The Lockerbie bomber release backed by Obama

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Justice, Jul 26, 2010.

  1. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Uh oh...

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...questions-over-the-lockerbie-bombers-release/

    In some memorandums leaked by Wikileaks, an online publication instrumental in exposing many failures of the Bush and Obama administration in the War on Terror, some new information has emerged. Mostly, it's about coverups of civilian casualties caused by the US, France, Poland, and Britain. That much is not really new.

    What is new are memos suggesting the Obama White House, who appeared angered and indignant over the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was secretly telling the Scottish government if they were going to release him, to just set him free and not have him jailed in Libya.

    The Sunday Times revealed,

    Freeing the bomber. Over 270 people died in the Lockerbie bombing, most of them Americans. If this does not turn into a huge story, I do not know what scandal the media will ever hold against Obama, especially something as big as the White House pretending to do all it can to keep the Lockerbie bomber in jail, while at the same time telling Scotland to just go ahead and let him go.

    In the meantime, many of the left leaning media sources are pointing out the suspected BP - Lockerbie scandal. An investigation into this scandal has been going on for quite some time. Regardless, one would have to wonder what the public would feel, if a company that has acted on bad faith like BP did something else scandalous, or if the White House has shown, and not for the first time, it gives one face to the public, but behind the scenes works to the exact opposite of their original premise.

    Megrahi, who was released on compassionate grounds that he was dying of terminal testicular caner and had only months to live, seems to have made a full recovery and is living happily in Libya right now.

    I'm just wondering if any heads, Obama included, will roll for this.
     
  2. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,485
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +231 / 0 / -0
    Is it the same wikileaks source that talks about Afghanistan?
    Because that is in my oppinion way more important than a past bombing. We can still change tactics in Afghanistan and try to save what is left of that huge failure.
    The bombing is over, Afghanistan is very actual and still going on. We should talk about that and what's said in there and not about weather Obama is really pro or contra releasing a bomber.

    (Apart from this thread, I have not heard of that bomber-release. Our news are currently filled with something else.)
     
  3. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Old bombing, new scandal.

    The American President, one who claims to be tough and forthright, especially when it comes to the defense of America against Islamic terrorism, cannot be seen as a double talking schemer telling the public how outraged he is, while his actions prove he is not particularly outraged and is working to the exact opposite of his public stance.

    The Afghanistan leaks are very important, perhaps most importantly showing how Pakistan has been actively propping up Taliban support in order to keep the US in paying over a billion dollars a year in military aid to Pakistan, while at the same time that nation harbors terrorists and likely Osama Bin laden. Big story, but military and geopolitical minutia don't grab headlines the way a Presidential scandal does. The Lockerbie bombing may be old, but a story like this certainly shakes what has already become and increasingly loose grasp on public faith by the Obama administration.
     
  4. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,485
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +231 / 0 / -0
    Well you can add something to your list, because the news over here say that the wikileaks documents paint a pretty black picture of the war in Afghanistan. Not so grey as the US governments wants to make us believe it is.
    They are holding back information to influence the public oppinion in favor of the war, when really most would be against it when seeing how much really goes wrong over there. That would increase the pressure on the politicians to get the heck out of there (and not lose voters), which the weapon lobby would greatly dislike.
    If that is no scandal, then I really don't know.
     
  5. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    Megrahi - Lockerbie - BP

    Large companies make representations to Government over issues that have a bearing on trade. Every major company in the world, in every country of the world lobbies their respective government, BP is no different ~ shock horror! BP has/had no influence over government policy on PTA with Libya nor, more specifically, Megrahi's release by the devolved parliament in Scotland. Whilst I can understand the anti-BP witch hunt after GoM, this allegation is pretty ridiculous.

    The decision and jurisdiction on Megrahi's conviction and release was British/Scottish. Elected ministers are responsible to the UK/Scottish electorate, not the US senate. Again I can understand, given the loss of US life, why there is an interest but the UK does not need US approval for it's decisions although as is clearly shown they were kept up to speed with developments as they were being made. There remains question marks over Megrahi's guilt in any case with many prominent lawyers believing that there had been a miscarriage of justice.

    Obama impresses me less and less every time I see him.



    .
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
  6. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Don't get your hopes up

    US: This one stinks. And we don't want to burn our fingers on this one. Schotland has a relatively independant reputation. Better let them take the blame.

    How is it possible that, from the 90k+ documents, you managed to pick one from the Obama legislation? This is 2004 until the start of 2010. Please do try to be creative and blame former presidents for mistakes made in the past as well? Cause this smells a lot like whining....
     
  7. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Read the first sentence of my post, there's a name in front of Obama. It was Bush. Failures of the Bush administration as well.

    HOWEVER, he is no longer President. The Commander in Chief does not make decisions in detail on war strategies. Whatever collateral damage in civilian deaths occur, it is the heads of the military, like David Petraeus and (formerly) General McChrystal are in charge. Afghanistan is indeed Obama's war now as he ran his campaign on concluding the war there and has committed more troops. The more shocking news isn't civilian casualty cover ups, but the Pakistani's involvement with the Taliban.

    Regardless, the idea that the USA simply lets Scotland do whatever they want with the Lockerbie bomber is something they KNEW the public would never go for. Obama put out a public stink about it, but in the meantime was telling Scotland we supported their decision to release him. This is not an impeachable offense. I wish it were.

    187 Americans died in the bombing, and essentially Obama put out the vibe that he doesn't really care. it happened decades ago, no big deal. This kind of public betrayal is the thing which only reinforces the idea Obama does far too much to coddle Islamic nations while spiting his own.
     
  8. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,485
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +231 / 0 / -0
    I'm gonna go through your comment piece by piece, Justice, and I hope that my English will be sufficient.

    a) Afghanistan is certainly not Obamas war. It's Bush's war and a stupid one at that. Obama is trying to save what is left and to clean up after the Bush-administration. I really don't think you could blame him on that if he fails, because it's not his fault it came to it after all.

    b) who cares about the Pakistan secret service? As if we could do anything about that. It's not about us finding as much dirt on other nations sticks as possible, but staying 'clean' and fair and in charge of the situation for ourselves. You can't justify a - let's say_ a genocide by saying "well the germans did it as well in 1939-1945". And you can't justify Guantanamo by saying "The taliban torture our folks as well".
    That is NOT what the US is supposed to be fighting for. There are certain rules for wars. Like: Do not kill civilians if possible.
    So if there are more civilian "casualties" than the public knew then it is the bigger scandal. Because civilians casualties in such a high number 7 years after the war started is telling us that it is still going terribly wrong. It takes the justification away.
    Isn't the US there to supposedly help the people, 'improving' their morals, free them of a dictator that killed them randomly? Killing civilians certainly doesn't look like the US is about to achieve their goals.

    c) Well Scotland/the UK are an independent nation. They can do what they deem right with their prisoners. And if you don't want that you can march into Lybia, catch the guy and imprison him on US territory. The bombing was 1988, that's 22 years back, it's not that Obama doesn't care, it's just that it is not actual politics anymore. Seriously it's time to move on, to actual politics, like current wars that lie in US hands.

    d) Obama totally coddles Islamic nations. Only because he doesn't send troops over to bomb their cities and kill their civilians it doesn't mean he accepts everything they do. Maybe you've heard of a concept of solving arguments through dialogue. Possibly, he tries to communicate with them to reach common ground... something like that could lift the tension between the western world and muslim nations. That in return would lower the risk of ANOTHER war on your hands.
    And seriously, personally I like Obamas tactics better than Bush's. War is not a solution and modern war is not something you can simply 'win'. You may have seen that in Vietnam.
     
  9. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Wrong. It is Obama's War. Obama ran his Presidential campaign saying that was the right war, Iraq was the wrong war, and that he was going to complete the mission. He even dedicated thousands of extra troops to Afghanistan, increasing our presence and our mission in Afghanistan. Then he won the Nobel Peace price.


    You clearly don't get the Pakistani situation. We're essentially funding a government who turns around, supports the Taliban, and continues the fight against America in order to continue pressing them for money. The very people we are paying to help keep things in line are working directly against our interests. You kind of trail off into genocides which has nothing to do with the present situation in Afghanistan.

    Maybe we should, and bomb the hell out of Libya along the way. We'll throw in a few civilian casualties for the fun of it.

    Scotland could have turned Megrahi over to the US for sentencing. It doesn't matter that it happened 22 years ago, that doesn't matter in the slightest. The issue is not that this happened in 88, or that Scotland released him, but that Obama pretended to be outraged about it which secretly telling the Scots to release him to Libya. Two faced Obama is perfectly alright with you?

    It's too bad Obama's coddling includes Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. It's too bad he's still sending predator drones into Pakistan, which are still killing people, including civilians. He's continuing the fight in Afghanistan with tens of thousands of additional soldiers sent there.

    No matter what the Bush era mistakes were, Obama has acted like anything but a statesman. Almost immediately after being elected, he went on a worldwide apology tour. His very first interview with any news media after being elected was on Al Aribiya. Even if you want Obama to mend fences, no one wanted to see him prostrate himself to foreign dignitaries. In fact, he had two scandals about that early on as he was bowing to foreign monarchs, something no other US President has done.

    So, not his war, but he's doing a better job? That basically gives him an out no matter what. I mean, a 50/50 chance is pretty good odds, but you've just given him 100/100 chance you'll like whatever he does.

    I'm not attacking Obama because he's Obama. I'm attacking him because what he's doing is causing problems. I didn't jump on him for the Afghanistan numbers, because regardless of the casualty cover ups, Afghanistan and Iraq have been wars waged wearing white gloves. Compared to other major wars in years past, civilian casualties are far, far lower. The media is given unprecedented access to a war front they've never covered so closely.

    However, a cover up is still a cover up. Those responsible should be court martialed, and jailed.

    Want something positive on Obama before I go. Okay. Despite the conservative outrage that Obama forced BP to put up a 20 billion dollar escrow account that would going to handle clean up costs and compensation for gulf residents in their lost business, I fully supported that. Why drag BP into a long, drawn out court battle if they agreed voluntarily to pay for everything?
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
  10. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,485
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +231 / 0 / -0
    a) Obama sent in more troops to clean up and get out of there as far as I got it. As in bringing the country back to being somewhat stable (and pro western) and then getting out. Sending in more troops to make peace, not to keep on fighting a war. So the war will remain Bush's doing, the getting out will be Obamas job.

    b) the genocides were because I lacked another example.
    And if it would be a fact that they use your money to support the Taliban (which the US btw did very directly with a certain Osama bin Laden in case anyone didn't know) I think that the US government would've stopped giving Pakistan money some time ago. Because those wikileaks documents have been secret to the public but not to the government.

    c) Obama is a politician. As if anyone ever expected him to tell the truth to the public. C'mon, how naive are we? He is, as said, a politician. And politicians have their tactics to look goody goody to the public while agreeing to necessary actions- that the public (as a generally impulsive and easy to influence sheepherd) does not like.

    d) You're contradicitng yourself there. You said the military heads have to be made responsible for everything that happens in a war, because the president has no direct influence. So the drones into Pakistan don't go onto his account.
    Seriously: A big part of the world DID want to hear some apologies. There's a rest of the world, outside of the US, that does not care too much about the ego of the US. Those nations have egos as well and those were 'hurt' by the past actions of the United States. Obama knows that and if you guys don't wanna stand alone in 20 years, a few apologies were necessary. And they don't hurt too much, really.
    Bowing to foreign monarchs doesn't hurt either. It's a sign of respect. Showing that the US does respect other nations and other nations leaders. What's wrong with that?

    (e) I'm saying that this war is not his fault and as long as he does everything to bring peace back that is in his power and that seems to be the right action, I'm okay with that. Wether it works is another matter. And I seriously doubt that Afghanistan will become stable in the next 15 years.
    Getting in there without a plan of how to get out again was wrong.
    Obama took the lead AFTER everything went wrong. So I won't judge him by that lost war, but by the rest of his actions.

    What do you mean by "Afghanistan and Iraq have been wars waged wearing white gloves"
    The reason behing the Afghanistan war was still somewhat... there. A dictator, bin Laden, 9/11 etc.
    The reasons for Iraq turned out to be non-existant and it looks like you guys are there for the oil.
    So the gloves are far from being white I'd say. They look red and black to me. (plus no war is ever fought with white gloves)
     
  11. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Now you're contradicting yourself. If getting out is Obama's job, then he's taken responsibility. We are withdrawing from Iraq (which, ironically, is the more stable nation because of the troop surge which Obama was against), but if someone takes responsibility over a problem, it is then THEIR problem.

    Interestingly enough, Obama recently blamed Bush again for the economic situation in the US, but now a majority of citizens feel he is milking that premise too much. He's been president for two years and his economic stimulus bill did nothing to create jobs, we've lost another 3 million. When you accept responsibility for a problem, prepare to be judged on how well you fix it.

    We did not fund a nation in giving the taliban money and military arms, we were helping them during an invasion, you know Russia, a country which had no cause to invade? Afterwards they decided to form a centralized dictatorship which gave harbor to people like Osama Bin laden (not an Afghani) who then used their resources to plot 9/11.

    For years under President Musharraf the US has pretended Pakistan was an ally. Why? Well, they are involved in a rather tenuous arms race with India are they not? Two warring nations with nuclear arms is certainly not the best way to promote stability in that region. In order to pacify Pakistan, and to get them to agree to help out with Afghan insurgents (which they're not) we've been giving them billions in military aid. These documents show there has been virtually no accounting of this money, and that in many cases it is being directly funneled to the Taliban who, in recent years, have re-emerged far stronger than they have been for half a decade.

    First up, it was not necessary to release Megrahi in any circumstances. No reason whatsoever. Anyone who thinks this guy could not have been treated in Scotland for testicular cancer, but found the right treatment in LIBYA has their own head up their ass. This guy killed 270 people. He should have rotted in jail for the rest of his life. If he was in pain due to cancer, well too bad. Fit punishment for a mass murderer.

    Second, you've now justified the very thing which politicians are most loathed for. If you don't care that politicians lie, backstab, and cheat to achieve their goals, then you are part of the apathetic problem which has allowed politicians world wide to do whatever they want without concern for the public feeling. After all, we serve them, they don't serve us. Wait... something's backwards here....

    No, not contradicting myself. Predator drone operation, in Pakistan, a country we're not at war with, needs to be ran by our NSA and the President himself before approval. The actual battlefield tactics employed in Iraq and Afghanistan are a completely different matter as the president has no control over day to day operations.

    Second, the US President doesn't bow to foreign dignitaries. Bowing to a monarch is a sign of subservience. It's not like bowing in Japan, where the bowing is mutual, when Obama did it, he was the only one bowing, which, in this case the Saudi king, just extended his hand.

    No, not a sign of respect. A head nod, or a handshake would have been the appropriate response. In fact, the easiest way to tell the White House knew they screwed up is that they DENIED Obama bowed to anyone before the tape got released. The entire idea of the US is that we do not honor people for being of royal blood, we got rid of that idea almost two and a half centuries ago. We may warmly greet dignitaries, but do not bow to them. We are not subjects of them.

    Obama didn't say it was the wrong war, but he was going to clean it up. He said it was the right war. That invalidates much of your argument. Giving him an out no matter what he does sounds more like Obama worship than anything else.

    Really... how much oil are we getting from Iraq? Have any statistics, facts, anything to back that up? Are we now fueling cars on Iraqi oil? Seems to have done a lot of good, we still have gas prices as high as we did 6 years ago.

    We had all the reason in the world to invade Afghanistan. We had no good reason to invade Iraq. I have not supported the Iraq war since 2004, but I'll be damned if I agree with the no Blood for Oil crowd.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
  12. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    Why would the British government have handed Megrahi to the US for sentencing? The crime was in UK airspace, the US has no jurisdiction in the matter. Would the US have handed over 9/11 terrorists to the UK because 67 British citizens were killed? Did the UK interfere in the US handling of 9/11? Pretending the US knew nothing about it was wrong but the decision was not Obama or Bush's to make.

    It was terminal prostrate cancer. If he hadn't been released on compassionate grounds he would have appealed against the original sentence which many felt was unsafe. If that had happened, assuming he'd survived the appeal process, he would probably have been released and compensated.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
  13. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,485
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +231 / 0 / -0
    The getting out part is Obamas responsibility. Yes. But the war and the mess can not be blamed on him, that is NOT his responsibility.
    The problem was caused by Bush, Obama has to deal with it. So it's a responsibility for which he can't be blamed and judged.
    It's as if I would bomb your house and then leave. You'd have to build it up again and I'd judge you on how fast you were going. It's your responsibility to build it again and your problem as well, because I'm obviously not doing it. But am I morally allowed to judge you on the how and how fast you're reabuilding it? I don't think so, no.

    I have no clue if Bush can be blamed for that as well, might or might not be.
    His economic stimulus might have saved another 5 million jobs so that instead of losing 8 million jobs you only lost 3 million. We'll never know, will we?
    This crisis is not only happening in the US, jobs were lost in EVERY country, no matter who sits in teh government or what they did. So don't blame it on Obama either when you don't want to blame it on Bush.

    You helped them against the Russians not because of compassions for the civilians but because you didn't want Russia to gain influence in that area. So you supported a group of people that were ready to kill and let violence speak. Then you wondered why they didn't stop doing that when in your oppinion the problem was solved.
    And as far as I'm informed, the US trained bin Laden and gave him weapons.
    You supported dangerous folks who were under noones control. Don't be so suprised when they develop their own interests that might go against your interests.
    (It's like letting a dangerous dog off the leash: He might probably bite the dude in front first. But he can easily turn around and bite the guy who had the leash.)


    Well I guess then it's time to stop the money flow towards Pakistan. Is it not?


    I guess that the scottish tax payers were tired of paying for his comfort. Because there are laws over here (probably in the US as well) that prohibit the state to let any man in prison suffer. So the Scots probably would've had to pay for his treatments. Maybe they didn't want to.

    So you wanna impeach Obama for lieing? Seriously? And the next president who'll be there will be any better? Yeah right. And you'll keep impeaching your presidents for how long? Until an honest soul gets up there? When will that be? An honest soul would sound something like that:
    a) you guys spend too much, it's not working
    b) we have to raise taxes immediatly
    c) our weapon industry is our biggest and best industry. So keep buying and shooting those weapons folks.
    d) Most of our population is too fat. The younger generation will die even before their parents. so you're all gonna go on a diet-
    e) etc
    As if anyone would vote someone saying all of that stuff AND meaning it. Well, The weapon industry probably would.
    Politicians are influenced by a HUGE staff, have a HUGE number of problems at once and are 'threatened' by different but strong lobbies. Them telling us lies is not as much of a problem for me as them making the wrong decisions.

    How about it was a mistake on Obamas side then. I don't know why he bowed when the other dude just extended the hand. But it's hilarious to actually accuse him for that. As if that would matter. The rest of the world didn't even notice. Well at least we did not.

    It's not about honoring blue blood, it's about honoring heads of nations. Our president doesn't share a dinner with the Queen of England because she's royal, but because she represents the British nation, as well as our president represents germany. Both have only so much influence on the actual politics.

    Actually it doesn't invalidate my argument. He said that the reasons for the war were correct (with which I can partly agree) but he still wants to get out of there because that is WHY the war was started. Get in- make peace- get out.
    My argument still holds IMO. I don't see where it's invalid.


    I have no clue how much oil you're getting from Iraq. I just know that you guys pay wayyyyy less for your gas than we have to.
    It's just more likely that when Iraq is an 'independent' nation again with a pro western attitude it'll sell you oil instead of selling the bad guys oil.
    That reason for the Iraq war still stands -the reason because of weapons of mass destruction were all proven to be invalid.


    and why would that be?
     
  14. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Prosecuting people for crimes committed on US citizens abroad is not unheard of. The Obama administration wanted to give detainees in Gitmo trials here in the US, people responsible for suicide bombings that killed American soldiers and Afghan civilians.

    In the case of the Lockerbie bombing, the plane had taken off en route to the US. I don't know every detail of airspace jurisdiction, but the rules on jurisdiction greatly differ to continental flights than they do with other crimes. Megrahi was a Libyan intelligence officer. His role in the matter is far different than a random citizen or terrorist committing the crime, it could be considered an act of war, same as was 9/11 as the planning was supported by the Taliban. His prosecution would be along the lines of prosecuting a terrorist for killing Americans abroad.


    Then we let the process play out. let him appeal, until he gets out of prison, or he dies. Besides, he seems to be quite healthy and alive for someone who only have 3 or 4 months to live.

    In the coming weeks and months we may learn more if he was released to secure deals with BP. With all the scandal involving the BP oil spill, with not just Bush administration officials but Obama administration officials being bribed by BP, I would not be surprised if the entire reason for the cover up is to hide even further culpability in the decision to release Megrahi on economic grounds.
     
  15. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    BP had no contact with the Scottish devolved government, that has already been made clear by the Scottish First Minister. It was the Scottish parliament that released Magrehi. They have also made it clear they would not have released Magrehi under the PTA but did so on medical / compassionate grounds. This is one of the reason that both British & Scottish ministers will not participate in the Senate circus, another being they don't have to justify their decision to the US. BP's lobbying to the UK government, which handles all Foreign Affairs, over trade opportunities and hurdles is pretty normal practice for any major.

    Whilst on the subject of BP, and the US's insatiable witch hunt... half of the BP's board are American, the other half British so if there's any conspiracy & 'bribery' going on in the US, it's by Americans, to Americans. Similarly GoM was operated by BP's American operation, run primarily by Americans, from America with American contractors and equipment providers. BP employs twice as many Americans as British globally.


    .
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
    • Like Like x 1
  16. curunir's bane

    curunir's bane Kwisatch Haderach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    baton rouge
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0
    Editbad poste
     
  17. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    A couple of interesting articles on this subject from the Scottish press....


    http://news.scotsman.com/lockerbie/Alex-Salmond-attacks-senator-for.6452994.jp


    http://news.scotsman.com/lockerbie/Cardinal-in-attack-on-US.6463060.jp

     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2010
  18. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    Old thread, new related article...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-11434142