View Full Version : Cameron classes us as a junior partner
tiger woods
20-Jul-10, 18:10
Just listening to the news and couldn't believe my ears. David Cameron states that he knows UK's place in the 'special relationship' that of a 'junior partner.'
In what way does this muppet regard us as junior to the USA.
He's also side stepping the issue with the Lockerbie bomber saying that it was a 'Scottish decision.'
The slimyness has already started, we were warned prior to the election about the Tories. They'll never change, sleaze and slime in another guise.
In what way does this muppet regard us as junior to the USA.
We are junior in just about everything arent we?
Surely you arent suggesting that we are superior than America?
:eek:
tiger woods
20-Jul-10, 18:17
We are junior in just about everything arent we?
Surely you arent suggesting that we are superior than America?
:eek:
Smaller than, not junior to, surely.
Must admit that comes as no surprise to me
Seeing as how this once great country of ours is just about finished, I would think we are junior to most countries at the moment....We will be classed as being in the third world very soon.
:(
George Brims
20-Jul-10, 18:24
Cameron is just following the traditions of his party, as practiced by the Thatcher lot. However the sad thing is that for all the servile toadying to the US that M Thatcher did, she didn't do much in fact, other than let Reagan set off his bombers from British soil to off Ghadaffi, while Tony Bliar got in bed with Dubya in the pointless war on Iraq.
tiger woods
20-Jul-10, 18:30
We're in a bad way if we are junior to the USA.
Cameron's just a crawling so and so. He's trying to soften up Obama before Obama lays into him about BP and Mehgrahi.
USA says "jump" and we say "how high?"
It has been like that for a long time now
She should know our place and be happy with our lot.
The Drunken Duck
20-Jul-10, 19:05
We're in a bad way if we are junior to the USA.
Cameron's just a crawling so and so. He's trying to soften up Obama before Obama lays into him about BP and Mehgrahi.
Well lets face it if we are deemed to be junior to the USA its only because of the socialist pillocks who allowed them to drag us into their war because Blair was shoulder deep in George W's intestines. A war on terrorism Blair dragged us into while allowing convicted IRA terrorists out of jail here. If the yanks think we are their lapdogs its only because they have got that impression over the last 13 years. Not the last 13 weeks.
As for Obama having a go at BP and Megarahi. As for BP, it was an American rig in American waters crewed by Americans. A fact he overlooks with ease. And it hasnt been called British Petroleum for years. Plus over 40% of the shareholders are American. As for Megrahi, Scottish decision that one(that I didnt agree with) but at the end of the day Obama .. do one. You aren't President of the UK and your opinions arent worth diddly. Just like they werent valid when you sent that grinning oxygen thief Clinton to Argentina saying she was ready to help with soveriegnty issues over the Falklands. Poke off basically, none of your buisness.
Let Obama lay into us, doesnt worry me. The guy is an utter pratt with a bit of a grudge against us Brits. He thinks we tortured his Granddad so he has a bit of a lob on for sticking it to us. Cameron should tell him to ram it right up his ricker, if Obama cares to look around he is the President of a virtually bankrupt nation who dont have many friends left in the world.
I always had a lot of time for America, and for Americans. And as much as it pains me to say it its time to cut that tie, pull out of Afghan and let them get on with it. The so called special relationship is no more, if it ever really existed. Look at Suez and TSR2 for a kickoff. To my mind the future is in Europe, never thought I would say that to be honest but there you go.
John Little
20-Jul-10, 19:08
It was Lord Keynes who put the facts of life to the British Cabinet in September 1945- 'We shall have to be a satellite of the United States for the foreseeable future- in Foreign Policy at least....' He was merely recognising that economically we could not compete with the USA and that for the same reason we could not match their foreign policy.
There was an attempt by the Labour Government to use our Empire as a 'third force' in the world but it quickly became obvious that the post war world was bi-polar. Any doubts about that were dispelled at Suez.
I'm not a Tory but it seems to me that Cameron is merely stating the obvious.
As to Megrahi - it was a scottish decision to make. Cameron (good scottish name) should know that. The scottish judiciary operates independently from that of England and Wales. The trial took place under scottish law.
I am assuming that there will be a pay-off in terms of commercial advantages to be gained from the release, and that is why they did it. Certainly the waving of the Saltire in Libya after the release shows that Scotland has a lot of goodwill banked up there.
I would think that Scotland's politicians would do well to making sure that Scotland gets its fair share of any deals on offer. Blood money is a concept recognised in Arab culture.....
Let is be clear that I am still very much jury out on Cameron, but I ain't going to criticise him on suspicion or just for its own sake.
So far he's done nothing like declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan- which a Labour man did. It seems to me that he's behaving as a realist - but time will tell.
John Little
20-Jul-10, 19:12
Hah! That was a mouthful DD! Good to see you back!
When the world was pink eh!
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.
The nations not so blest as thee
Must, in their turn, to tyrants fall,
While thou shalt flourish great and free:
The dread and envy of them all.
The Drunken Duck
20-Jul-10, 22:06
Hah! That was a mouthful DD! Good to see you back!
Cheers mate .. just had a mouthful today off a septic on this issue so I was feeling a bit sore about it, She took the sterotypical line that we are just a second rate nation and they won World War 1 and 2 .. blah blah blah.
Sent her this link and she spat the dummy big style .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE
John Little
20-Jul-10, 22:14
I just saw the News at 10 with Cameron blaming the Scottish executive for a bad decision on the release of Megrahi.
That's quite an elegant solution to the problem of US Politicians trying to bash BP over a deal to get concessions in Libya, and it allows Obama to ease back on BP to please Cameron.
Cameron loses nothing by blaming the SNP.
Scotland has no independent Foreign Policy so there can be no comeback from angry senators wishing to do Britain down.
Yet it was a decision by the Scottish judiciary and Executive which gains them kudos and pututative advantage in Libya.
And by emphasising the special relationship between Britain and the US, any possibility of calls for nasty measures against us in the US will fail.
It's just words and leaves the SNP with egg on their faces, which neither Cameron nor Obama care a dam about.
Simple, unscrupulous, and very clever.
John Little
20-Jul-10, 22:23
Cheers mate .. just had a mouthful today off a septic on this issue so I was feeling a bit sore about it, She took the sterotypical line that we are just a second rate nation and they won World War 1 and 2 .. blah blah blah.
Sent her this link and she spat the dummy big style .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE
Hm - she's wrong.
We won WW1. No question of that- the British campaign of summer 1918 outfought and defeated the Germans- and then we wiped it from our history because we were uncomfortable with how close we came to revolution in 1919.
WW2 was won by an alliance of which we were a major part - and right up to D Day the British empire had more troops in combat than the US.
Now we are not a 'second class nation.'
We are a middle ranking world power - rather like a mature gentleman who was once heavyweight champion of the world, but now should realise that his strength, fitness and wind are not what they were and he should only involve in scraps for the right reasons and occasionally.
On that- I'm orf to bed! Goodnight all!
Look beyond Cameron to the rest of his team- in particular the person holding the Foreign Office remit.
Dave himself is a relatively innocuous front man for a team that have their own particular agenda.
however both Cameron and Obama- quite rightly- are blaming all of their current problems on their predecessors- Blair and Bush being the people who started the 'war on terror'. And even Blair's own party leadership candidates are all furiously passing the buck- to a man they declare themselves opposed to that particular decision.
personally I'd not have let the Lockerbie bomber out under any conditions- but a compromise might have been for him to have been trasnferred to a Libyan prison- why did no-one suggest that one,do you think?
USA says "jump" and we say "how high?"
It has been like that for a long time now
Hit the nail on the head thats the whole problem
Its amazing how the Americans forget about the Bhopal disaster - a few details below
The Bhopal disaster or Bhopal Gas Tragedy is the world's worst industrial catastrophe. It occurred on the night of December 2-3, 1984 at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) plant in Bhopal,India. At that time, UCIL was the Indian subsidiary of the US company Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), which is now a subsidiary of Dow Chemical Company. Around midnight on December 2–3, 1984, there was a leak of Methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas and other substances from the plant, resulting in the exposure of over 500,000 people. Estimates vary on the death toll. The official immediate death toll was 2,259 and the government of Madhya Pradesh has confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release.
The American in charge of the plant was whisked home and the yanks have denied any responsibility.
What about Exon Valdiz, the case for compensation has never been settled or the evironment properly assesed after that one, which was an ecological disaster caused by an american company to american territory.
As always it seems that poilticians in The USA will try and blame any one but themselves and are often worse informed about matters than the average teenager here. Were the licenses granted for drilling not issued in said country, was it not a domestic rig crewed mostly by their own people?
If I hire a car and it breaks down, I go for the company that supplied it, not the manufacturer.
The one good thing that has come out of all this is that America has finally realised they are going to have to look for alternative methods of powering their economy but I will not be holdling my breathe because unless the powers to be can see a fist full of dollars on the end of it, they will once again sweep the matter under the carpet or try and find another scapegoat to blame for their woes.
George Brims
21-Jul-10, 01:29
What about Exon Valdiz, the case for compensation has never been settled or the evironment properly assesed after that one, which was an ecological disaster caused by an american company to american territory.
Not quite LIZZ! The company that owns the Alaska Pipeline, the Alyeska consortium, is a subsidiary of BP. Here's the story, as related by investigative reporter Greg Palast.
Slick Operator: The BP I've known too well
by Greg Palast for Truthout.org
May 5, 2010
I've seen this movie before. In 1989, I was a fraud investigator hired to dig into the cause of the Exxon Valdez disaster. Despite Exxon's name on that boat, I found the party most to blame for the destruction was ... British Petroleum. That's important to know, because the way BP caused devastation in Alaska is exactly the way BP is now sliming the entire Gulf Coast.
Tankers run aground, wells blow out, pipes burst. It shouldn't happen but it does. And when it does, the name of the game is containment. Both in Alaska, when the Exxon Valdez grounded, and in the Gulf over a week ago, when the Deepwater Horizon platform blew, it was British Petroleum that was charged with carrying out the Oil Spill Response Plans ("OSRP") which the company itself drafted and filed with the government.
What's so insane, when I look over that sickening slick moving toward the Delta, is that containing spilled oil is really quite simple and easy. And from my investigation, BP has figured out a very low cost way to prepare for this task: BP lies. BP prevaricates, BP fabricates and BP obfuscates.
That's because responding to a spill may be easy and simple, but not at all cheap. And BP is cheap. Deadly cheap.
To contain a spill, the main thing you need is a lot of rubber, long skirts of it called "boom." Quickly surround a spill or leak or burst, then pump it out into skimmers or disperse it, sink it or burn it. Simple.
But there's one thing about the rubber skirts: you've got to have lots of it at the ready, with crews on standby in helicopters and on containment barges ready to roll. They have to be in place round the clock, all the time, just like a fire department; even when all is operating A-OK. Because rapid response is the key. In Alaska, that was BP's job, as principal owner of the pipeline consortium Alyeska. It is, as well, BP's job in the Gulf, as principal lessee of the deepwater oil concession.
Before the Exxon Valdez grounding, BP's Alyeska group claimed it had these full-time oil spill response crews. Alyeska had hired Alaskan Natives, trained them to drop from helicopters into the freezing water and set boom in case of emergency. Alyeska also certified in writing that a containment barge with equipment was within five hours sailing of any point in the Prince William Sound. Alyeska also told the state and federal government it had plenty of boom and equipment cached on Bligh Island.
But it was all a lie. On that March night in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez hit Bligh Reef in the Prince William Sound, the BP group had, in fact, not a lick of boom there. And Alyeska had fired the Natives who had manned the full-time response teams, replacing them with phantom crews, lists of untrained employees with no idea how to control a spill. And that containment barge at the ready was, in fact, laid up in a drydock in Cordova, locked under ice, 12 hours away.
As a result, the oil from the Exxon Valdez, which could have and should have been contained around the ship, spread out in a sludge tide that wrecked 1,200 miles of shoreline.
And here we go again. Valdez goes Cajun.
BP's CEO Tony Hayward reportedly asked, "What the hell did we do to deserve this?"
It's what you didn't do, Mr. Hayward. Where was BP's containment barge and response crew? Why was the containment boom laid so damn late, too late and too little? Why is it that the US Navy is hauling in 12 miles of rubber boom and fielding seven skimmers, instead of BP?
Last year, CEO Hayward boasted that, despite increased oil production in exotic deep waters, he had cut BP's costs by an extra one billion dollars a year. Now we know how he did it.
As chance would have it, I was meeting last week with Louisiana lawyer Daniel Becnel Jr. when word came in of the platform explosion. Daniel represents oil workers on those platforms; now he'll represent their bereaved families. The Coast Guard called him. They had found the emergency evacuation capsule floating in the sea and were afraid to open it and disturb the cooked bodies.
I wonder if BP painted the capsule green, like they paint their gas stations.
Becnel, yesterday by phone from his office from the town of Reserve, LA, said the spill response crews were told they weren't needed because the company had already sealed the well. Like everything else from BP mouthpieces, it was a lie.
In the end, this is bigger than BP and its policy of cheaping-out and skiving the rules. This is about the anti-regulatory mania which has infected the American body politic. While the "tea baggers" are simply its extreme expression, US politicians of all stripes love to attack "the little bureaucrat with the fat rule book." It began with Ronald Reagan and was promoted, most vociferously, by Bill Clinton and the head of Clinton's de-regulation committee, one Al Gore.
Americans want government off our backs ... that is, until a folding crib crushes the skull of our baby; Toyota accelerators speed us to our death; banks blow our savings on gambling sprees; and crude oil smothers the Mississippi.
Then, suddenly, it's, "where was hell was the Government!" Why didn't the government do something to stop it?
The answer is, because government took you at your word they should get out of the way of business, that business could be trusted to police itself. It was only last month that BP, lobbying for new deepwater drilling, testified to Congress that additional equipment and inspection wasn't needed.
You should meet some of these little bureaucrats with the fat rulebooks. Like Dan Lawn, the inspector from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation who warned and warned and warned, before the Exxon Valdez grounding, that BP and Alyeska were courting disaster in their arrogant disregard of the rulebook. In 2006, I printed his latest warnings about BP's culture of negligence.
When the choice is between Dan Lawn's rule book and a bag of tea, Dan's my man.
***
This just in: Becnel tells me that one of the platform workers has informed him that the BP well was apparently deeper than the 18,000 feet depth reported. BP failed to communicate that additional depth to Halliburton crews who therefore poured in too small a cement cap for the additional pressure caused by the extra depth. So it blew.
Why didn't Halliburton check? "Gross negligence on everyone's part," says Becnel. Negligence driven by penny-pinching bottom-line squeezing. BP says its worker is lying. Someone's lying here: the man on the platform - or the company that has practiced prevarication from Alaska to Louisiana?
Greg Palast investigated the Exxon Valdez disaster for the Chucagh Native villages of Alaska's Prince William Sound. An expert on corporate regulation, Palast, now a journalist, authored the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.
Cheers mate .. just had a mouthful today off a septic on this issue so I was feeling a bit sore about it, She took the sterotypical line that we are just a second rate nation and they won World War 1 and 2 .. blah blah blah.
Sent her this link and she spat the dummy big style .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE
Thats hilarious, but I fear a similar reaction if the survey was conducted on the streets of London or Glasgow :eek:
annthracks
21-Jul-10, 10:03
If I hire a car and it breaks down, I go for the company that supplied it, not the manufacturer.
Perhaps a better/closer analogy would be if you lease a car long term, "thrash" it wherever you go and never check the oil, water, brakes etc then it crashes/blows up... it's YOUR FAULT FOR NOT OPERATING IT CORRECTLY OR SAFELY not the company you leased it from.
John Little
21-Jul-10, 10:55
"US politicians of all stripes love to attack "the little bureaucrat with the fat rule book." It began with Ronald Reagan and was promoted, most vociferously, by Bill Clinton and the head of Clinton's de-regulation committee, one Al Gore."
George - this is the only bit of your post I disagree with. The roots go back far further than that- and keep recurring. If you look at how the Republicans deregulated after WW1 you see the roots of the Great Depression.
But I'd like your opinion here because you live there.
For me the problem is the underlying ideology of the whole US society which needs re-appraisal. Even in the debates between Federalists and non Federalists in the 1780s it is clear that the majority of them were Whigs and Whiggery is their ideology.
Small government, minimum deregulation, minimum controls - rugged individualism. Anti-co-operativism, anti-socialism and the right for the individual to be utterly selfish, even at the expense of the greater community.
It was even the root cause of their Civil war. And because of it, at some future date they may well have another war of secession if the US economy declines....
They do not sell it like that of course, and the American Whig party per se died in the 1830s I believe, but the Philosophy is alive and kicking and it underpins everything they do.
The Drunken Duck
21-Jul-10, 13:23
George your talking crap. Your now backdating events to fully blame BP for what was an American disaster, just like the one in the Gulf of Mexico. You, like your beloved Obama cant seem to get it through your thick skulls that BP is basically an American Company. 45% of it is owned by Americans. Next they will be linking Bhopal back to BP somerhow. Wasnt that when the Americans yanked their guy out of the country and denied responsibility ?? .. they should look at their own actions in the past, compare it with BP's actions in fronting up and taking responsibility and then shut the hell up before they look even more arrogant and dense.
If you knew anything about how a rig operates you would know that BP dont physically drill wells. They contracted Transocean to do so, an American company. They are resposnible for the actual drilling. Safely. That last word is quite important, they have a duty to stop the job if they have any concerns. This incident happened on a rig crewed by Americans as foreign nationals are not allowed to work in the Gulf of Mexico. And using a BOP that American regulators passed as fit for use but would not be allowed to be used in the UK sector. If, like you say, BP were unaware of the true depth of the well than that is the fault of the drill crew for not telling them !!, and on every rig I have ever been on the Drill Crew and the Cementers, of whatever company, talk to each other. They dont sit around waiting to be told as they keep up to speed on the job, or at least they should. The Americans are engaged in a huge ass covering exercise to divert the blame away from them in this case. I am an experienced and qualified platform Radio Operator and the evacuation of that rig was a disgrace, the TRANSOCEAN procedures went to rat poo yet not a murmur from the American anuthorities about it despite those failings leading to deaths. Transocean are keeping mum and letting BP take the heat while it is being protected by American politicians whose support Obama needs while he gets stuck into BP. BP are by no means blameless here, but they are not fully responsible either.
Greg Pallast from so called "Truthout" is talking out of his backside .. there are no "Emergency Evacuation Capsules" on rigs. They are called lifeboats. And it would be severly doubtful that the bodies inside would be "cooked" due to the extremely high flameproof qualities of them. They are desigend to resist exactly the fire that it did. Asphyxiated maybe but not physically burnt or barbecued. Having dealt with the US Coast Guard while a Distress Beacon Op in the UK RCC what this "Becnel" says about the US Coast Guard is rubbish. They see cooked, dismembered and dead bodies all the time. Nature of the beast. And having done SAR myself you do not call up a Lawyer and tell him you have found bodies !!, there are proceedures for that kind of thing. Never once in any incident I dealt with, even some where injuries to the victim resulted in criminal charges, did anyone call a lawyer .. utter crap. So we have a journo who cant do his research being fed drivel by a lawyer. Its like the blind leading the mentallly challenged.
porshiepoo
21-Jul-10, 13:37
Just listening to the news and couldn't believe my ears. David Cameron states that he knows UK's place in the 'special relationship' that of a 'junior partner.'
In what way does this muppet regard us as junior to the USA.
He's also side stepping the issue with the Lockerbie bomber saying that it was a 'Scottish decision.'
The slimyness has already started, we were warned prior to the election about the Tories. They'll never change, sleaze and slime in another guise.
But it WAS a scottish decision. Not only that but there were many many people who voiced their opinion that it should be a Scottish decision and that the rest of the country should butt out.
There's no point Scotland now trying to pass the buck and attempt to make out it was anything else.
At the time of the decision being made about the bomber, Cameron et al did actually voice their opinion that he should not ever be released but Scotland made its own decision - which turned out to be the wrong one as many of us knew it would be.
Why should Cameron or anyone else for that matter who was against his release take the flak for it now or be expected to make any comment other than those they have made?
Many Scottish people are hoping for independence one day so Scotland may as well get used to dealing with the decisions and mistakes they make now.
tiger woods
21-Jul-10, 14:17
But it WAS a scottish decision. Not only that but there were many many people who voiced their opinion that it should be a Scottish decision and that the rest of the country should butt out.
There's no point Scotland now trying to pass the buck and attempt to make out it was anything else.
At the time of the decision being made about the bomber, Cameron et al did actually voice their opinion that he should not ever be released but Scotland made its own decision - which turned out to be the wrong one as many of us knew it would be.
Why should Cameron or anyone else for that matter who was against his release take the flak for it now or be expected to make any comment other than those they have made?
Many Scottish people are hoping for independence one day so Scotland may as well get used to dealing with the decisions and mistakes they make now.
I know it was a Scottish decision to free him, I was merely pointing out how slimy Cameron was by blaming everyone else prior to his meeting with Obama. Rather than 'protect' Scotland as part of the UK, of which he is Prime minister, he chose to use the 'wasn't me, it was them' routine, usually reserved for cowards and children.
His own good name is more important to him than the good name of the Scottish people.
tiger woods
21-Jul-10, 15:10
Watching Sky news and there is growing concern about Cameron's
'unfortunate choice of words' giving people the impression we are 'subserviant' to the USA.
They spoke about Tony Blair being George W. Bush's lap poodle, what will they tag Cameron with now?
Shabbychic
21-Jul-10, 16:00
But it WAS a scottish decision. Not only that but there were many many people who voiced their opinion that it should be a Scottish decision and that the rest of the country should butt out.
There's no point Scotland now trying to pass the buck and attempt to make out it was anything else.
At the time of the decision being made about the bomber, Cameron et al did actually voice their opinion that he should not ever be released but Scotland made its own decision - which turned out to be the wrong one as many of us knew it would be.
Why should Cameron or anyone else for that matter who was against his release take the flak for it now or be expected to make any comment other than those they have made?
Many Scottish people are hoping for independence one day so Scotland may as well get used to dealing with the decisions and mistakes they make now.
Where does it state Scotland is trying to pass the buck about this decision? First I've heard of it.
How has it turned out to be the wrong decision? I, and many others, supported it then, and still support it now. Yes, the man is still alive, but it was the right decision based on the evidence presented at the time. It was always a dodgy conviction anyway, but many don't care about that. All they want is someone to vent their spleen on, and even a scapegoat is good enough for them.
Compassion far outweighs vengeance any day.
porshiepoo
21-Jul-10, 18:46
I know it was a Scottish decision to free him, I was merely pointing out how slimy Cameron was by blaming everyone else prior to his meeting with Obama. Rather than 'protect' Scotland as part of the UK, of which he is Prime minister, he chose to use the 'wasn't me, it was them' routine, usually reserved for cowards and children.
His own good name is more important to him than the good name of the Scottish people.
Why the heck should he say anything other than the truth? Just because that truth happens to be different to the opinion of Scottish ministers?
He shouldn't have to take the flak for a decision that he didn't make nor agreed with just because he is now Prime Minister.
Westminster had no influence in that decision so should not now be expected to defend the decision.
Shabbychic: How has it turned out to be the wrong decision? I, and many others, supported it then, and still support it now. Yes, the man is still alive, but it was the right decision based on the evidence presented at the time. It was always a dodgy conviction anyway, but many don't care about that. All they want is someone to vent their spleen on, and even a scapegoat is good enough for them.
Compassion far outweighs vengeance any day. Tell that to the families of those killed or maimed, I'm sure they'd much appreciate spoutings of compassion.
How could the decision to free a mass murderer be anything other than wrong??? Don't hide behind the 'dodgy conviction' scenario. He was convicted and should have served his sentence.
Does that mean every murderer we now house at her majesties pleasure should also be released??
You spout about compassion but what about justice? There is no justice now for the dead and their families. Megrahi is free in his home country and treated like a hero.
tiger woods
21-Jul-10, 19:58
Why the heck should he say anything other than the truth? Just because that truth happens to be different to the opinion of Scottish ministers?
He shouldn't have to take the flak for a decision that he didn't make nor agreed with just because he is now Prime Minister.
Westminster had no influence in that decision so should not now be expected to defend the decision.
Tell that to the families of those killed or maimed, I'm sure they'd much appreciate spoutings of compassion.
How could the decision to free a mass murderer be anything other than wrong??? Don't hide behind the 'dodgy conviction' scenario. He was convicted and should have served his sentence.
Does that mean every murderer we now house at her majesties pleasure should also be released??
You spout about compassion but what about justice? There is no justice now for the dead and their families. Megrahi is free in his home country and treated like a hero.
He could have simply referred Obama to Kenny MacAskill for answers. Offering his opinion prior to meeting Obama was a cowardly act and not very protective of Scotland. By the way, he is right to say that Megrahi should have died in a Scottish prison, but the timing of it reeks of cowering to Obama. I know he said the same thing last year but even he can't expect Americans to remember that.
Tell that to the families of those killed or maimed, I'm sure they'd much appreciate spoutings of compassion.
.
Let's have a wee look at the real cause of the 'Lockerbie' incident - Oh, that will be when the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner on a scheduled flight in 1988, over Iranian airspace, killing all 290 civilian passengers on board, including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children. Oh and what happened to the officer in charge - honoured in America for his prompt action...
And I too am getting a bit cheesed off with how there is purposeful confusion about the difference between the release of Megrahi and the Prisoner Transfer Agreement that Westminster was keen to squeeze through.
And as for the senators - just a load of hogwash.
Everyone expected so much from Obama- young, an orator, and he captured the imagination of the USA. However, now he has to live up to expectations and he does so by coming down hard on the US whipping boy- the UK. When Blair threw his lot in with Bush he did so initially at the request of Clinton, as a restraint- but then bought into Bush' ideology . In doing so he lost the faith of the UK voters who had applauded his closeness to Clinton.
Cameron, another shiny new politician without a past has done much the same with Obama. Expect much more sucking up to come...
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.