Another touch of arrogance from US Senators

Nothing like a good 'ol American bashing thread to get things lively again on U.M.
If I don't know better... I would be thinking, this thread was a well planted attempt, to boost U.M.'s sagging numbers.

Alternatively, I think the strong conclusion we can draw from this thread is that most people (on Udon Map) don't think like American senators.

A friend of mine, an Englishmen, just returned from England. He said the Senators "invite" was a non-story/issue back in England.

However, as some may feel that I have made my point of view more than sufficiently clear, I will now bow out of the discussion and allow others to represent or pursue their viewpoints.

Posters from: http://www.despair.com/viewall.html

JJ, I'm surprised at you, suggesting that this was a bash Americans thread. It was only ever a criticism of the Senators of one country "inviting" Government Ministers of another country to come to Washington and explain themselves, an act which I considered to be arrogant, presumptuous and unconstitutional. I sought to keep it tightly focused to that topic, despite an ongoing barrage of anti British rhetoric and rubbish being posted by AN Other, in what Bob rather accurately describes as a "scatter gun approach".

You usually make more meaningful posts, so I was surprised by your assertions. I would suggest that if you go back and read the thread, instead of posting "icons" and innuendos, all will reveal itself to you in true order.

As for Mr Texpat, it's fairly clear that he neither reads previous posts nor takes any account of the topic title, preferring instead to make ridiculous & broad sweeping comments intended to inflame and provoke other posters, contrary to forum rules.
Consider this:

Texpat wrote:To suggest the US Congress doesn't have the authority or mandate to ask very serious and meaningful questions regarding ............ because the offending officials are Britons -- exhibits pretentiousness in it's most revolting form.

Firstly, note Texpat's insertion/use of the word "offending", (no one has proved any offences) - yet more blatant provocation, as the rest of the sentence ......emotive and provocative.

And secondly, the US Congress doesn't have the authority to require foreign government ministers to attend Senate hearings, - it can only ask, and they can decline. And that's not pretentious, it's fact (see quote below).

Anyway, moving on, a quote from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10783710

A British diplomatic source denied the UK government had stonewalled.

The source, in Washington, said the (British) government had provided a "clear, comprehensive and credible account" of its understanding of the circumstances that lead to Megrahi's release, and Prime Minister David Cameron had met with four US senators "at very short notice" last week.

"It would have been extremely unusual for a parliamentarian of one country to be held accountable to the parliamentarians of another," he said.

Ignoring the fact it would be unconstitutional as well as "extremely unusual"..... I am puzzled as to why the Senators feel the need to ask questions that have already been asked by Obama (their boss) and 4 other Senators, and answered by the British PM?
Does that not seem presumptuous, arrogant and unconstitutional.

But there again, Texpat isn't concerned with facts, nor the actual topic, but simply what dirt he can throw about pretty much anything, as long as it's anti-British.

Arjay, you have your "facts" wrong. President Obama is not the "boss" of the congress. Obama is the head of the executive branch of government. The Congressmen are in the legistlative branch, you schould scool yourself up on the concept and possibly it would take some air out of your rant. Your use of the term "unconstitutional" is unsupported and just silly.

tigerryan...i don't believe that the moderators on this venue know what the responsibilities of a moderator should be...I believe their sole purpose is to monitor debates to insure they are being conducted according to pre-arranged ground rules...i believe their interjecting their own comments is arrogant and shouldn't be allowed.

Tigerryan wrote:Arjay, you have your "facts" wrong. President Obama is not the "boss" of the congress. Obama is the head of the executive branch of government. The Congressmen are in the legistlative branch, you schould scool yourself up on the concept and possibly it would take some air out of your rant. Your use of the term "unconstitutional" is unsupported and just silly.

Tigerryan, are we not getting into semantics/technicalities here, and ones which are also beside the point? ...... Are you suggesting that the Senators have a greater authority then their President, with whom the matter has already been raised, along with 4 other Senators! - that latter part of the sentence was my point.

I used the term "unconstitutional" because to use the words of a British Government official ...... "It would have been extremely unusual for a parliamentarian of one country to be held accountable to the parliamentarians of another". I.e. it is not constitutional to have Government Ministers of one country calling to account Government Ministers of another country. That to me means "unconstitutional". If you would prefer to use "extremely unusual", fair enough, I won't argue.

Nola wrote:tigerryan...i don't believe that the moderators on this venue know what the responsibilities of a moderator should be...I believe their sole purpose is to monitor debates to insure they are being conducted according to pre-arranged ground rules...i believe their interjecting their own comments is arrogant and shouldn't be allowed.

Nola, I didn't see Tigerryan make any mention of moderators or their responsibilities in his post, nor have I seen anywhere on this thread where a moderator has moderated a post. Therefore I see your post and comments as both inappropriate and OFF TOPIC. AND, considering I started the topic (as a normal forum member and poster), I feel it most appropriate that I should be able to post my views on the thread. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I think some of the difference in opinion is due to a different concept of what criminal punishment is about.

In europe, it is about deterrence. You lock some one up or punish them (fines, loss of priviliges) to deter others and to deter the offender from re-offending. Once that aim is achieved, incarceration and continued sanctions are no longer necessary. Occaisionally individuals will be punished long after the event, but not always.

In USA, punishment seems more often to be biblical - eye for an eye, more about vengeance. Might make you feel good, but looking at USA crime rates, not much of a deterrence. Revenge can bounce back and forth for a long time - Lockerbie was just the biggest step in that dispute; would it have happened if Gaddafi's daughter had not been killed 2 years earlier by american bombs?.

Was a deal done? Indirectly, i think so. Dirty deals are the bread and butter of big business. Ask Cheney.

How much of the anger is because the UK dipped it's toe into the cesspool first?

Well, it seems that, because the Scots and Brits won't come, Senator Menendez has "invited" Mr Hayward for a encore to the circus. Can't imagine why Mr Hayward would decline the invite.

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A US senator angrily pressed BP chief Tony Hayward on Thursday to make time in September to face a congressional probe into the oil giant's alleged role in the Lockerbie bomber's release.

Democratic Senator Robert Menendez slammed Hayward's comment to reporters that he had ducked a key senate panel's hearing -- indefinitely postponed from Thursday because key witnesses declined to appear -- because he was too "busy."

I wonder if the next request will go to Qaddafi.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100729/pl ... 5hdG9yYnAz

Well if they had treated him with a bit more respect last time round, he might have accepted their kind invitation this time!

What's that expression, - "what goes around comes around"!

Or is it, " you reap what you sow".

It's a long time since I've been to a circus.

Farang1 wrote:I wonder if the next request will go to Qaddafi.

That would be a laugh, Gaddafis' security entourage is about 300. Alcohol is illegal in Libya, so when his lot arrive in town they get p1ssed as farts, puke up in the 5 star hotels, shag prostitutes, fight with the local security service whilst there boss rambles on in Arabic and insists on having his tea made on a charcoal stove. These are all facts. That would go down well at a US senate hearing.

OT..........

OT, I think Farang1 was being flippant. I don't think they would ask Gaddafi to attend, even though it might add to the circus like atmosphere.

If Tony Hayward receives another "invite" to attend a rescheduled hearing (in September or whenever), I would suggest, in the light of the way he was treated and the "respect" he was shown last time round, that he declines that invitation too, telling Menendez and the other senators that he's going sailing; and then invites the press to watch, after ensuring that the sails on his yacht have a new logo, - a picture of a very large erect finger, ..... perhaps surrounded by some circus animals.