grateful America eventually did enter), the treatment of the British Empire by the United States concerning the Suez crisis was a disgrace and the treatment from Obama is now also appaling, especially when we have remained staunchly (rightly or wrongly) alongside the United States in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I have always been a supporter of the anglo-american relationship, but when my country is being screwed over it gets a bit tiresome.

[Fez]

As I said, a generalisation. If people want to attack papers then so be it, but the Guardian is no knight in shining armour.

More than agreed, but you shouldn't generalise that far.

[Wig44.]

While I agree with you in principal I do not think it's David Cameron you should be blaming. Instead you're just repeating the nationalist nonsense from the Daily Fail. How on Earth do you expect David Cameron to back up BP? He would severely damage Anglo-American relations and look a right fool if he were to do so. While BP is a British company and should not be bullied by the US government, it is BPs fault, they have caused an enormous environmental catastrophe and didn't have any plans to stop an oil leak should one of happened. They should not be let off scot-free and while I am pleased to see they're doing all they can, I can't fault their response, it lies with them and they are undefendable. You may have noticed that Lord Tebbit and Boris Johnson are not defending BP, they are defending the UKs interests and attacking the USA which is different.

That's not to say I don't have issues with the US though, I believe they're guilty of double standards, they won't be held accountable for the Bhopal disaster for instance. They are also failing to help BP in their efforts to clear it up, while it is not their responsibility, it is within their interests to clear up the Gulf of Mexico as it's their fishing and tourism industries which will be damaged for years to come and not BPs. They also have no right to criticise Britain or use us as a scapegoat, it is also worth noting that if Thatcher hadn't privatised BP in the 80s, the UK government would be to blame so thanks once again Thatcher

I do not believe it's up to Cameron to criticise the US's handling of the issue though, it's not his place to do so and at the end of the day it's their mess, Cameron would be just as guilty of damaging the Anglo-American relationship if he was to do so. So yes I do agree with you Dan, but I also think Cameron said the right things.

Personally I think Cameron should have taken a neutral stance.