Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
Yet it would seem as if some members of our faultless government are acting as if it is just Britain. And the Environment is never worth losing an ally over. I pity the person that thinks pretty trees and beaches are more important than the security to have pretty trees and beaches.

I would suggest that such a comment could only come from someone who has access to pretty trees and beaches.

When did Britain become critical to US national security?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Except the UK has been our closest military ally since, what? 1914? It really isnt worth losing trust over. Its some oil, itll get cleaned when it gets cleaned, until then Mrytle Beach/Hilton Head is very nice.

For now, anyway.

dogma wrote:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
Yet it would seem as if some members of our faultless government are acting as if it is just Britain. And the Environment is never worth losing an ally over. I pity the person that thinks pretty trees and beaches are more important than the security to have pretty trees and beaches.

I would suggest that such a comment could only come from someone who has access to pretty trees and beaches.

When did Britain become critical to US national security?

Hmmm, since 1776 and 1812 when they showed us how valuable it was to have some national security?

There was no American nation in 1776.

In 1812, it was a matter of the US failing to properly appreciate its own military capabilities.

In either case, the British were representative of a world power. They are not anymore.

Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Neo-Con, they're all bought and paid for.

Your vote, such as it is, is worthless.

Were destroying the planet. And as the planet goes, so do we.

All this nonsense about politics and oil spills and Obama, Bush, Halliburton, BP, etc etc. is only so much filtered information and political posturing. there's not a word that comes out of any of these peoples mouths you should believe, but if you do, more power to you.

Time to wake up guys. The little guy is just that, the little guy. No more, no less. You can whine about the state of affairs in the world today as much as you want. You can back the Right or the Left, the Religious or the Secular. It doesn't make that much of a difference.

It's all a game.

Someone has discovered nihilism.

dogma wrote:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
Yet it would seem as if some members of our faultless government are acting as if it is just Britain. And the Environment is never worth losing an ally over. I pity the person that thinks pretty trees and beaches are more important than the security to have pretty trees and beaches.

I would suggest that such a comment could only come from someone who has access to pretty trees and beaches.

When did Britain become critical to US national security?

Well, I only live in Hawaii for part of the year . But now my Spring Break is ruined!

I want to know what American lives more than a two hour drive away from some form of natural recreational area? Except those poor people from Kansas....

Its just good to have allies. Especially allies with common background, motivations, history, etc. I mean think of all the British people on Dakka, if the US and Britain severed all diplomatic ties because America wants to get into a dick measuring contest how would that affect the many communities of gamers and others who's organizations reach to the UK?

As for security, all the English speaking countries have deep rooted mutual cooperation treaties and agreements that most dont know about, about things that are a big deal to keeping all nations running smoothly (satellites, military programs, intelligence, etc).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Except the UK has been our closest military ally since, what? 1914? It really isnt worth losing trust over. Its some oil, itll get cleaned when it gets cleaned, until then Mrytle Beach/Hilton Head is very nice.

For now, anyway.

There is always..... Jersey Shore.

Discovered it awhile ago. Makes more sense than the rest of the theories out there. To me at least.

dogma wrote:In either case, the British were representative of a world power. They are not anymore.

Quite.

Has anyone mentioned yet that BP employ and are run by a greater number of Americans than British people?

sA

IGLannister wrote:Discovered it awhile ago. Makes more sense than the rest of the theories out there. To me at least.

Read more, you'll learn that it fails its own project.

Im just worried about imparting any earthly wisdom I'll accumulate in my life to my progeny. They can judge for themselves if the status quo is worth fighting for. To me, it's not.

I look at this world as a very savage place. There's too many things that happen that just really shouldn't. Know what I mean? And I don't question the why's or the wherefore, because it really doesn't matter. It's gonna happen. And when something catastrophic on a level never seen before occurs, maybe well all wake up, myself included.

Until then, it's all just a slow burn. Enjoy it while you got it.

Since when did the UK stop being a first world country? 1st World = World Power. They get a vote on the security council too dont they? Thats pretty big.

They don't have the raw economic power and influence of China, India, and the USA. Security Council Smurity Council. I wouldn't call Germany a world power, neither Italy, nor much of Europe for that matter. Doesn't stop them being First World.

sA

The EU as a whole is a major international actor. Though the UK may not have the economic power of China or India, both those countries are on a crash course for self destruction. China is encroaching on the mountains that feed the majority of India's rivers with the water they drink. Russia owns some nice oil feilds right above China. India and Pakistan are too hostile, and if India gets too big Pakistan will have nothing to lose by going full throttle on them. China cant call in its US debts without us taking some severe 'feth you' measures that would cripple a significant portion of China's economy and industry, sure they may make it, and we might be fethed, but both nations will recover. Not to mention any kind of conventional armed conflict between any first world nation WILL end with some form of nuclear attack, and once that happens its game fething on and Im glad I live up in the mountains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

The question of being a world power depends on what you define as being a world power. That sounds solipsistic, however if you look at size of economy, nuclear capability and seats on the Security Council, then Europe is easily in the lead, and several of its component countries are still in the top 10 considered as individual countries. (For example, the UK's GDP is nearly double that of India.)

If you look at conventional military force projection, Europe's capability is low, though both the UK and French have engaged in overseas operations in recent years.

To a great extent, the ability to project conventional military force is a reflection of cash spent, which depends on political will.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW talking to my brother, who lives in Oregon, I asked if he had taken any stick from the locals for having an English accent.

He said the oil leak barely made any news where he lives. It's too far away to interest people and they are hardly aware it is happening.

While on aside the UK and France are de facto world powers because they has some power projection capability (carrier fleets and quality armed forces), high technology, officially sanctioned nukes, a security council veto each and a G7 economy.

The difference is that the UK is not a 'superpower' and hasn't been since 1939. France was last a 'superpower' in 1814.

dogma wrote:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
Yet it would seem as if some members of our faultless government are acting as if it is just Britain. And the Environment is never worth losing an ally over. I pity the person that thinks pretty trees and beaches are more important than the security to have pretty trees and beaches.

I would suggest that such a comment could only come from someone who has access to pretty trees and beaches.

When did Britain become critical to US national security?

You know all those terrorist attacks originating from Europe you haven't had? You're welcome.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:1st World = World Power

No, a First World nation is a heavily industrialized, democratic, capitalist country, friendly to the United States. Belgium, for instance, is a First World nation, but not any sort of world power. The Soviet Union was a world power, but not a First World nation (they were part of the "Second World"; heavily industrialized socialist countries).

On the other hand, the UK is pretty powerful. In fact, I'd say they easily have a place in the five most powerful nations on Earth. Chinese officials have ranked them the second most powerful nation, although that did take into account their alliance with the United States.

Albatross wrote:

dogma wrote:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
Yet it would seem as if some members of our faultless government are acting as if it is just Britain. And the Environment is never worth losing an ally over. I pity the person that thinks pretty trees and beaches are more important than the security to have pretty trees and beaches.

I would suggest that such a comment could only come from someone who has access to pretty trees and beaches.

When did Britain become critical to US national security?

You know all those terrorist attacks originating from Europe you haven't had? You're welcome.

This pencil keeps tigers away.

IGLannister wrote:
I look at this world as a very savage place. There's too many things that happen that just really shouldn't. Know what I mean?

No. I find the world fascinating.

IGLannister wrote:
It's gonna happen. And when something catastrophic on a level never seen before occurs, maybe well all wake up, myself included.

Until then, it's all just a slow burn. Enjoy it while you got it.

That's existentialism. You've covered about 60 years of philosophical history in ~1 day. Good for you.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Since when did the UK stop being a first world country? 1st World = World Power.

No. World powers have the ability to project force in the course of unilateral action, or nominally influence the decisions of states of only tangential significance. For example, the US can affect economic policy in India, the UK could not match that feat. Of course, that doesn't mean the UK is not powerful. They, as Orkeo noted, quite powerful; particularly in the sense that they hold at least some sway over the former Commonwealth.

There are only 4 world powers. The US, China, India, and the collective EU. Iran will probably be on this list soon, if they manage to contain their own popular discontent.

India is not a world power yet, but they soon will be.

Iran, certainly not.

Orlanth wrote:India is not a world power yet, but they soon will be.

Iran, certainly not.

India controls a population nearly twice that of the EU and certainly more than the EU and America combined. They are a world power by that measure alone, regardless of their other accomplishments.

Orlanth wrote:India is not a world power yet, but they soon will be.

As Shuma said, by controlling roughly 16% of the global population India is necessarily provided with the ability to influence the decision making process of any given state. Similarly, their sheer human mass allows for force projection due to a relative insensitivity to casualties.

Orlanth wrote:
Iran, certainly not.

Iran is the beneficiary of geographic fortune. Being located adjacent to the Straits of Hormuz provides them with the ability to influence the policy choices of the entire developed world. Combine that with an influential, and highly effective, insurgency network and you have global reach. Give them nuclear weapons and they'll be in a situation nearly analogous to that of Russia in the old Soviet Union.

by population but if they they fought the US they would lose from Nuclear warheads.
Anyway I think the BP oil leak is stupid I was watching my trusty friend Jon Stewart. And I have to say that the BP Situation is pretty stupid consdering that they are not working that hard. Top Hat and Hot Tap
Hot Tap
Top Hat
Hmmmm
Lets see
H-O-T T-A-P=T-O-P H-A-T
Wow Very creative and not only that but the dome really?
And I love the new Ideas lets put Beer making elements into the gulf so that we can intoxicate the gulf!
And the nuclear opition. Send a nuclear missle into the Gulf. Hmmmm Lets Make are fishing area's even worst!
WOW I think we need smarter people working on this situation.

Kilkrazy wrote:Napolitano is a kind of pizza, isn't it?

There is an excellent ice cream of the same or similar name.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyras wrote:I work in the oilfield for an oilfield services company. Two of our personnel when the Deepwater Horizon exploded (They got off fine). I think there needs to be some clarification on this whole thing.

First BP was the overseeing entity for that well. They contracted Transocean to drill the well, an oilfield services company to conduct the directional drilling segment(s) of the well and to survey/log the well, another third party (Halliburton) to do the cement work, another to maintain and condition the drilling fluids (mud). There are meetings every twelve hours where all of the representatives from these various companies give a status of their operations and an outline of the next twelve hours activities. Anything occuring that was not discussed at the meeting must be brought to the "Company Man's" (The BP Rep) attention. I speak from first hand experience that everybody out there is playing a big game of CYA.

The mud engineer puts too much loss circulation material (LCM) down hole and clogs up the works for the survey equipment, but decides to omit that from the meetings and the survey guys take the heat for their tool failing. The rig hands dump too much diesel into the drilling fluid which lowerd the mud weight causing a gas kick, but they leave that detail out of the meeting and the mud engineer get blamed.
It goes on and on. So BP may or may not have been aware of the situation that ultimately led to the explosion.

Next is the fact that the oil companies do have the technology and expertise to deal with sealing the well better than the government, but on the cleanup front the government could have and should have taken a much larger role and earlier in the disaster than they did. BP would have to pick up the bill of course but the government has done more to impede the process of containing the spill than helping. A suspension of the Jones Act, a willingness to accept help from foreign advisors knowlegable in oilfield and/or subsea blowouts, allowing the Army Corps of Engineers to forego Environmetal Impact Studies for building protective sand bars etc etc would have helped. The apathy towards this crisis until the polls were dripping in bile is disgusting, but Obama will just continue as his MO dictates and blame everybody else. Maybe the ass he's looking to kick should be his own.

Word. Preach on brother.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Whichever tv pundit talked about nationalizing BP needs to be put down and have his family sold into sex slavery in eastern europe. Totally unacceptable to hurt our diplomatic relations with the UK over an oil spill. Allies>Environment.

Now that I am not on the work computer I'd be just fine with that. They fethed us, feth them.

It's multiple failures and lots of fingering pointing at this stage.

The government should have stricter regs about design and emergency preparation. I don't understand how they don't have design standards - not necessarily 'the casing should be X inches thick' but at least 'the casing needs to be designed by a professional engineer and have a minimum factor of safety of 1.5'. Further, as I understand it, BP had gotten the permit on the basis of being able to being able to contain a larger spill. Further, it appears that this was simply a 'Yes, I can handle a spill of such-and-such magnitude'. I don't think anyone ever checked if or how they would accomplish that. I wouldn't require them to equipment on the rig, but either have it on-hand or be able to obtain it quickly.

Further, BP was willing to take short-cuts to turn a profit. Clearly, they didn't evaluate all the risks properly. Further, they had used their clout in Washington to get favorable legislation.

And shame on Congress for allowing the oil industry to lobby and have a fairly small cap ($75 mill is a lot, but not when your profit is measured in billions) on their damages. In a truly free market, BP could be sued and bankrupted.

Better industry standards are needed. Better regulatory oversight (and this isn't necessarily more, just doing their job better). And Congress needs to stop passing legislation that favors deep pockets over the people they represent.

Nice to have an oil worker here to give a close range view.

Tyras wrote:
How long will be long enough for Obama to take responsibility for his own administration and stop blaming Bush? Yeah, Bush was too cozy with the oil companies, but what exactly did Obama do to fix the problems at the MMS? He even made it a point in his campaign. His administration was apathetic, for whatever reason, and now he's in damage control. The sad thing is he seems to be more focused on PR damage control than environmental and economic damage control.

Obamas entire presidential campaign hinged on the fact he was not-Bush.

Tyras wrote:
As a side note, while I'm posting in the thread: People are going to have to brace themselves for the reality that current law caps the financial responsibilty a company can be held liable for in crisis like this. BP won't get the full tab on this, and if Congress puts out a retroactive law to go after BP they might win some points with an angry public but will do irreperable damage to the business climate in the US. Companies will be so frightened to do business in the US for fear of laws being created to mold a litigious environment to suit their own whims that the doors to the US economy might as well be boarded up with an "Out of Business" sign.

interesting I am expecting somthing similar to that.

The way I see it BP is being given full weight of the blame which galls many people here in the UK, we dont know its not deserved, but we have no proof it is. Halliburton etal were at the same Senate inquiry meeting and all theree companies present blamed the other. BP has by far the deepest pockets though.

We are concerned over unfair spurious laws and dangerously unfair claims by government officials. Ken Salazar calling or BP to be billed ofr the drilling moratorium in the Baufirt sea. BP didnt stop that the US government did. Waiting six months wont make the well magically safe its grandstanding and unfair levying that makes people wonder if other spurious claims are to be made.

As for retroactively increasing the payout limits, that is unlawful. One of the central principles of justice is that events prior to the introctution of a crime or bill are exempt from thart bills rulings. Agaij that raises quwestions as to wghat Obama wants from BP, a free piggy bank?

The biggest worry comes frfom Obamas insistance that BOP honours commitments to pay all damages. This is dangerous. BP has shown willingness to pay despite what Obama is crowing with 'nickle and diming'. BP must however be wise. Compensation is an emotive issue damages do not necessarily reflect actual loss but loss plus inconveneinece and inconveneince can far outweight any loss. You have to add to that a sizable percentage as legal fees. No comapny in the world can afford to offer blank cheque compensation to several gulf states, the monetary compensation will be inflated. What BP will need to do is say yes wwe will hopnour our commitments and pay people what hey have lost, but stick very closely to the limited liability rules.
Thus they can say, yoiu lost $100K in revenue but we have already paid out the $75M maximum we can pay in economic damages thus we will generously refund you the $100K, but will not pay you the $200k you are asking fro for distress or the $300K your lawyer wants to claim in fees. If when there are complaints BP will have to stick to its plan of making volunteer payments while sticking to its liability rights when it comes to ancillary costs.

To fail to do this will clearly bankrupt the company. Lawsuits like this can reach crazy money all too easily, and this is especially risky due to the US governments blatant hostility and unfair dealings with BP. If every Gulf coast resident asks for claims for non monetary comopensation plus lawyers fees there is no way BP can survive. The only other option is to default.

Class actions are already in the works....

http://www.bpclassactionlawsuits.com/

Its quite possible that BP will default of their own accord. The losses are that significant.

BP made $4.4 billion in Q4 of 2009. They won't go bankrupt.

The company announced that underlying replacement cost profit for the fourth quarter of 2009, before non-operating items and fair value accounting effects, was $4.4 billion – an increase of 70 per cent on the same period in 2008.

http://www.bp.com/extendedgenericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7059471

Haliburton and Trans have some liability in this. BP was the one calling the shots, but who knew what and when hasn't been established. A disaster of this magnitude is not the fault of one person or event, it's multiple failures by many people.

2009 is not 2010

Net profit is not equivalent to expendable capital, and clean-up costs are not subject to disaster related financial caps.

Boycott? Really?

It's not like they did it on purpose.