BP pledges $20 billion for damage claims

David · Jul 14, 2010

Kochbiel said:
Nothing has ben proved. As I said before, the Presumption of Innocence means we must take the veiw that BP is innocent untill proven guilty. However, if it comes to light and is proved that BP are responsible, I would probabaly change my attitude slightly. Although I still woudln't say they need to pay anything to America until America admits and pays up for the hell its casued to the enviroment. For example, the use of Napalm in Vietnam (Already mentioned in thread).

NB - Also, America is in no position at all to critisise BP for the damage done when America won't sign the Kyoto Protocol, or consider using fuels that are renewable, as opposed to fossil fuels. As well as the use of Napalam.

1. BP is responsible by contract. 2. BP has devastated the American economy to the point that if we didn't make them pay, they'd likely be civil war. I'm not exaggerating, many are already calling for military action against BP. 3. What does napalm nearly 1/2 a century ago during total war and before anyone, least of all the US military knew it's full effects have to do with oil now, spilling into the Gulf of Mexico now, devastating the American economy now and with everyone involved knowing what would happen if it did.

jdsingle · Jul 18, 2010

Kochbiel said:
Nothing has ben proved. As I said before, the Presumption of Innocence means we must take the veiw that BP is innocent untill proven guilty. However, if it comes to light and is proved that BP are responsible, I would probabaly change my attitude slightly. Although I still woudln't say they need to pay anything to America until America admits and pays up for the hell its casued to the enviroment. For example, the use of Napalm in Vietnam (Already mentioned in thread).

NB - Also, America is in no position at all to critisise BP for the damage done when America won't sign the Kyoto Protocol, or consider using fuels that are renewable, as opposed to fossil fuels. As well as the use of Napalam.

Nothing needs to be proved. How likely do you think a corporate entity is to put aside $20 Billion without any congressional mandate if they knew that what happened wasn't their fault whatsoever? Like david said, Napalm a half century ago compared to oil spilling into the ocean? Not a good comparison.

notimpressed · Jul 19, 2010

Kochbiel said:
Nothing has ben proved. As I said before, the Presumption of Innocence means we must take the veiw that BP is innocent untill proven guilty. However, if it comes to light and is proved that BP are responsible, I would probabaly change my attitude slightly. Although I still woudln't say they need to pay anything to America until America admits and pays up for the hell its casued to the enviroment. For example, the use of Napalm in Vietnam (Already mentioned in thread).

NB - Also, America is in no position at all to critisise BP for the damage done when America won't sign the Kyoto Protocol, or consider using fuels that are renewable, as opposed to fossil fuels. As well as the use of Napalam.

BP deserves allot more then criticism. Napalm?? Seriously? What do you think you dropped on Dresden, butane and lit matches??!!?!?

Drill, Ole Chap, Drill!!

BP pledges $20 billion for damage claims

David

jdsingle

notimpressed

Similar threads