USA Vs. UK: The Battle Of The H2O [Pic]

Submitted by: fancylad 7 years ago in

So it all comes down to water then?
There are 143 comments:
Female 136
Well That`s Just stupid; It was an American run rig.
0
Reply
Male 18
I am right in saying that its an American part that failed?
0
Reply
Female 914
I know it`s wrong, but lmaorotf
0
Reply
Male 6,693
Check mate.
0
Reply
Male 999
i say nuke
0
Reply
Male 121
All hail Joseph Bazalgette, saviour of stinky london.
0
Reply
Male 302
Nothing like a bit of revenge.
0
Reply
Male 338
"thats cool because we`re all coming to london to pee in the thames"

I think technically speaking that would make it cleaner
0
Reply
Male 110
Luniz82: `Not everyone in America is from Britain so even without Britain there would be an America.`

...and it would be called the United States of Mexico - Or New France.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
LazyMe484:

I was being a bit flippant with that comment. Sewerage was a growing issue before then, particularly after someone in London (I forget who) gathered compelling evidence that (i) it was contaminating drinking water and (ii) that contamination was causing cholera (which was common in London in those days).

But getting enough political will to spend the huge amount of money required was slow going until a period of particularly foul stench (presumably down to weather conditions) pretty much shut down parliament. It was pretty much "Let`s pass this law right now so we can leave before we puke or die".

Ah, here it is. The Great Stink of 1858.

A summary from a paper of the time:

[quote]Gentility of speech is at an end - it stinks; and whoso once inhales the stink can never forget it and can count himself lucky if he lives to remember it.[/quote]

The pollution was so bad that some people did die from suffocation.
0
Reply
Male 877
i dont understand the acromony between America and UK...after all yer conducting invasions together.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] The stench from the thames was so bad that it prevented parliament from functioning.[/quote]
LOL! You`ve made my day, again.

I`m not going to place the "blame" on BP, simply because I`m uninformed.
0
Reply
Male 587
Not everyone in America is from Britain so even without Britain there would be an America.
0
Reply
Male 121
Very constructive, vodooshaman. Such wit is rare.

Anyhow. I`m a brit and I thought it was sort of funny :)
0
Reply
Male 1,540
It appears that Britain has won this battle... But the war`s not over!

P.S. I went to a Blue Keld bottling company and pooped in their water so HAH!
0
Reply
Male 450
@buscomany who cares fu(k the UK
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]thats cool because we`re all coming to london to pee in the thames[/quote]

Been done already, by millions of Londoners. It`s probably cleaner now, but it used to be a really dirty river.

That`s what started a proper sewerage system in London, going back a while. The stench from the thames was so bad that it prevented parliament from functioning.
0
Reply
Male 106
You guys realize that this is a joke, right? It`s not an actual accusation that it`s the fault of the British. I guess I can see how y`all might be offended, though, seeing as how no one ever makes jokes about Americans using generalizations and stereotypes.
0
Reply
Male 914
i blame richard gere
0
Reply
Male 39,927
everyone knows the spill was caused by Cuban terrorists. If the water get`s thick enough they can walk to Florida
0
Reply
Male 422
You know the guy operating the rig was actually AMERICAN right(still from BP)? and didnt order a helicopter to evacuate, even though all the data sugguested the rig was about to blow. Nice fail.
0
Reply
Female 199
actually it should say "2247: Your move America."
0
Reply
Female 179
1. BP stands for BP. End of.
2. BP`s staff consists of roughly 39% British and 59% Americans.
3. If there were no Brits, there would be no Americans.

Suck our collective British left nuts, America.

39% and 59% doesn`t makes sense unless there`s 2% other, and the US is made of immigrants from basically everywhere in the world and the original natives, so your post leaves me very confused.
0
Reply
Female 149
To the people who say `whats the big deal - who cares whether the firm is british or american?`:

It is a big deal. I`m sure I don`t speak alone when I say that us English are fed up of Americans unjustly blaming things on us, and taking the credit for things that we do.
Americans - you were not the saviour of the Jews, nor did you win the War single handedly as some Yanks like to imply. Now I know I`m making generalisations and most Americans aren`t this deluded, but there are genuinely people out there who think these things.

Just take the film U-571. One of our proudest moments in that War was our seizing of the Enigma machines and cracking the code...but in the film, of course, it was an American naval ship that did it all. It`s an absolute kick in the teeth and I get fed up of it.
0
Reply
Male 2,591
thats cool because we`re all coming to london to pee in the thames
0
Reply
Male 258
@Luniz82: Are you a big fan of Hollywood movies?
0
Reply
Male 91
1. BP stands for BP. End of.
2. BP`s staff consists of roughly 39% British and 59% Americans.
3. If there were no Brits, there would be no Americans.

Suck our collective British left nuts, America.
0
Reply
Male 199
BP doesn`t stand for anything anymore, the company`s official name is "BP".
0
Reply
Male 151
check mate i call that
0
Reply
Male 587
I suggest goin to BP`s website for all of those people who like to guess and pretend they know what they are talking about.
0
Reply
Male 587
I personally Blame any British person I see. IF they had not been born the world would be a better place.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Except that it was. Read the Wikipedia. They adopted "Beyond petroleum" as their tag line but BP still stands for British Petroleum.[/quote]

Thank you for a perfect example of why it`s a bad idea to treat Wikipedia as an unquestionable source.

BP does not stand for British Petroleum unless you`re posting through a warp in the spacetime continuum and it`s 1998 for you.
0
Reply
Male 14
@Little-One: Your partially correct. Owned by GERMAN company- ARAL (see my post below). Google them :-)
0
Reply
Female 3
BP isn`t even a British company any more, its owned by an American company, and they only started using the name British Petroleum again for political reasons.
0
Reply
Male 119
"I don`t blame the Japanese when my PS3 crashes."
I blame the japanese for everything.
0
Reply
Male 5,189
Who cares what nation/race/whatever did it. Every person who drives a car might as well be part of this problem. I was gonna go on for a rant but Ima go hit the pipe. Lol.
0
Reply
Male 2,893
Alright, i guess we have to bring out the acid.
0
Reply
Male 2,551
That`s wrong. There was 237 years between 1773 and 2010, so yhey shouldn`t have to do it by 2011, they should have until 2247.
0
Reply
Male 639
I don`t care what it stands for. It used to be British Petroleum but who cares. BP need to clean up the mess they created.

However, why is everyone blaming the British? A British based company has nothing to do with the British public. I don`t blame the Japanese when my PS3 crashes. I don`t blame America when AOL isn`t working. I don`t blame Britain when BP causes an oil spill.
0
Reply
Male 14
Just to add to this.

Technically BP is German? They are owned by ARAL AG. Headquarters are moving to Bochum within the next 12months.

And lets be honest Europe`s so screwed at this point that Germany is bailing everyone out. So no ones in EU wants to tell *BP* of.

p.s. I`m not German.
0
Reply
Male 1,226
"Except that it isn`t."

Except that it was. Read the Wikipedia. They adopted "Beyond petroleum" as their tag line but BP still stands for British Petroleum.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]wow, my bad I was always told British, I guess it`s Beyond. Still it`s a British based company with headquarters in London[/quote]

BP no longer stands for anything. Not British, not beyond, nothing.

Nearly all of the businesses and people involved in this deepwater rig are American. I wouldn`t be surprised if there wasn`t a single Briton there at all.

See davymid`s post on Saturday, June 19, 2010 7:39:04 PM for details.
0
Reply
Male 1,357
yep, "the british", no assumptions, stereotypes or brash generalisations made there at all. Although it is just one big secret and we`ve all been planning it for years. But DONT TELL THE YANKS! Shuuushhhh.
0
Reply
Male 101
wow, my bad I was always told British, I guess it`s Beyond. Still it`s a British based company with headquarters in London
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The company is BP which is British Petroleum[/quote]

Except that it isn`t.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
It`s worth noting that the colonists were objecting to being taxed by the mother country on the basis that it was in conflict with their self-government - a clear indication that they were already largely independent of it. Too large, too far away, too full of people who had no ties to Britain.

I think that if Britain had decided the American colonies were to be kept (which would probably have required precognition of how successful they were going to become), by now Britain would be a fairly minor part of an American-dominated British empire, i.e. that the seat of government, or at least the seat of economics, would have by now moved to America. That would have been ironic.

And no, I don`t think the colonists were wrong to formally declare indepence when they were already pretty much independent. I do think that the USA nationalist skew of history is wrong.

0
Reply
Male 1,231
Wow. Whoever made this needs to think about their argument before they create stuff like this.
Now, aside from the fact that 40% of BPs shares are owned by Americans, and that the `B` in BP doesn`t stand for `British`, you gotta look at the country which demands all of this oil and forces BP to experiment with unreliable drilling techniques. BP should and are carrying the can for this, but the British public should have no connection-we have very little to do with BP.
0
Reply
Male 101
ruthless. The company is BP which is British Petroleum
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]you made it sound like your monarch did not really care about the colonies and let them go without much of a fight. this is also untrue, he sent out many forces in addition to all the british soliers and backers already in the colonies. but like i said, the only reason we won is because the french sent out just as many forces and we also had homefield advantage.[/quote]

Britain was short of money (hence the Stamp Act et alia), fighting numerous other wars (especially, as usual, with France) and didn`t consider the American colonies (which were neither profitable nor prestigous) enough of a priority. The colonies could have been held, but it would have taken a major campaign and continued presence of a lot of money and military force that could more profitably be used for the empire elsewhere. The colonists were going to try to invade Britain - France might have done if enough of the British forces had been sent to America.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]angilion, but you do put early US in the wrong. the tax on tea was not low in the united states. the tax on everything was very high.[/quote]

No, it wasn`t. The objection that some of the colonists had was to being taxed at all, not to the amount of the tax. Essentially, the taxes were to pay for wars in other parts of the British empire and against France. i.e. wouldn`t benefit the American colonies. Britain didn`t collect them anyway and repealed them all bar one which was kept purely to establish that Britain had the right to tax its colonies. Which the colonies objected to because they they weren`t represented in UK parliament. The slogan was *no* taxation without representation, not *less* taxation without representation.

The American colonies were already de facto semi-independent due to distance, hence the opposition to paying tax to be used in other parts of the empire. Full indepence might have come by default anyway, revolution or not.
0
Reply
Female 3,001
wait wait wait wait, how was this the brits fault? i had no idea we were being blamed for American oil being spilled by an American company...
0
Reply
Male 116
@ Davymid:
It`s not just the US and UK in Afghanistan. It`s actually only Iraq where most other nations refused to invade.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Also, playing the blame game out, no-one globally really held America accountable when the global economy went cluster-f*ck thanks to the American sub-prime market and the greed of it`s under-regulated banks. Britain didn`t hold America to blame, we just got on with it and tried our damndest to fix the problem.

Please, American colleagues, sympathise when we Brits get somewhat incensed at the anti-British sentiment coming from America over this oil spill. We stood shoulder-to-shoulder with you in Iraq and Afghanistan, when the rest of the world was against you. And continue to do so.
0
Reply
Male 5,194
Next move: With the technology we used to cause the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami (ask anybody) we dump the entire British isles into the North Atlantic!
0
Reply
Male 220
@ ZNaught
Ummmm, wtf? That`s one hell of a leap of illogic... I think you`ll see you`re the one who just lost all credibility with that comment, not that you had any to begin with...
0
Reply
Male 12,138
ZNaught, World Trade Center? What are you on about?

I`m just pointing out that the anti-British rhetoric that is seeping out from certain corners of the American media and government is a bit silly. There are calls for boycotts, seizing of assets etc by the American Government. I was just pointing out that some of the parties involved have ties (albeit historically) directly TO the American Government, that`s all. But you are right, it is a tenuous point, and not entirely relevant.

Agree with TNoussis though, there should be less of a blame-game going on and more intellectual energy focussed on how to fix it.
0
Reply
Female 2,352
That`s f*cked but I laughed.

So our move should be to lop all those adorable oil covered animals back at them. .
0
Reply
Male 63
What the hell does it matter if it was the brits or the americans who are responsible? The brits being at fault or americans doesn`t change anything about the massive enviromental disaster that`s STILL ongoing.

Also vfr4, don`t let any more on, especially not about the giant trap in a week. You know, ee-g-ay wenty-t-ay?
0
Reply
Male 1,351
Wow I never thought of that. Gave me a chuckle.
0
Reply
Male 351
@davymid: And of course because Cheney once ran Halliburton there is a clear connection their right? I mean, he wasn`t content with blowing up the world trade center so he needed another attack, right?????

Adding that comment ruins your reputability.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Yes yes, I know it`s a joke and I don`t want to piss on anyone`s cornflakes. But there ARE some Americans who blame the British for this thing. Just wanted to point out that:

*Only 8 of the 126 people working on the Deepwater Horizon were BP employees.
*BP only held a 65% share in the well, Anadarko held 25%. Anadarko are a Texas based oil company.
*The rig itself was owned and operated by an American firm, Transocean. They have been questioned with regards to possible understaffing. On the night of the disaster there were just 18 employees on the rig, lower than any other retained record. None of these were engineers, electricians, subsea supervisors or mechanics.
*The failed `blow out preventer` was made by another American firm - Cameron.
*The cement work carried out which was supposed to `seal` the well was carried out by yet another American firm, Halliburton (once run by a Mr. Cheney).

Just sayin`.
0
Reply
Male 185
All the while Canada sits silently with its clean water supply waiting America out.
0
Reply
Female 250
Were going to disconnect all the sewage lines.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
This is just the dumbest assertion (or joke for that matter) I`ve ever seen.

(That`s right I`m back)
0
Reply
Male 7,833
oh, and we were such pricks afterward by pretty much turning our backs on the french. in fact we dont really have much of a happy history after the revolution until the world wars. after that the good is few and far between. we are just lucky enough to have the few people who make our country so great for the many. (im obviously not talking about our government)
0
Reply
Male 7,833
angilion, but you do put early US in the wrong. the tax on tea was not low in the united states. the tax on everything was very high. also, you made it sound like your monarch did not really care about the colonies and let them go without much of a fight. this is also untrue, he sent out many forces in addition to all the british soliers and backers already in the colonies. but like i said, the only reason we won is because the french sent out just as many forces and we also had homefield advantage.
0
Reply
Male 36
Tenty`s right of course. We really wouldn`t care if you got the french too.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]angilion, the problem is we learned the same events from two different countries who want to appear to be in the right.[/quote]

Actually, no. I didn`t learn that the British empire was in the right, nor did I say so in my posts.
0
Reply
Male 48
Everyone knows that the spill was caused by Michael Sheen.
0
Reply
Male 424
Even if America did somehow poison the English Channel we wouldn`t care if it also pisses off the French.
0
Reply
Male 362
British or American, we`re all retarded humans
0
Reply
Male 7,833
angilion, the problem is we learned the same events from two different countries who want to appear to be in the right. both sides believe in "facts" that support them as the superior land. although, you did have a point about france, if it werent for their forces, we would have been screwed.
0
Reply
Male 4
thats what you get for messing with the uk bitches
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]that tea was not for your use. it was to be sold to us. so we werent getting between you and your tea we were getting between us and your ridiculous taxes.
lern2history[/quote]

Way to go making yourself look silly! (i) the tax on tea in America was low (ii) many of the colonists were buying smuggled tea on which no tax was paid anyway and (iii) the Boston Tea Party was carried out by smugglers as a result of the tax on tea being *removed* (which, of course, made smuggling unprofitable).

Learn some history. Or continue to look silly. Your choice.
0
Reply
Male 698
hmmm?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]lol @ all the angry Brits. They`re still mad about that war where we kicked their asses with our rag-tag militia and became our own country and then became more powerful than them. :D[/quote]

Maybe you should read a history book rather than a nationalism book.

France and a militia who didn`t even represent most of the colonists defeated part of the force that Britain could project months away in a place it didn`t really care about, in colonies that were already semi-independent anyway because of the sheer irrelevance of British rule there.

The Boston Tea Party was done by smugglers when Britain *stopped* the luxury tax on tea. It was akin to an organised crime gang smashing bottles of legal booze when Prohibition was ended. It certainly wasn`t some patriotic gesture against oppression (which didn`t exist).
0
Reply
Male 103
Antagonizer: Them is fightin` words! We shall launch scores of our obese citizens to sink your frigates.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The French have never won anything outside of a bike race, or a surrender contest.[/quote]

France has an extremely bloody history, full of wars. Most of which they won. They even managed, eventually, to force England to withdraw from its land in mainland Europe. Granted, it took almost 500 years, but that was against medieval England, an organised, wealthy and militarily very powerful country.

Other than WW2, I can`t think of an example of France surrendering. Even that was due to politians making the bizarre mistake of ignoring the fact that the Franco-German border doesn`t extend to the sea, rather than the French military (many of whom retreated to Britain and continued fighting from there). Then there was the French resistance, especially the Maquis, and the 400,000 French soldiers amongst the Allies when they retook France. All that in an example (maybe the only example) of France surrendering.
0
Reply
Male 508
Lord Nelson and his armada of Frigates is gonna kick your colonial butts America!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Regarding "is it British or not". It is indeed a British company but only by name as most of its employees are American (2/3`s).[/quote]

It isn`t British even in name. They dropped that years ago because it had become irrelevant. It`s a transnational. BP isn`t initials any more - the company name is just BP.
0
Reply
Male 69
@number696969
Yes we can clarify!

Anyway, I can`t wait to see our next move against Britain.
0
Reply
Male 1,678
Didn`t the yanks let the British founded company drill using a korean drill rig? So maybe its all these countries faults and not just one single nation?
0
Reply
Male 833
How the comments turn into a nationalism battle between Brits and Americans? are you guys serious? its a humor post. quit taking yourself so seriously.
0
Reply
Male 558
I lol`d
0
Reply
Male 258
Can we clarify that slightly further:

<Insert Oil Company> consists of people from all over the world.
<Insert Oil Company> is a corporation whose main goal is profits.
To make more profits, <Insert Oil Company> took shortcuts on preventing spills.
The people at <Insert Oil Company> who allowed those shortcuts are responsible, and nobody else.
Stop arguing about what country is better blah blah blah holy crap grow the hell up people.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Regarding "is it British or not". It is indeed a British company but only by name as most of its employees are American (2/3`s).

Also if America didn`t want BP to deep sea drill (which was always warned could be risky) then they should`ve done it themselves with their own companies.
0
Reply
Male 258
Chocolate sprinkles or cinnamon?
0
Reply
Male 69
Here, let me resolve everything.
BP consists of people from all over the world.
BP is a corporation whose main goal is profits.
To make more profits, BP took shortcuts on preventing spills.
The people at BP who allowed those shortcuts are responsible, and nobody else.
Stop arguing about what country is better blah blah blah holy crap grow the hell up people.
0
Reply
Male 206
I have a kitten named Sprinkles.
0
Reply
Male 587
Why is that the only Valid one, cause you made it? Little full of your self for the little bit of information you decided to share. I am saying it is a British company because it was started and ran by the British for the Majority of the companies life and is still being ran by one to date. Just cause other nationalities are also working there they still work for the BRITISH guy. Maybe you should read the comment more then once before you post it cause my point was made clearly and you have yet to Debunk it so I guess your point was Badly made.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
@auburnjunky

If it weren`t for the French supplimenting the Americans with troops, equipment and, most of all, training, not to mention the Franco-Spanish raiding British shipping then the outcome would`ve been different. Also the British didn`t much care about America, there was no support for the war and many sided with the Americans.
0
Reply
Female 839
and the way everyone is raking up old history is simply clutching at straws, the simple fact is that BP is not a British company, many of the shareholders are american. That`s the only point that is valid in this arguement.
0
Reply
Female 839
luniz82: i wasn`t saying that because the board is multi-national that means the company isn`t British, i was refering to the point you made about the chairman being British. Are you saying that because the chairman is British that means the company is? Weak point badly made.
0
Reply
Male 258
You still seem to need us to help get your oil out of the Gulf of Mexico though.....
Maybe you should have insisted one of your own totally home owned American oil companies drill instead rather than us incompetent foreign johnnys?
0
Reply
Male 587
Well from your logic making sense is unimportant, and spelling is optional.
0
Reply
Male 587
How did you used to own our asses? Was america not owned by more then one country? Not everyone in America came from Britain. And Britain did not own much of America for long, before we decided we were much better off without you.
0
Reply
Male 39,927
I love history...or at least the American version

yeah, the Colonies won the war of independance. But in war of 1812 the brits kicked our butts. We only one 1 battle ... New Orleans
0
Reply
Male 258
Form your logic then, we`re still responsible for what America do? We USED to own your arses, so we still get the blame?
0
Reply
Male 587
Countries are full of MULTI National people they are still considered American or British or whatever country they are from regardless of their background. To say a company is not British cause some non British people work there is ridiculous.
0
Reply
Male 587
It doesn`t matter the face of the company is still British the company is still passing is self off as a British company. It was started by the British and was corrupted by the British.
0
Reply
Female 839
@ luniz82: the board members are a multi-national group of people
0
Reply
Female 839
smithno13: BP is a huge ENORMOUS corporation. You really think that the majority shares are held by British people? Or perhaps just one man owns the company, one very British tweed wearing, fox hunting, tea drinking cad?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@buisdh:

The French have never won anything outside of a bike race, or a surrender contest.
0
Reply
Female 839
@ akijade: I couldn`t g.a.f about past events, they are irrelevant to a lot of the points being made here. You, madam, are a shining example of American ignorance in all it`s star spangled glory :D
0
Reply
Male 258
Ahhh-ha!!! So we can blame those bloody Persians too. I knew there was a reason I hated cats.
0
Reply
Male 69
@Wiggle1111 Anybody who tries to say that an entire country is dumb is "oh so heart breakingly, mind numbingly, gut wrenchingly dumb."
0
Reply
Male 587
Doesn`t matter if it was sold it is still British Petroleum. Is the CEO not British? I would say it is still very much a British Company no matter who the stock holders are it is still ran by the brits and the name hasn`t changed even if the company did change hands. So yeah. Doesn`t get anymore BRITISH then that.
0
Reply
Male 252
@wiggle
Founded 1909 (as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company)
1954 (as the British Petroleum Company)
1998 (merger of British Petroleum and Amoco)
Only in 2001 did they become Beyond Petroleum. Doesnt mean they arent british.
0
Reply
Male 258
Don`t worry though, future-president-Costner is going to fix it for us. Promise.
0
Reply
Male 258
@luniz82. It USED to be called British Petroleum when it was owened by the British. They kept the `BP` part when it became internationally owned because it was such a recognised brand. BP is about as British as Boston. You ex-colonials got rich and bought us out of pretty much everything, so stand up and take some blame. :)
0
Reply
Male 23
it makes a change oil invading america instead of america invading somewhere for its oil.
0
Reply
Male 587
Yeah wiggle we are dumb but turns out you have NO idea what you are talking about so what does that make you?
0
Reply
Male 587
People should try looking into stuff before they post. ON THE BP website they have the history of BP including what the BP stands for British Petroleum So maybe look into stuff before calling someone a tool or someone such as my self will make you look like a retard on the forums.http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=2010163&contentId=2014441
0
Reply
Male 6,737
lol @ all the angry Brits. They`re still mad about that war where we kicked their asses with our rag-tag militia and became our own country and then became more powerful than them. :D

As a Brit, I`m hardly angry. But I do feel the need to call you out on your history. You might want to check your facts before claiming to kick anyones ass, it was the French that won the war for you not George Washington. Not like your text books will tell you that though ;)
0
Reply
Male 78
@akijade:

Yup you won, and you became more powerful.

But you`re dumb, oh so heart breakingly, mind numbingly, gut wrenchingly dumb.
0
Reply
Male 78
Carl-Henric Svanberg is the current Chairman of BP. He is Swedish NOT British.
(BP)stands for Beyond Petroleum NOT British Petroleum.

It didn`t drat up until we STOPPED owning it.



0
Reply
Female 1,006
lol @ all the angry Brits. They`re still mad about that war where we kicked their asses with our rag-tag militia and became our own country and then became more powerful than them. :D
0
Reply
Male 383
@domisgood
That just sounded... wrong.
0
Reply
Male 1,442
I point all Boston Tea Party related stuff to this link.

Also no country owns BP, it is owned by shareholders from all over the world. However... I stand by gorgack2000 and domisgood`s comments if you insist on shoving it off on us.
0
Reply
Male 4,867
fcuk with our tea, and we`ll fcuk you back, harder and messier
0
Reply
Male 15
Well this fails.
0
Reply
Male 1,135
I say we should nuke the water.
0
Reply
Male 7
@ ultimakewl
read this carefully tool. bp does NOT stand for british petroleum. The only reason americans think that is the case is because your noble leader said so. so hmm enjoy your seafood... erm wait...enjoy your cows.
0
Reply
Female 7
@Trema

"Except that the Exxon Valdez one was the worst in US history."

Uh no...

"On June 15, the government raised its estimate of the oil flow rate yet again, declaring that as much as 60,000 barrels of oil could be flowing into the Gulf every day.

A barrel of oil holds 42 gallons, so an amount equivalent to the Exxon Valdez disaster could be flowing into the Gulf of Mexico every four days."

And it`s been going for almost 2 months now. I think there is a little more then Exxon Valdez cranked out...
0
Reply
Male 447
Trema you`re a bit off on that one there.
0
Reply
Male 833
@rattastegood
yea because its obamas fault BP exploited loopholes just to cut costs and then drated up because of it.
0
Reply
Male 833
@gorgack2000
that tea was not for your use. it was to be sold to us. so we werent getting between you and your tea we were getting between us and your ridiculous taxes.
lern2history
0
Reply
Male 155
well if you support free market Capitalism and allow companies to do what they want then you can expect this
0
Reply
Male 7
Hilarious. Just because your president can`t be bothered to read ownership titles don`t come blaming us damn yankees, oh whoops did i do bad, can he read?
0
Reply
Male 3,431
Kerryfairy, Your link is busted.

And all that aside, don`t take the issue to heart. I assure you the vast majority of Americans don`t view this as a U.K vs. U.S. issue.

It`s a matter of corporate irresponsibility, something that American Businesses have mastered in their own right, hence the state of our economy.

The Oil Spill is, in many ways, a very visceral example of why we, as a global society, have the issues we do. Greed and an elitist few who have far more authority than any individual has a right to.
0
Reply
Male 4,680
That`ll teach you yanks to get in between us and tea! You should know better, the stuff is like heroine to us.
0
Reply
Male 511
"Yes because tea is totally on the same level as the largest offshore oil spill in US history."

Except that the Exxon Valdez one was the worst in US history.
0
Reply
Male 5,314
that`s pretty lame
0
Reply
Male 338
Lets play "spot who doesn`t get humour"
0
Reply
Female 839
BP is not owned soley by the British. Not even close. http://hubpages.com/hub/British-Petroleum-Ownership-Who-Owns-BP
0
Reply
Male 683
Love it!
0
Reply
Male 2,688
Touche...

0
Reply
Male 258
No, no. You don`t get another turn until the year 2247. Fair`s fair.
0
Reply
Female 857
Yes because tea is totally on the same level as the largest offshore oil spill in US history.
0
Reply
Male 7,833
why is it always in our water though? we need to attack on their water.
0
Reply
Male 605
I`m getting pretty sick of all this Gulf oil crap, then again i am British and you F***** our tea!
0
Reply
Male 20,916
Link: USA Vs. UK: The Battle Of The H2O [Pic] [Rate Link] - So it all comes down to water then?
0
Reply