PDA

View Full Version : United States Senate...a step to far.


Tyburn
07-23-2010, 05:54 PM
The sad fact is the small enquiry thats about to take off in the United States Senate isnt happening because American Citizens died over Lockerbie. Its happening because the shady oil deals implicate British Petrolium, a company partly responsible for the tragic oil spill in the gulf of Mexico.

The United States Senate took an unprecidented move yesterday and decided to issue "summons" to several rather important people. This is an American Enquiry, a little like the Enquries that England often does, so they carry no weighting of law, and are really civil public enquiries. One such is going on in England, its called "The Chilcot Enquiry" and is looking into the moral and legal implications of the Iraq War.

What you dont find the British doing under such situations, is putting in a request to the Present American Administration, for senior figures of the past Administration to come and "explain" themselves infront of a British political audience. It just doesnt happen...could you imagine what would happen if the British Government put a "summons" for Condi Rice to come and "help us understand" how the United States made the jump from the Afghan War to the Iraq War???

It appears that the United States Senate believe they have some kind of jurisdiction in another countries foreign policy...and they have asked for our former Foreign Secretary, to come and "help them understand" the situation over the release and oil deals surrounding Lockerbie. Not only that, they have put the same for the Scottish Parliament also.

The Scots have already replied to the Americans telling them where they can put their summons, the British have not decided whether to accept the invitation or not, but Westminster is in uproar about this. The United States Senate has no right to call members of other parliaments to its own soil to berrate them, let alone the only true allies that the United States actually have.

You know the Republican Administration may have seen themselves as superior to England...but they never once over stept their own authority like this. They never demanded senior British Figures to explain themselves before their own civil court. How ****ing rude of them. Its outrageous...they cant even listen to their own citizens about a health reform...and they dare to think they can manage British Foreign Policy.....We are not a State in the Union...they cant just demand that we turn up, like some lowly Governor who needs his arse spanked over creating his own immigration policy...we dont answer to the Federal Government, and the sooner the Obama Administration realizes that, the more chance they have of keeping us as friends...coz this isnt how you treat your friends.

Occasionally the British Government will request that troops involved in Friendly fire incidents turn up for enquiries in England, mainly so that the families of the British Soldiers killed by American incompetance, can gain closure...but the United States Military never bothers to show up. I really dont see why we should bother to even acknowledge such a request from them if that is the level of respect and apology that we receive

I admit, the situation is abhorant and morally bankrupt with the prisoner release, and with BP both in this case and in the Gulf...but, with all due respect, it has nothing to do with the Americans at all. It all happened over and one British Territory...and it doesnt even have much to do with the British Government anymore...for a start its the Scotish Parliament that actually realeased the terrorist, and secondly the British Government has changed Administrations since the release....it would be like holding Hillary Clinton accountable for the way Condi Rice dealt with Al Jazera...I mean its riddiculous

I'm sorry to rant...but the way I see it, your current American Administration is acting in a really bogus manner, both to you, and to us. They force on you a health reform, that has nothing to do with health and a lot to do with creating the Federal Government money without using the anti-american word "tax" and its historical anglo-american connotations. Your President appologies to your enemies for something that your nation aggreed wholeheartedly was the right course of action...whilst doing improper things to your friends, like touching the Queen, or requesting the British Government come over and bloody stand trial infront of a bunch for stupid senators, who really should be watching their own seats come November...because I hope the vast majority of those get the boot. Liberalism my arse...I'm sorry, but if this is what a Democratic America thinks it is...its Foreign Policy and relationship with its Allied Forces is further Right then the Republican Extreme...and its own populas management systems are so far left of the line several States want to raise the possibility of their own independance

no ****ing wonder.

The sooner 2012 comes the better, its hard enough with our own politicians without yours aswell. Just you make sure you ellect a reasonable Republican who will sort out his own country before trying to tackle mine :rolleyes:

Tyburn
07-23-2010, 06:13 PM
ohh...incase your Wondering...The British Government just Declined the American Invitation. I wonder how the US Senate will like it now.

Britain's former justice secretary Jack Straw has turned down an invitation to appear before a US hearing about the Lockerbie bomber's release from prison.

Mr Straw, along with BP chief executive Tony Hayward, was asked to go to the US and explain why Abdelbaset al Megrahi was allowed out of prison in Scotland to return to Libya.

It comes after days of speculation in the US that al Megrahi's release was a direct result of lobbying by BP in relation to oil deals with the north African country.

In his letter of refusal, Mr Straw said he has "always valued the strong relationship" between the US and the UK but that in this case, the decision to release al Megrahi was purely a Scottish one.

He went on to explain that Scotland's Government had the final say on the matter and the London-based British Government had no jurisdiction.

Writing about the bomber's release, he told the US: "I had absolutely nothing to do with that decision. I saw no papers about it, and was not consulted about it."

Initially, Mr Straw had said he would have to consult the Foreign Office and former prime minister Gordon Brown before replying.

Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish minister who released al Megrahi on compassionate grounds, was also asked to attend. He has already declined.

US senators want to hold a Foreign Relations Committee meeting on July 29.

Earlier, it was reported Mr Brown's predecessor Tony Blair had been asked to appear. But this has been denied by a committee spokesman.

Cancer-stricken al Megrahi is the only person convicted of the 1988 bombing of an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 people - including 189 US citizens - died.

He was released from Greenock jail on August 20, last year, after being given three months to live - but he is still alive and now living with his family in the Libyan capital Tripoli after receiving a hero's welcome when he was flown home.


The controversy over his release flared up again during Prime Minister David Cameron's first visit to Washington this week.

Announcing plans for the meeting, committee chairman Senator John Kerry said it needed to establish what led to the "mistaken" release.

Mr Straw would have been expected to explain the background of the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Libya negotiated by Mr Blair in 2007.

Before formally declining the invitation, the ex-foreign secretary said: "It is, in my experience, highly unusual for the legislature of one sovereign state to conduct an inquiry into decisions of another sovereign state..."


A BP spokesman confirmed Mr Hayward had been asked to attend and was considering the invitation.

Mr Cameron has resisted demands from some US politicians for an inquiry.

But he has made clear he believed the decision to release the bomber was "wrong" and requested that all the relevant documents be made public.

The Scottish Government has meanwhile said it has published all the documents it has been authorised to do so.

It stressed in a letter to the Senate committee that the decision to free al Megrahi was taken on compassionate grounds and had nothing to do with BP.

".

Former Labour defence minister Kevan Jones said the hearing was turning into a "witch hunt".

He told the Daily Mail: "This is now getting out of hand.

"The Senate inquiry seems to be turning into a hysterical witch hunt against BP.

"It is unthinkable for a House of Commons select committee to demand that a senior American politician be summoned across the Atlantic in this way."

Dethbob
07-23-2010, 06:34 PM
Welcome to the Obama era. When he promised a new start in foreign diplomacy, most of us assumed he meant an improvement.

Neezar
07-23-2010, 08:01 PM
Oh my! Dave is upset.

Tyburn
07-23-2010, 09:59 PM
Welcome to the Obama era. When he promised a new start in foreign diplomacy, most of us assumed he meant an improvement.

:laugh: Yeah...we allready have two Prime Ministers jostling for position....we dont need a President aswell :rolleyes:

Tyburn
07-23-2010, 10:02 PM
Oh my! Dave is upset.

:laugh: I'm not as upset as I was...not now I've heard the British Government said No...I really was worried that they would appease the Americans...and on this occasion I think that would be wrong....I personally DO think they need an enquiry about it...BUT I dont think that should be at American request, infront of the American Government.

I actually believe that what Whitehall should do is Summon the Scots to Westminster and debate the situation...because in England we only hear about the Scot Parliament on the news...probably like you do...I dont even know what the guys look like, let alone what their political agenda is...last I heard they were nationalists and were threatening to throw a populas referendum on spliting the Union (the United Kingdom) Could you imagine Scots gaining their independance like that :blink:

Bonnie
07-24-2010, 12:41 AM
So in other words they (senate) are doing what they're best at: Wasting a lot of time on something that's not going anywhere :rolleyes: and wasting some more of our money. :angry: I'm not happy about the bomber going free but that ship has sailed... :wink: At this point I'm more concerned about BP living up to it's responsibility in helping to restore people's livelihoods along the Gulf.

Tyburn
07-24-2010, 03:45 PM
So in other words they (senate) are doing what they're best at: Wasting a lot of time on something that's not going anywhere :rolleyes: and wasting some more of our money. :angry: I'm not happy about the bomber going free but that shipped has sailed... :wink: At this point I'm more concerned about BP living up to it's responsibility in helping to restore people's livelihoods along the Gulf.

Exactly Bonnie...thats pretty much perfectly put :)

REMY
07-24-2010, 10:34 PM
Dave i think you're looking at this all wrong.

think about it this way: more then 2/3 of the people who died on that plane were U.S. Citizens. The Senate is investigating his release because him being released had a direct effect on the faimlies of those 270 people who died. and when 180+ of those people were from this country i feel it is 100% correct for the U.S. Senate to request those countries who were responsible for his release to explain why he was released.

And the surrounding events of his release were a bit fishy...

Turn it around Dave, if a terrorist blew up a plane over the U.S. and 2/3 of the people who died were British and 20 years later the U.S. released the terrorist a few months before signing a big OIL agreement the British would want an explanation...they probaly wouldn't be as "ballsy" as to say "get your butts over here and explain it" but they would want to know the surrounding circumstances.

Tyburn
07-24-2010, 11:27 PM
Dave i think you're looking at this all wrong.

think about it this way: more then 2/3 of the people who died on that plane were U.S. Citizens. The Senate is investigating his release because him being released had a direct effect on the faimlies of those 270 people who died. and when 180+ of those people were from this country i feel it is 100% correct for the U.S. Senate to request those countries who were responsible for his release to explain why he was released.

And the surrounding events of his release were a bit fishy...

Turn it around Dave, if a terrorist blew up a plane over the U.S. and 2/3 of the people who died were British and 20 years later the U.S. released the terrorist a few months before signing a big OIL agreement the British would want an explanation...they probaly wouldn't be as "ballsy" as to say "get your butts over here and explain it" but they would want to know the surrounding circumstances.

There was nothing Fishy, it seems to me, it was pretty much a totally immoral trade off.

The Senate investigation has nothing to do with the bombers release or the familes, its got a lot to do with a vendetta against British Petrolium, which whilst valid, persuit of which will be cutting our noses off to spite our faces.

Secondly, the airspace of Scotland is not in the American Jurisdiction...they have no right to to enquire about decisions made by a different nation....and no Remy...as I said...the Chilcot Enquiry which is looking at the War in Iraq...has not summoned the nation that coerced us to get involved in the first place...because what the Americans decide to do about Saddam...is actually American Foreign policy and its uncalled for of a British Enquiry to ask senior American Government officials to "explain" themselves or "help us understand"

What we can analyse is the British response to America..and thats what we are doing. But we do not demand Jurisdiction over a decision made in Capitol Hill...even when it has actually resulted in the deaths of several hundred military personnel that are British Citizens.

Its called no your place. We dont go around questioning Americans...they should not go round interrogating us. The decision to reject this, has been the first decision that I have actually aggreed with the Government about.

I also aggree with them over their plans to raise the income level before employing income tax...but i await that to begin. I also aggree with their idea of a referendum on the voting system...and I would vote yes to that also...other then that, I dissagree with them.

I dissagree with their massive spending cuts...or rather, I dissagree with where they want to snip. I didnt like the way the Prime Minister spoke about Englands position in relation to the US, particularly the bit about the second world war...I dont like that he didnt stand up to Barack Obama and tell him to STFU about BP when it looked like it was starting to collapse on the stock market.

REMY
07-25-2010, 02:44 AM
Dave...again...the U.S. was not "interogatting" anyone over this incident. And this has NOTHING to do with the Iraq war either, so no reason to bring that into this, but there would be no reason to request the U.S. to show up for the Chilcot enquiry...the U.S. decided to go into Iraq, Britian decided to follow...no one forced the U.K. to follow, what the Chilcot Enquiry should be about is WHY the U.K. followed, not why the U.S. went in the first place.


I never stated the U.S. had any type of jurisdiction... what i stated was the U.S. government OWES it to those 180+ American families to question why this terrorist was released.

Fact: 180+ Americans died on that flight, the terrorist at fault was released from prison...They owe it to those other 90 families of the other people who died on that flight who weren't U.S. Citizens as well. Again if someone who was close to you was on that flight, you would want to know why the terrorist who caused their death was released as well.

Tyburn
07-25-2010, 12:20 PM
Dave...again...the U.S. was not "interogatting" anyone over this incident. And this has NOTHING to do with the Iraq war either, so no reason to bring that into this, but there would be no reason to request the U.S. to show up for the Chilcot enquiry...the U.S. decided to go into Iraq, Britian decided to follow...no one forced the U.K. to follow, what the Chilcot Enquiry should be about is WHY the U.K. followed, not why the U.S. went in the first place.


I never stated the U.S. had any type of jurisdiction... what i stated was the U.S. government OWES it to those 180+ American families to question why this terrorist was released.

Fact: 180+ Americans died on that flight, the terrorist at fault was released from prison...They owe it to those other 90 families of the other people who died on that flight who weren't U.S. Citizens as well. Again if someone who was close to you was on that flight, you would want to know why the terrorist who caused their death was released as well.

The Senate tried to Interrogate...the British and Scotish Parliaments told them to mind their own Business last week.

...and Your entirely wrong about the decision process for the Americans going to War in Iraq, It ended up involving England a lot prior to entry, at the stage when the Americans and British combined together to put a case to the United Nations a good week before any Military action...But that is one of two subjects I am banned from talking about. Suffice to say, its a VERY good analogy of a reversed Enquiry where we could demand American imput into how it actually happened...but we do not.

Before you tell us what we owe the families of people killed, not directly by our Citizens...perhaps you might like to write to your own Senator and ask how come when an English Soldier is DIRECTLY killed by an American Soldier as happens in "friendly fire" accidents...why the United States refuse to turn up to the Public Enquiries designed only to give the familes closure???

You havent a leg to stand on. IF you country did the honourable thing in these cases, it might have more of an argument...but the truth of the matter is your Country believes everyone else should do its bidding when it wants...and it refuses to give in kind back...that is a form of Tyrany you know...the very Tyrany your Government claims it irradicates. What the American Government needs to lose is its superiority complex.

It needs to recognise it HAS the power to force others to do its bidding...and then the humility to lay that power aside and ASK...You should go look in the other political thread where I am discussing the British Monarchy with Spiritwalker...its the same process

Its also the Christian design...those in power end up in true service if they have the courage of their convictions and lay their power aside voluntarily.

Well your country did not. It demanded...and for the first time in a very long while the United Kingdom turned round and said ENOUGH.

But there is still hope. When 9/11 happened, and the route was traced to Afghanistan, the United States would have been well within their rights to massicre the lot for harbouring war criminals. President George Bush, after the worst attrocity committed on United States Soil, actually gave them the opportunity to give up those they were harbouring. He actually stayed his dogs on the leash and gave them a truely fair ultimatum. THAT is what I mean. He wasnt perfect, but he actually did what he thought was morrally right, even when he had been mortally wronged, and even when it was against public opinion (which is technically speaking a breach of his office...but you might say he put his morals ahead of his obligations in that respect...and in the respect he used it for...he was absolutely correct) But America under the Obama Administration has taken a HUGE step backwards. I can only hope the American People do their duty at the mid terms in November and diminish the Democrats power as much as possible, before swearing in a Morally Upstanding Individual as their Next President...I dont care if he's Democrat or Republican...so long as he has the Moral background to do what is right no matter what the personal cost to him is...and to use...or NOT USE the power he COULD USE, to benefit America and the world at large.

REMY
07-25-2010, 03:05 PM
Dave...i don't know why i do this i've been on the boards for quite a few years now, and every time i get into these discussions with you i say "not again" but here i am lol -

You did not like what i had to say about the U.S. Senate hearings, and had nothing to come back with so you ahd to bring in the Iraq War / 9-11, changing the subject like you always do, throwing thigns like "you haven't a leg to stand one" Dave...stick to the subject and try not to derail it to throwing mud on the Iraq war. again ive been here for a while, i know that's your M O....realize there is a differnece between personal opinion and 100% fact.

The reason why i feel the Chilcot inquiry Vs. this inquiry is comparing Apples and Oranges is this :

Facts: the chilcot inquiry is a lessons learned inquiry about the how and why the decision was made for the U.K to go into Iraq. Where British soldiers have died....soldiers who knew going into war they might not come back.

Fact: The U.S. Senate is currently investigating why a teorrorist was released from a prison in a foreign country after he killed 180+ innocent U.S. Civilians / Citizens. Civilians who were not members of the military, and a incident which was not a military operation, therefor has nothing to do with the military.

they have nothing to do with one another.

So... Concerning the Chilcot inquiry - why haven't the British sent a summons to American personnel? well because : "We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned" - John Chilcot's Terms of Reference.

you asked why i do not write my Senator demanding a explanation for friendly fire cases??

Well that is because I feel that Military actions should not submit to a public inquiry. Just my opinion but I think if there IS a inquiry made into a Military action it either A. shouldn't be made public or B. should be handled by strictly Military leaders, and still not be made public.

Why? well i am in the US Coast Guard, and since we deal with the public very closly on a constant basis, more so then the other 4 branches of the U.S. Military, every time something doesn't go "as planned" there is always a inquiry or some type of investigation made. I have had 3 cases (SAR - Search and Rescue or Law Enforcement) taking to a "inquiry"/investigation" after the fact, and when people are running the inquiry/investigation that were not directly involved it always comes out skewed. (side note - i haven't never been found or accused of ANY wrong doing/making any wrong decisions) just how i feel.

Do i think there should be a inquiry within the U.S. Government about why we are in Iraq? personally? no i don't we are there to help another nation recover after capturing and takign the power out of the hands of a evil man. Though if there is one i would be ok with it...as long as it stayed behind closed doors and within the government and was not realsed to the public in any way.


Side note: i have had friends go to Iraq/Afghanistan and not come back...they Joined the U.S. Military and died honorably serving the country, friendly fire or not, that's all the closure i need. again Personal opinion...does that mean you're wrong no, it doesn't, that's the difference between us...i know personal opinions can't be wrong, we can discuss them if ours our different but neither is wrong.

Neezar
07-25-2010, 03:55 PM
Dave...i don't know why i do this i've been on the boards for quite a few years now, and every time i get into these discussions with you i say "not again" but here i am lol -



:laugh:

It happens to the best of us.....

Tyburn
07-25-2010, 04:33 PM
Talking and debating with me is fun. You may be forgiven for indulging once in a while. Truth be told, I enjoy the stimulation, I speak without anger now, as the UK turned the Americans down :ashamed:

You did not like what i had to say about the U.S. Senate hearings, and had nothing to come back with so you ahd to bring in the Iraq War / 9-11, changing the subject like you always do. No I made a brief comparrison about two Enquiries in two different countries, both of which could be enhanced by asking the other country to send delegates, but in both cases from a foreign policy point of view, this would be wrong to do. In the case of the British Chilcot Enquiry, no American was expected to attend. In the case of the American Enquiry, Scotish and British senior Politicians were "summoned" all declined.

The reason why i feel the Chilcot inquiry Vs. this inquiry is comparing Apples and Oranges is this :

Facts: the chilcot inquiry is a lessons learned inquiry about the how and why the decision was made for the U.K to go into Iraq. Where British soldiers have died....soldiers who knew going into war they might not come back. No thats not true. We know how and why the decision to go to war was made, it was a Vote in the House of Commons. What is under investigation is two things. Firstly, what happened with the weapons inspector Doctor David Kelly who told the press there was no Weapons and then supposedly committed suicide. The other, main focus, is on the information provided by the Government Cabinate, and the Security Service, to the Government at large about the Intelligence related to Saddam Hussain and his Nuclear or Biological Weapons. This "Dossier" included information supplied to the United Kingdom by the United States of America, aswell as our own Intelligence, and it was put together in an attempt to persuade the Government to vote in JOINING the American campaign. For Clarity, it would have been useful to get Member of your Military, and Members of your Security Services, to come and "explain" the information. To "help us understand" what certain facts, turned out to be untrue...those facts that we used as a basis to support your efforts, which have resulted in the deaths of British Citizens...and not just on the Battlefield...your forgetting the Bombings of London, and the 53 odd people killed in terrorist attacks, because we were lied to (possibly) into going to war. You see how Key American imput would be into finding who gave the faulty information...or if the information was really faulty. We are just covering the British Side...because it would be outrageous to "summon" American Senior figures...after all...if we were stupid enough not to check the information before the Commons voted...at the end of the day...the responsibility lies with us.

Fact: The U.S. Senate is currently investigating why a teorrorist was released from a prison in a foreign country after he killed 180+ innocent U.S. Civilians / Citizens. Civilians who were not members of the military, and a incident which was not a military operation, therefor has nothing to do with the military. The United States did not consider launching this kind of enquiry until the discovered that British Petrolium were the Company involved with the oil deal. Are you telling me this is an honnest coincidence after what British Petrolium have done to your South Coast, and after your Presidents words cut the shareprice by billions. Are you telling me you think these politicans are doing this for the families of victims...and not actually also out for revenge against a company that is morally bankrupt and done them a lot of harm? I have enough political nouse to strongly suspect they really are doing the latter under the guise of the former. They hate British Petrolium...and one can hardly blame them for that in all honnesty.
they have nothing to do with one another.

So... Concerning the Chilcot inquiry - why haven't the British sent a summons to American personnel? well because : "We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned" - John Chilcot's Terms of Reference. well they arent going to write in their brief anymore then that are they, because they stand by political ettiquette in this matter. They will naturally think that it is beyond their jurisdiction to Enquire further particularly about America...and rightly so...its none of our business to demand anything about a decision of Congress...thats an American Affaire...it doesnt concern us...we really should have checked the intelligence for ourselves, and stopped adding even more shyte then we were provided in the first place. Its a pity the Americans dont take the same view concerning matters of British Politics. Its none of their business what we do with criminals in this country...We were wrong to do what we did...but they were wrong to call us out, thats against political ettiquette...and not even our Government will acknowledge differently...a Government that has acted in the past decade more like a State Government to the Federal Union then any other independant Government on Earth.

Why? well i am in the US Coast Guard, and since we deal with the public very closly on a constant basis, more so then the other 4 branches of the U.S. Military, every time something doesn't go "as planned" there is always a inquiry or some type of investigation made. I have had 3 cases (SAR - Search and Rescue or Law Enforcement) taking to a "inquiry"/investigation" after the fact, and when people are running the inquiry/investigation that were not directly involved it always comes out skewed. (side note - i haven't never been found or accused of ANY wrong doing/making any wrong decisions) just how i feel.


I understand your point about mindless beauractic Enquiries...and I am not intending on full exposure of all Military details...but when you kill a friend by accident...you should have the decency to go to the family in person and say "im sorry" Thats really all it should entail. Not state secrets...not long winded accounts..that our own forces at the scene can give. Just the chance for closure between the force that made a terrible error, and the poor family that now has to pay for that mistake. My point in raising this, is that America in most cases is uncoorperative with any Enquiry we make, and we, as explained, dont usually make them tailored to looking into your countries bussiness. But you demand a lot...and you dont return the gesture. You demand Extradition, but will not extradite, you demand our senior politicians turn up infront of your Government..we out of courtesy wouldnt even ask, You refuse to give closure when presented with the opportunity. You have to understand...I consider that an unfair ballence of power. Where the United States always benefits and gets what it wants...and the United Kingdom gets nothing in return. I just dont think thats right.

Do i think there should be a inquiry within the U.S. Government about why we are in Iraq? personally? no i don't we are there to help another nation recover after capturing and takign the power out of the hands of a evil man. Though if there is one i would be ok with it...as long as it stayed behind closed doors and within the government and was not realsed to the public in any way.

I dont think the United States needs to enquire, from my research she never acted unconstitutionally, and I think its way to late. But I do think these things should be public. I dont trust the Government, any Government, to conduct an unbias report to themselves (except Israel, whose Prime Minister ordered a full investigate into his own Governments actions in the invasion of Lebanon, by his own Government and ended up loosing power when he was found to have acted in the wrong :laugh: ) I dont trust politicians in general. I feel the only way to keep them right is to hold them to account, that means the public need to know the dirty laundry if the occasion requires. Something of that magnitude, is an occasion that requires...JUST LIKE in England the public Enquiry that went into the shooting of the Charles De Menzies, in London, and the way the British Police lied about what happened the day of the shooting and the incompetance of the woman leading the charge...its absolutely right that they are named and shamed, they are brough to justice...without legal repuccusions of course...Citizens shouldnt be blinded by love of their country...Love is not blind, its just able to love dispite the faults. I love my country, I love America, and I love Israel...but I recongise they are not perfect...all of them have done really bad things, all of them have room for improvement...and I dont mind it going public what my opinions are. But that doesnt mean I dont love them. Love is a choice, and its the ability to see things as they really are...not to blindly follow. or to love a lie. The things I love might not prove pretty, but they are what, how and who they are.

Side note: i have had friends go to Iraq/Afghanistan and not come back...they Joined the U.S. Military and died honorably serving the country, friendly fire or not, that's all the closure i need. again Personal opinion...does that mean you're wrong no, it doesn't, that's the difference between us...i know personal opinions can't be wrong, we can discuss them if ours our different but neither is wrong.

I dont mind discussing, We might not aggree...but that doesnt mean I dont understand what your saying, or note that you have good points. Like I said above...My own Government removed my passionate anger about the situation...now I am just talking to you because you are being responsive, I am not angry, or trying to be mean...if you respond I respond...if you dont..I wont...unless someone else picks up where you left off. I cant help myself Remy :ashamed:

Tyburn
07-25-2010, 04:33 PM
:laugh:

It happens to the best of us.....

:ashamed::laugh:

I love you too :w00t:

Bonnie
07-26-2010, 08:35 AM
what i stated was the U.S. government OWES it to those 180+ American families to question why this terrorist was released.



Why, just to get "on the record" what they and the public already knows: he was released so the British government (which in this case stands for British Petroleum) could get that oil lease deal. Someone(s) in the British government (despite their denials) got Scotland to release the man. Wonder what Scotland ended up getting in this dirty deal? :wink:

Remy, it would be different if we knew something was going to come out of these hearings, for instance, like this guy going back to jail, but that's not going to happen. I'm afraid it's just going to be more of the same-same: these congressman beating their chests, talking loudly, but ultimately accomplishing nothing. I'm afraid it's all for show. Cynical, I know, but just going by how it appears these inquiries/investigations normally turn out... :wink:

Tyburn
07-26-2010, 02:00 PM
Why, just to get "on the record" what they and the public already knows: he was released so the British government (which in this case stands for British Petroleum) could get that oil lease deal. Someone(s) in the British government (despite their denials) got Scotland to release the man. Wonder what Scotland ended up getting in this dirty deal? :wink:

Remy, it would be different if we knew something was going to come out of these hearings, for instance, like this guy going back to jail, but that's not going to happen. I'm afraid it's just going to be more of the same-same: these congressman beating their chests, talking loudly, but ultimately accomplishing nothing. I'm afraid it's all for show. Cynical, I know, but just going by how it appears these inquiries/investigations normally turn out... :wink:

I'll tell you something though Bonnie...so the Summons went out to Tony Blair, but they took their offer back on that one before he could reply, It went out to the Scotish First Minister and the Scotish Justice person in the Devolved Scot Parliament, both replied Negative, it went to Westminster Palace to get the Previous Foreign Secretary, called Jack Straw of the British Government, who thought about it and the replied Negatively.

It went to one other man. A chap called Tony Haywood, who is the CEO of British Petrolium, who are of course denying they had anything to do with this. The Board of Directors will meet tomorrow, and Confirm their decision that Tony Haywood is to stand down as CEO with immediate effect. Rendering him entirely useless in turning up to any Senate Enquiry...the cynic in me says thats proof that BP have something to hide...why else would they wait so long to get rid of the guy...is it cooincidence that he would be the only person left with a reason to go infront of the Senate when his company is probably more the reason for the enquiry then the loss of American lives. But if he's out of the company...well...what can he do...and his Replacement, well, its not his fault he's inherited it. Talk about Bogus.

To me it confirms what I believe. British Petrolium under Tony Haywood, lobbied the British Government for an Oil deal with Libya after Tony Blair had signed up with the Libyans to a Prisoner Exchange possibility. The Libyans demanded the release of the Bomber, who was disgnosed with Cancer anyway. They approached the British Government, under the Charge of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who is not English, but a Scot. He had words with the Scotish Devolved Government, even though he denies that, probably aided by Jack Straw. The Scotish First Minister approached the Justice man about how this could be done without just saying, for oil. A bit of legislation shows compassionate grounds for release IF the person were to be terminally ill. They just need to get some doctor who knows he has cancer to say its possible he might die in a few months. They do it. The Scots deny the British had involvement because they are a Nationalist Party trying to convince the people to vote to split up the Union by Referendum, and the British claim its nothing to do with them to save face with America. Although Outraged, America gets over it. Then The Swiss Company who works the Oil rigg, is under pressure to skipp safety procedures by British Petrolium who own the liscene for the Rigg. An accident takes place, people are killed, the rig leaks. The Health Reform bill draws American Attention away, The Icelandic Volcano distracts the British. BP take forever to cap a well. In his Hurry to make himself look like he hasnt focused more on his personal agenda then his country. The United States President, personally begins a tirade against British Petrolium, and their stocks plummet. Englands Prime Minister is new, and says nothing to stop the United States. Finally the well is capped. All Quiet, until the New Supreme Court in England authorises the release of papers implicating British Petrolium in the Bombers release through oil deals. Now the United States is really angry. So angry that the Senate use the excuse of American Deaths to break protocol with their allies, and to demand that everyone personally show up, because they are angry. The United Kingdom stands together for the first time against the United States...fearing that this leaves the bullseye only on BP, the board meet, and axe the CEO.

You couldnt write a better script. Honnestly...the whole lot of them, ALL of them, Barack Obama, The US Senate, BP, Tony Haywood, The British Government, The Scot Government, and the Libyans should be utterly ashamed..in one way or another these ****ing useless politicians and big companies, have ruined the lives of citizens in both countries...its allways the citizens who end up actually in the shyte...so now, people on the gulf coast face unemployment and destruction of their beautiful coast, the Lockerbie Victims families on both sides of the atlantic are full of unneccessary open wounds, and the pensioners who had their stakes banked on the stocks of BP worry if they will ever be able to live when forced into a state retirement that cant now support them even though they paid in their life savings since the war. Tony Haywood retires on millions, bought into silence, BP fixes the well, pays the compensation and recovers in a year under a new leadership team. The Scots tear apart the Union, the New British Government washes its hands of the labour deal, but enjoys the spoils anyway, the old labour leaders publish journals, biolgraphies and live out their lives in luxury, Tony Blair continues to make speaches and charge billions, working his way back into European Politics...and after some heafty and unpopular reforms, Barack Obama works out the rest of his Term of Office, as a nobel peace prize winner, the first Black President, confident that its the next, probably Republican Government who will have to deal with the Unconstitutional, unAmerican reform that the people hate.

:cry: Oh Bonnie...I hope to see you in person in 2012 during my American Dreams Tour Three, we will drown our sorrows together, and relable it "Shattered" American Dreams instead :sad:

Tyburn
07-26-2010, 10:11 PM
Six Hundred Thousand Pound Pension is confirmed available to Mr Haywood...per year, for life, Starting the day he steps down!

What did I tell you.

Outrageous.

He's also going to be a non executuive director of a BP offshoot on a part time basis...which means a salary.

Bonnie
07-27-2010, 03:01 AM
It went to one other man. A chap called Tony Haywood, who is the CEO of British Petrolium, who are of course denying they had anything to do with this. The Board of Directors will meet tomorrow, and Confirm their decision that Tony Haywood is to stand down as CEO with immediate effect. Rendering him entirely useless in turning up to any Senate Enquiry...the cynic in me says thats proof that BP have something to hide...why else would they wait so long to get rid of the guy...is it cooincidence that he would be the only person left with a reason to go infront of the Senate when his company is probably more the reason for the enquiry then the loss of American lives. But if he's out of the company...well...what can he do...and his Replacement, well, its not his fault he's inherited it. Talk about Bogus.



Just saw that on the news tonight about Tony Hayward. Hmmm....does make you wonder about the timing doesn't it. :wink:

Dethbob
07-27-2010, 02:54 PM
Six Hundred Thousand Pound Pension is confirmed available to Mr Haywood...per year, for life, Starting the day he steps down!

What did I tell you.

Outrageous.

He's also going to be a non executuive director of a BP offshoot on a part time basis...which means a salary.


Iím just not going to get all that upset about this part. The guy ran a corporation well enough to pay tens of thousands of employees and gazillions in taxes, providing a significant portion of the funding and fuel for the lifestyle we all feel entitled to. I agree that he should have been drilling in Alaska instead of miles undersea, but no one who knows anything about these things is allowed to make those decisions. The lefties micromanage everything we do and then blame us for their own incompetence.

flo
07-27-2010, 04:34 PM
I’m just not going to get all that upset about this part. The guy ran a corporation well enough to pay tens of thousands of employees and gazillions in taxes, providing a significant portion of the funding and fuel for the lifestyle we all feel entitled to. I agree that he should have been drilling in Alaska instead of miles undersea, but no one who knows anything about these things is allowed to make those decisions. The lefties micromanage everything we do and then blame us for their own incompetence.
Agree 100%.