How Many Nations have Offered Assistance in the Gulf? Why haven't we accepted any, yet?

[ShamelessHussy]

or better yet, why don't we know which NATIONS have?

[scheming daemons]

1. Two points:

First off:


There are only 4 submersibles in existence that can work at that depth.

All 4 are owned by private corporations.

If the US government doesn't have the means or expertise to fight this problem... what makes you think that ANY other nation has the means to help?




Secondly:

How do you know that any nations offered any help at all? Why would they, especially if they have no means to help?

[truedelphi]

2. For one thing, the local people are out in droves trying to

Blockade as much as they can (Wetlands, prime interior fishing spots etc) and they could use the help.

The help that is needed is not just under the sea. It is on the coast itself. And local N.O. DJ made a plea for more sand bags, which no one in government seems to have a clue about. So it is really much more than deep sea equipment.

[ShamelessHussy]

4. 1. The U.S. GOV has the Authority to commandeer ANY and ALL equipment and personnel necessary 2.

This goes waaaay beyond just stopping the gusher.

and finally YOU did NOT answer my question, why because YOU do not KNOW. why do you not know this BASIC info? because the folks call'n the shots do not want you to know.

think about that...

[William Z. Foster]

18. red herring

"The US government doesn't have the means or expertise to fight this problem..."

That is not government's role, and this is a bogus excuse for not ending the privatization of the response.

The government's role is leadership, and protection of the public interest. Whatever expertise and technology and equipment is out there, it is the duty of the government to marshal it and manage its application.

This is the reason we have governments in the first place, and your argument not only undermines the traditional liberal approach to using the government - from the Lincoln republicans through the New Deal and on to Democrats today - it undermines the very concept of government itself, along the lines of the doctrines of modern libertarianism.

If other nations did not offer help, the government can request help.

[newthinking]

33. Is the US sovereign over our waters or are the corporations?

That seems to me to be the essence of what is going on right now. I think we are not winning.

[merh]

27. About those submersibles, do you want to rethink your position?

Human Occupied Vehicle Alvin

WHOI operates the U.S. Navy-owned Deep Submergence Vehicle Alvin for the national oceanographic community. Built in 1964 as one of the world’s first deep-ocean submersibles, Alvin has made more than 4,400 dives. It can reach nearly 63 percent of the global ocean floor.

The sub's most famous exploits include locating a lost hydrogen bomb in the Mediterranean Sea in 1966, exploring the first known hydrothermal vent sites in the 1970s, and surveying the wreck of RMS Titanic in 1986.

Alvin carries two scientists and a pilot as deep as 4,500 meters (about three miles) and each dive lasts six to ten hours. Using six reversible thrusters, Alvin can hover, maneuver in rugged topography, or rest on the sea floor. Diving and surfacing is done by simple gravity and buoyancy—water ballast and expendable steel weights sink the sub, and that extra weight is dropped when the researchers need to rise back up to the surface.

The sub is equipped with still and video cameras, and scientists can also view the environment through three 30-centimeter (12-inch) viewports. Because there is no light in the deep, the submersible must carry quartz iodide and metal halide lights to illuminate the seafloor. Alvin has two robotic arms that can manipulate instruments, and its basket can carry up to 680 kilograms (1,500 pounds) of tools and seafloor samples.

more @ http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=8422

And of course we know that James Cameron has offered the use of his submersibles.

And about that really, really patriotic (yet woefully uninformed) statement "If the US government doesn't have the means or expertise to fight this problem... what makes you think that ANY other nation has the means to help?"

Let's see, there are the Dutch:

Dutch oil spill response team on standby for US oil disaster

Two Dutch companies are on stand-by to help the Americans tackle an oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico. The two companies use huge booms to sweep and suck the oil from the surface of the sea. The US authorities, however, have difficulties with the method they use.

What do the Dutch have that the Americans don’t when it comes to tackling oil spills at sea? “Skimmers,” answers Wierd Koops, chairman of the Dutch organisation for combating oil spills, Spill Response Group Holland.

...

The Americans don’t have spill response vessels with skimmers because their environment regulations do not allow it. With the Dutch method seawater is sucked up with the oil by the skimmer. The oil is stored in the tanker and the superfluous water is pumped overboard. But the water does contain some oil residue, and that is too much according to US environment regulations.

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-oil-spill-response-team-standby-us-oil-disaster

And of course, the Norwegians, who are assisting:

Norwegian Scientists Assist US Oil-Spill Combat Efforts

ScienceDaily (May 21, 2010) — SINTEF oil-spill researchers are helping the American authorities to estimate what happens to the oil that is leaking out into the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100521092626.htm

I'm glad I found this article, it makes me feel better about the dispersants.

Other nations have had to deal with oil spills. Mexico had the explosion and sinking of a deep water oil rig in 1979. They learned the hard way, just like the Saudis did almost 2 decades ago. Of course, it was a US engineer working for Saudi Arabia's Aramco who came up with the way to contain their massive oil spill 17 years ago, but no one is listening to him.

"No one's listening," says Nick Pozzi, who was an engineer with Saudi Aramco in the Middle East when he says an accident there in 1993 generated a spill far larger than anything the United States has ever seen.

A shrimp boat collects oil with booms in the waters of Chandeleur Sound, La., on May 5. An engineer who witnessed a crude spill in the Persian Gulf in 1993 says BP should use a fleet of empty supertankers to suck crude off the water's surface.

According to Pozzi, that mishap, kept under wraps for close to two decades and first reported by Esquire, dumped nearly 800 million gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf, which would make it more than 70 times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill.

But remarkably, by employing a fleet of empty supertankers to suck crude off the water's surface, Pozzi's team was not only able to clean up the spill, but also salvage 85 percent of the oil, he says.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/could-cleanup-fix-for-gulf-oil-spill-lie-in-secret-saudi-disaster/19476863

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gulf-oil-spill-supertankers-051310

Oh, and according to the State Department:

Late Wednesday evening, the State Department emailed reporters identifying the 13 entities that had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance. They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.

"These offers include experts in various aspects of oil spill impacts, research and technical expertise, booms, chemical oil dispersants, oil pumps, skimmers, and wildlife treatment," the email read.

"While there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet, the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near future."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/06/us_not_accepting_foreign_help_on_oil_spill

So please, defend the administration all you like but when doing so try to be better informed, m'kay.

And while you are defending them, please explain to me how long the US will go about "assessing" the offers to help and the solutions suggested? How many days do we wait, how much of the Louisiana marshes and bayous and wetlands are destroyed? How long will I have to smell oil instead of the gulf air?

How long will be too long before you admit that US hubris (like your uninformed comment about the US being the most capable) is harming the planet?



.

[ShamelessHussy]

29. WOW - excellent info, and i do appreciate the summary provided for each link as well

much appreciated :toast:

learning of this kind of behavior makes me even more incredulous about our gov response to date... hopefully they snap out of it sooner rather than later. i think the more folks who hear about this, will go a long way to bringing our leaders to their senses.

:hi: merh

[Go2Peace]

34. Please make this into an OP (if you havent)

Excellent info!

[merh]

42. Thank you. Please feel free to take the information and make an OP

No need to give me any credit (I saw a thread locked and disappeared when someone did that yesterday, don't know why that happened, not sure if it was the repost or the intent).

For my own reasons, I am not much up to battling on the board or to putting up with the attitudes.

I read and lurk and if something catches my attention, I'll post.

If you do make an OP you may want to include this info.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8397227

[Pooka Fey]

35. Kicking your great post. Thank you.

:cry:

[laughingliberal]

47. Thank you so much for that! Wow! Looks like countries which don't spend it all on war might have...

something to offer.

[merh]

51. Hell, the fellow who was responsible for the Aramco cleanup

17 years ago is a US Citizen, he and his partner have put together a plan on how to replicate what he did for Saudi Arabia and have presented it to BP and to the Coast Guard and have been ignored.

What is the harm of having tankers on site to suck up the oil, why are they rejecting that simple, yet proven effective method?

[sandnsea]

55. The Coast Guard already has dozens of skimmers

Skimmers that meet EPA standards, that's why. Plus, they have also chosen to implement Costner's machines so maybe they believe those will be more effective than the tankers.

[merh]

67. You are woefully uninformed (or just exaggerating and making shit up).

There are not "dozens" of skimmers and there is nothing with the capacity of the tankers.

Watch this video and then tell me again about those "dozens of" vessels (let alone skimmers).
http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?S=12516916#

Costner's machines are not as large as the oil tankers either and they are not proven, the success of the use of the oil tankers has been proven. Glad to hear they are trying Costner's contraptions but they don't have the capacity of the tankers. Since you have confused the skimmers and the tanker proposal it is easy to tell how uninformed and confused you really are.

[ShamelessHussy]

73. "dozens"?! there should be THOUSANDS, along side the 'machines'

you obviously don't grasp the magnitude of this ongoing epic disaster, and why you can't comprehend folks being upset with the woefully inadequate response to this.

hopefully the admin wakes up soon and takes a radically more massive response than what has taken place so far.

[sandnsea]

53. Except as the state dept said

We already have more than enough of the items offered. If we need more, we'll certainly continue to be in touch with the countries offering.

How could you just intentionally skip that part??

[merh]

68. Obviously since the oil is making it into the marshes

WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH

[tekisui]

69. Wow. A very informative smack-down.

Thanks for the links.

[merh]

71. thank you

as I said that one article about the Norwegian scientists that are assisting the US study this disaster does make me feel a tad better about the dispersants.

I'm still not convinced or 100% comfortable, but I'm not so wigged out either. Maybe, since I'm on the gulf coast, I'm just hoping against hope that this will not be as bad as I fear.

[Mojorabbit]

39. Dutch have skimmer ships in the area

and we turned them down.

[nashville_brook]

43. completely uninformed.

[truedelphi]

3. Here is a report and a link about how we won't even mention whether a nation has

offered us help or not.

Apparently the State Dept is turning away offers of help -- In fact they are not even telling us which nations have offered us what.

The URL for it is here

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/06/us_n ...

U.S. not accepting foreign help on oil spill
Posted By Josh Rogin Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 10:52 AM Share

<snip>When State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley refused to tell reporters which countries have offered assistance to help respond to the BP oil spill, the State Department press corps was flabbergasted.

"As a policy matter, we're not going to identify those offers of assistance until we are able to see, you know, what we need, assess the ongoing situation. And as we accept those offers of assistance, we will inform you," Crowley said.

Reporters pointed out that the Bush administration identified assistance offers after the Katrina disaster, so what is this, a new policy? They pressed Crowley, but he refused to budge.

Then they mentioned Iran's offer of assistance, through its National Iranian Drilling Company. Crowley said there was no Iranian offer of assistance, at least in any official capacity. The reporters kept on it, asking why it was taking so long to figure out what was needed in the first place? That's the Coast Guard's decision, Crowley explained.<snip>

[ShamelessHussy]

5. I thought it VERY STRANGE not to hear ANY reports of help... think about any other disaster

that's one of things often reported on, who gave, and how much.

we are living in a VERY SICK STATE.

thanks for the link, truedelphi :toast:

[truedelphi]

6. You are very welcome. ya know, I was a

Shameless hussy once myself, but then my "huss" gave out!

:toast:

[ShamelessHussy]

20. =)

BTW: isn't it amazing how many Potemkin villagers appear during any criticism of our gov no matter how big and public the FAIL?

there are people contemplating suicide down in the gulf right now, and yet there are some who will still defend their major deficiencies :shakes-head:

however, i am certainly grateful that we do have this wonderful place to share ideas and info with each other, as I would certainly be in much greater despair if we only had them and their ilk in the M$M to get our info from.

:hug:

[sandnsea]

9. Well the link is outdated

I'll be generous that it was unintentional. Direct State Dept links are below.

You don't know because the media isn't telling you, or is just flat telling you wrong.

No need to eat your words because I wouldn't want you to choke to death.

[ShamelessHussy]

13. lol - you provided a link from india... why isn't OUR media reporting on this and WORSE why aren't

we ACCEPTING any help. WTF?

this has been going on for over a MONTH now... why don't i see other countries out there in the Gulf assisting us?!

and don't give me any nationalistic BS about us not needing their inadequate assistance when we are obviously floundering around out there without a clue.

[sandnsea]

15. I provided links from the fucking STATE DEPT

Open your damn eyes.

[ShamelessHussy]

17. www.india-server.com - eyes wide open

and my point stands.

why aren't we hearing about these offers, and WORSE, why aren't we ACCEPTING any?

[sandnsea]

19. Well you clearly didn't read a fucking thing

Just like nobody else in this thread read a damn thing.

I wouldn't be laughing if some no-name india web site had information I was too stupid to get myself.

READ.

[ShamelessHussy]

21. yawn

good night, random person

[sandnsea]

23. I guess your post was flame bait then

Since you clearly didn't want an answer.

[ShamelessHussy]

26. you didn't answer the questions. 1. Where is all the international Aid? 2. Why doesn't our M$M talk

about it?

you gave me a link from india, and a link from the gov. that doesn't answer those two questions.

Why don't I see our partners, heads of governments, outlining the aid they are offering on my evening news?

Why don't I see any of this aid in action?

What the hell are we waiting for?

ok. unless you have an actual answer to any of my questions, i will ignore you and any further insults from you.

[laughingliberal]

48. I read post #27. It was great! nt

[sandnsea]

52. If it were interpreted correctly

It's also the same basic information I posted.

The Dutch skimmers can't be used because they don't meet EPA standards. Consequently, they aren't on stand-by and that's why. They have, however, been considered by the government which is the question asked in the OP.

There are 17 countries who have offered assistance, in my post from a state dept link.

In her post and my post, the reason the offers that haven't been used to date, we haven't yet needed the assistance. We currently have enough dispersants, booms, etc. There are more booms deployed in this operation than ever before, and yet there are enough without the need for more from other countries. Seems we're well prepared on that regard. If/When we aren't, we'll definitely use whatever help has been offered. From the State Dept Link.

So I say again - READ. There's nothing in post #27 that I didn't address or answer -- only some very whacked out interpretations of the facts. The facts that everybody gets from the same place - govt press briefings.

[laughingliberal]

59. I didn't see this from #27 in your post:

"Other nations have had to deal with oil spills. Mexico had the explosion and sinking of a deep water oil rig in 1979. They learned the hard way, just like the Saudis did almost 2 decades ago. Of course, it was a US engineer working for Saudi Arabia's Aramco who came up with the way to contain their massive oil spill 17 years ago, but no one is listening to him.

"No one's listening," says Nick Pozzi, who was an engineer with Saudi Aramco in the Middle East when he says an accident there in 1993 generated a spill far larger than anything the United States has ever seen.

A shrimp boat collects oil with booms in the waters of Chandeleur Sound, La., on May 5. An engineer who witnessed a crude spill in the Persian Gulf in 1993 says BP should use a fleet of empty supertankers to suck crude off the water's surface.

According to Pozzi, that mishap, kept under wraps for close to two decades and first reported by Esquire, dumped nearly 800 million gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf, which would make it more than 70 times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill.

But remarkably, by employing a fleet of empty supertankers to suck crude off the water's surface, Pozzi's team was not only able to clean up the spill, but also salvage 85 percent of the oil, he says.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/could-cleanup-fix...

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gulf-oil-spill-su..."

Here is the guy who came up with the answers to a massive spill in the Persian Gulf in 1993 saying no one is listening. You can type READ all you want. I read what he said and, since he's solved a spill of this magnitude before and you haven't, I'm taking his word for it. I'm 55 and I've been READING for 51 years, thank you very much. I don't need you to type READ in all caps.

[sandnsea]

61. Those are the skimmers. We're using skimmers.

Read again.

[laughingliberal]

63. Try again

The engineer who came up with the solution to the Persian Gulf spill in 1993 said, "no one's listening." Perhaps you missed that part in your reading. And, again, since he's actually solved a crisis like this and you (or the President) has not, he has the credibility in my mind and you do not. I believe you should read again what he said.

Or is he just another Obama hater who's saying this to make the President look bad?

More at link: http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/could-cleanup-fix-for-gulf-oil-spill-lie-in-secret-saudi-disaster/19476863

[sandnsea]

64. We ARE Using Skimmers

I don't know why he doesn't know it, but apparently he just doesn't. Also, in my links, there is reference to dozens of other skimmers. They're using skimmers, skimmers that meet the EPA standards. That's A FACT. Now if you choose to grab on to speculation from someone who isn't involved in the operation, that's your choice. But know that you are rumormongering just as sure as any freeptard that says the rig was hit by a torpedo.

http://www.defense.gov/Blog_files/Blog_assets/20100517_landry_transcript.pdf

Admiral Landry:

But we have efforts going on there for the overseeing the
interventions on the BOP and the riser. But I think that they also have
a team set up to take input from folks around the world, oil companies
and others with experience in this from around the world, who might want
to come and bring their ideas to this fight. My guess is, they didn't
choose the supertanker option -- and I'm speculating here -- but my guess
is, they may not have chosen the supertanker option, because they may
have felt they had adequate resources in place with what they have now.

We have several large offshore skimmers that are part of the
response requirement that these companies have to have in this region,
pre-stages, whether it's the oil tankers that supply the waters here or
the refineries and the facilities. There are requirements to have things
pre-stages that were brought to bear on this spill response.

So I think they went first to the inventory that is part of the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990, required equipment to be pre-staged and ready
to deploy quickly. And once they got that inventory in place, you know,
they've been adding things as they felt they needed. But my guess is,
they may not have requested the assistance, because they felt they had
adequate resources.

And I feel we have adequate resources, or I would have directed
BP to bring more to respond to what we're dealing with right now.

[laughingliberal]

65. He does know. The response is inadequate.

I don't think you read the link. He has been down there. I think he is saying the response is inadequate and it is. I find the run around he and others with expertise in this area being given by BP very interesting. From the link which I don't think you read:

When he called the manager at BP in charge of the cleanup effort, Pozzi says he was told "don't bother me." "He said, 'Follow procedures,' " Pozzi recalls. "He said, 'I'm taking names and I'm going to sue you.' "

Next, Pozzi and King phoned the president of BP and left a message with his secretary. An hour later, though, they received a call from "from a young lady in BP headquarters" who asked how she might assist them. They told her about their plan -- but have received no further contact.

Then, early this week, the duo say they spoke with Capt. Ed Stanton, the Coast Guard commander overseeing a length of the affected coastline. Stanton asked for a written proposal. That's the last Pozzi and King heard from him.

"It sounds so simple that they turn around and say, 'That was years ago. We've got modern technology now,' " Pozzi says. "But their modern technology isn't working too well."


Then a clue as to a possible reason for BP's obstinance about this:

Moreover, he says, "there are many, many, many other countries that have oil tankers" that, for a price, could be deployed off Louisiana.

Stephen Reilly, CEO of Slickbar, a leading oil spill equipment and vessels manufacturer, says that while he's unfamiliar with supertankers being used in this way, Pozzi's proposal could well work.

"Any containment area or barge or tanker can be used for reception, and they certainly have the pumping system on board," Reilly says. "So in terms of using assets like that to pump stuff into tanks, by all means."

Pozzi speculates that the reluctance on the part of those he's contacted comes down to one word: cash. When oil tankers are taken out of service for a special project like this, they stop earning money for their owners.

BP, Pozzi says, should "step up to the plate" and offer to pay anyone willing to lend a tanker whatever they would lose in profits by dispatching one of their ships to the gulf region.


Any question this is BP trying to get out of this on the cheap? Not in my mind. Companies who sent lawyers to obtain waivers from traumatized workers whose collegues had just been blown into hamburger trying to cheap out on the money to fix this? Who'da thunk it?

[ShamelessHussy]

70. there should be a dozen tankers in there, at least!

even if they are only 50% effective in separating the oil and water, wtf :argh;

thanks for highlighting and sharing the info :toast:

[ShamelessHussy]

76. and thousands of skimmers

imho

[inna]

57. what an ugly post

the link was truncated, not "outdated": http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/06/us_not_accepting_foreign_help_on_oil_spill

[sandnsea]

60. May Sixth. Outdated.

I tell the truth and my post is ugly. Unfuckingbelievable.

[sandnsea]

7. Russia, UAE, UN -- 17 countries total

offering help.

http://www.india-server.com/news/gulf-of-mexico-oil-spill-help-offered-26224.html

This May 20 briefing references 17 countries,
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/05/142062.htm

And the May 19 briefing addresses the offered assistance directly.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/05/142017.htm

"I don’t know that none of them have been accepted. I know that BP has accepted some directly without going to the U.S. The offers were mostly for booms and dispersants. There are some offers of support which come in the form of “If you let us know what you need, we’ll be happy to see if we can provide that.” There are others that were for equipment that the U.S. or BP had in supply at the time and was not running short. So there were different types of offers, and I have an understanding that BP may have accepted one or two. I don’t have the details of that."

This information is just not that hard to find.

[FSogol]

24. Thanks for posting good info. I made a similar attempt yesterday

and I don't think anyone even looked at it.

[sandnsea]

41. Well look at the thread

They just go on and on, when the information is right there if anybody really wants to educate themselves. They don't.

They piss and moan that the government hasn't taken over, and then they piss and moan about what the government does anyway. Or say the government is lying if they can't refute it any other way.

[earth mom]

8. Good question! K & R!

:kick:

[ShamelessHussy]

22. interesting how many unrec trolls are out there on this topic

hello earth mom, I love your username, as well as your passion and concern on this topic :hug:

[TheKentuckian]

10. I'm pretty sure I heard Norwegian skimmers were refused

because they only remove a portion of the oil.

I thought we loved incrementalism round here but apparently sometimes it is super for the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

[sandnsea]

12. It was two Dutch companies

with four skimmers that put too much oil back into the water.
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-oil-spill-response-team-standby-us-oil-disaster

The Coast Guard has deployed their skimmers.
http://news.suite101.com/article.cfm/coast-guard-skimmer-ships-attempt-to-contain-gulf-coast-oil-spill-a231576

[amborin]

31. the Dutch skimmer ships only put 5% oily water back, way better than 100%

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8303895

[sandnsea]

40. It doesn't meet EPA standards

I believe that same article states that they were sent home from Alaska too. I think it also says their skimmers are more suited to a heavy layer of thick black oil. If it's not in that article, it's in other articles. Google it.

[Bonobo]

77. "Doesn't meet EPA standards"?

Are you fucking retarded?

That is the stupidest thing I ever heard!

When you are dying of thirst, you don't turn down tap water in favor of Evian! Jeezus, I never heard anyone make such a stupid statement over and over again as if it made any sense.

[notesdev]

11. I think there is something they are not telling us

I have heard rumors that this was no accident, that the oil rig was attacked with torpedoes. I have no proof but it would explain all the otherwise unnecessary secrecy.

[Cleita]

14. If it's not a rumor,

who would do that? What are the international implications. It might explain Washington's lack of decisiveness.

[notesdev]

32. North Korea

They had just torpedoed a South Korean destroyer killing a whole bunch of sailors. SK denied it was torpedoed until just a couple of days ago when they admitted it was a NK attack.

[Regret My New Name]

45. That's a strech

That's a long ways for a NK sub to go. Do they even have subs that could make such a journey? Secondly, what would they gain from that? Torpedoes being fired around the Korean peninsula are understandable because of the tension in the area, but to do something as deliberate as suggested above doesn't make a whole lotta sense.... even for a crazy regime.

[Cleita]

46. Well in WWII Japanese subs were cruising our west coast and German

U-boats were all over the Atlantic and close to our east coast shore. I can't see why the N. K.s couldn't have subs with the same capabilities.

[Regret My New Name]

54. Wouldn't NK have to send them around South America to get up to the Gulf?

Also, the Germans had various systems setup for refueling. The Japanese had islands in the Pacific and as far as I know, they never made it to the Gulf of Mexico... Even if it something they can do (which could very well be possible. I'm not expert...in anything), I still have a hard time thinking of a valid reason for them to do so. Besides, wouldn't it be easier for them to get the ones off the west coast? It just doesn't make much sense to a silly little boy like me.

[Cleita]

56. Who says they won't be able to refuel up and down the coast of South

America? Many of those countries are hostile to us and probably would do it for spite. Anyhow, I think it's a stretch that they would. There are plenty of places on the West Coast
they could torpedo if they had a mind to do so. Maybe a closer enemy would be worth looking at.

[Regret My New Name]

66. A closer enemy like the BP execs...

If it was something like that, then that means the government must be paying BP big bucks to STFU.

[notesdev]

62. Doesn't need to be that complicated

You can drop mini subs off a transport. Anyway, as I said, it's just a rumor. But then again so was the torpedo attack against SK until just a few days ago.

[Regret My New Name]

72. Interesting idea about letting them off from cargo ships.

They'd still need a good reason to do that though. Any theories on why they would do it? I mean, even if they could, there is still a big why question.

[notesdev]

75. possible motive

They've been angling to re-start a hot war with SK (or to threaten it in order to win concessions), it could be part of their pressure tactics and a warning to the US to back off.

NK ain't exactly run by sane people either so who knows what they are really thinking?

[ShamelessHussy]

16. no kidding

but that NONSENSE about it being attacked by a foreign power is as ludicrous as having our GOV take a back seat to the PERPS of the largest fucking environmental disaster in our nations history.

living in a plutocracy (google it) would much better explain all the apparently necessary secrecy than what rush is telling you :eyes:

[ljm2002]

25. If we accept help, we acknowledge we are not "Number One!"

And that simply cannot be allowed.

[merh]

28. see reply #1

:freak:

[laughingliberal]

49. Indeed. eom

[amborin]

30. the Dutch offered their skimmer ships, ready in the GOM; but our EPA said no

they filter 95% of the oil from the water, but return the water w/ 5% oil.....not acceptable to our EPA

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8303895

[ljm2002]

36. It's maddening, isn't it...

...the MMS granted how many waivers so that this drilling could proceed? But now we have an offer that would help immensely, and it's "No waivers for you!"

[ShamelessHussy]

37. yes

indeed

[JBoy]

44. That's like me sending away the fire department

because they'll only be able to save 95% of my house.

[boston bean]

38. Iran did! Read that here on DU this a.m.

[Enrique]

50. Obama sent a personal message to the world

[mynameiswhat]

58. I disagree. He s letting BP fuck it up even more.

[G_j]

74. our own people want to help, the locals want to help

many people want to help, but they aren't being utilized.
At this point, it's absolutely criminal.