Featured post

Yesterdays news is still today's truth!

They only tell us what they want us to know.....An Anti Austerity Demo gathered outside the BBC headquarters in London the other weekend, ...





Sunday, 20 June 2010

Oils not well with Britain and Americas special relationship.

So if Obama is comparing the Gulf of Mexico oil spill to 9/11 what’s his response been? The previous administration launched a ‘war on terror’ he’s launched an attack on BP, which like the war on terror has gone beyond what is acceptable; considering that BP admitted liability and said that they would pay for the clean up costs a few weeks ago. I’m not here to defend BP and their actions or inactions. Their part in what happened is indefensible, but I’ve heard no mention by Obama of the US’s involvement in the whole fuck up, let’s see…. where was the rig? Off the American coast! where did the workers on the rig come from? America, who stood to benefit from the oil production? America. Then there’s the Halliburton connection, who are doing quite well out of the war on terror and seem to be blameless in the eyes of Obama in anything to do with what’s happened in The Gulf Of Mexico, I’m not so sure, something stinks if you ask me. The offshore drilling deals were struck with the Bush administration, no doubt George Dubya was securing his financial future, cos lets face it he was never gonna make as much as Tony Blair on the public speaking circuit. Scratch beneath the surface and you’ll find it’s just more Bullshit Politics. The war on terror defined the Bush administration, will the Gulf Oil spill define the Obama one? Over here in Britain, the LibConCo need to start thinking about their response to Obamas attitude, cos while the protestors on Capital Hill want BP’s assets frozen there’s a whole lotta people who are possibly gonna see their pension plan payouts become as worthless as the leaking oil. As a nation we are seeing the bodies of soldiers coming home in boxes from the other Gulf where our troops are supporting the Americans in not only the war on terror,but in the search for new mineral riches and resources, I wonder who could possibly get contracts for future mining operations in Afghanistan?


MJG196 said...

Regarding the mineral deposits in the mountains of Afghanistan (that your news clipping mentions), that is actually very old news. Knowledge of those deposits has been known of since the late 60s. Why it is new news now, I have no idea.

As for the oil rig, it is a very symbiotic relationship. BP owns it, but the US also gets a lot out of it, too. Sure, the US benefits from it. We all do.

It's ridiculous for the average American to boycott BP, because most of those gas stations in the US are franchise owned/operated. More than likely it's a local dude who runs the station and all the boycott would do is make him suffer. Not some BP exec.

IF it was BP's negligence in maintaining the rig, well...that's another story we won't know for quite a while...

Nuzz Prowlin' Wolf said...

Cheers for yer time MJ. I think that the article was a slight dig, excuse the pun, by the British media at America’s pursuit of the natural elements from Gold to Oil and whatever else. It’s also a reminder that perhaps there are other reasons as to why US and UK forces are in Afghanistan. Like you rightly said news of the riches is nothing new. It’s always the “small people” on both sides of the Atlantic and across the world that suffer for the big peoples greed; from the soldiers and fishermen to the pension plan holders and the consumer. The way to break their monopoly is not to play the game, or to play it by our rules. Stay Free, Stay Strong and Keep On Keeping On!