Jump to content

Wikileaks


Cantabile

Recommended Posts

Can't link today, but apparently, there was a bunch of diplomatic skullduggery, bribes, etc., relating to the U.S. effort to gain agreement on the Copenhagen climate accords. I suspect those revelations will make it even harder to get agreement on a meaningful globa

l warming/emissions treaty.

I'm underwhelmed by the leaks so far.

Putin is fisting Medeved?

Berlusconi is a horny old goat?

Mexico is corrupt and losing the drug war?

Even the most innocent Mormon naif off of the farm in Minnesota knows this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the most innocent Mormon naif off of the farm in Minnesota knows this.

There may as yet have been nothing to astonish the residents of the Twin Cities but if you live in the UK the leaks are quite enlightening.

I doubt there are many countries which can boast of an elite so enthusiastic in the prostitution of their nation and their principles, and none where the politicians are quite so eager to be degraded without ever actually being paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can no longer disseminate the leaked info in any manner as a federal employee so I cannot participate in this thread. Mods if you could delete my recent post with three sections of quoted material from the cables to comply with my new guidelines, I would appreciate it greatly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can no longer disseminate the leaked info in any manner as a federal employee so I cannot participate in this thread. Mods if you could delete my recent post with three sections of quoted material from the cables to comply with my new guidelines, I would appreciate it greatly.

Welcome to my world. It's a silly place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been 100s of other, much more substantive, clues than that, but Britannia sadly only hears what she wants to hear. The alternatives are just too dreadful to contemplate.

I'm curious -- what are those more "substantive" clues? The reason I ask is because in an odd way, it's the less substantive ones that seem more telling sometimes. At least on substantive issues, you might have a clash of national interests so that even thought the U.S. likes Britain, it is still going to put it's own interests above Britain's if push comes to shove.

But there is just no "self-interest" explanation for something like the Churchill bust. There was no tangible benefit to the U.S. at all to return it. Just a gratuitious insult, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... I tried to directly contact an active mod and posted in this thread & don't have any access to any other means of communicating with mods as far as I can tell from the iPhone & I'm sure as hell not opening up this thread at work...anyone want to report my post for me? I find the 5 hour lapse kind of unusual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, the US needs to stop dating it's ex. I mean, yeah, they had a good thing going and then there was the acrimonious break-up, and then when the UK ran into troubles the US came back and helped, but really, you know it wasn't going to be permanent.

And anyway, everyone knows the UK and France needs to stop all their games and just get married already, this faux-hostility isn't fooling anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious -- what are those more "substantive" clues? The reason I ask is because in an odd way, it's the less substantive ones that seem more telling sometimes. At least on substantive issues, you might have a clash of national interests so that even thought the U.S. likes Britain, it is still going to put it's own interests above Britain's if push comes to shove.

But there is just no "self-interest" explanation for something like the Churchill bust. There was no tangible benefit to the U.S. at all to return it. Just a gratuitious insult, really.

Just for starters: the unequal extradition treaty, the Rumsfeld comment on the eve of the Iraq War that he didn't care if Britain joined in or not, the initial "neutral mediator" position over the Falklands conflict, the attitude to terrorist fund-raising in the US when the perpetrators weren't brown, the unequal intelligence-sharing arrangements, and don't even get me started on the nicking of the Manhattan Project, the soaking of British financial interests and acquisition of British assets in WWII or the stab in the back at Suez!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for starters: the unequal extradition treaty, the Rumsfeld comment on the eve of the Iraq War that he didn't care if Britain joined in or not, the initial "neutral mediator" position over the Falklands conflict, the attitude to terrorist fund-raising in the US when the perpetrators weren't brown, the unequal intelligence-sharing arrangements, and don't even get me started on the nicking of the Manhattan Project, the soaking of British financial interests and acquisition of British assets in WWII or the stab in the back at Suez!

Hey, we did slip you some favors during the Falklands, you know. We just had to lie about that publicly. And there was the whole thing with the 50 destroyers....

But anyway, even friends can have divergent interests sometimes, which I don't think actually invalidates the friendship as long as one nation isn't being a bigger asshole that required by circumstances. Like those lousy Kennedys not wanting to crackdown on the IRA.... It's the gratuitious slaps in the face that are tougher to explain.

Eh, the Churchill bust thing just irked me. I read his WWII memoirs when I was about 12, and have been a huge fan ever since. For all his flaws, he was a great man whose memory should have been honored in the States. And I strongly suspect on the first actions of the next GOP President will be to give the British Ambassador a call and ask for that bust back....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for starters: the unequal extradition treaty, the Rumsfeld comment on the eve of the Iraq War that he didn't care if Britain joined in or not, the initial "neutral mediator" position over the Falklands conflict, the attitude to terrorist fund-raising in the US when the perpetrators weren't brown, the unequal intelligence-sharing arrangements, and don't even get me started on the nicking of the Manhattan Project, the soaking of British financial interests and acquisition of British assets in WWII or the stab in the back at Suez!

Stab in the back? You mean when Ike called time on Tony Eden and the Frogs' vainglorious stab at bringing back the 1890s before someone got nuked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...