Eyelesbarrow Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 I can't wait for the UFO-related stuff from Wikileaks. Was it a coincidence that the UN named an Alien Ambassador recently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 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 global warming/emissions treaty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloudFlare Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 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 global 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 More sharing options...
Cantabile Posted December 6, 2010 Author Share Posted December 6, 2010 Wikileaks fiascos in rap form:Pentagon Iraq leaks: Pretty impressive videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usotsuki Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 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 More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Someone needs to tell Britannia that Uncle Sam just isn't that into her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 One did not need wikileaks to uncover that . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sToNED_CAT Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Not so crazy Wikileaks-China connection conspiracy theory.ETA: Wikeleaks just released list of potential targets for terrorists. Can any Wikileaks supporter say what purpose does such list serve, other than to help terrorists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 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 More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 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 More sharing options...
Quoth Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Wikileaks supposedly has a Doomsday file.Hmmmm... Strange game of chicken in the digital age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Someone needs to tell Britannia that Uncle Sam just isn't that into her.I think Britannia figured that out when Uncle Sam ditched the bust of Winston Churchill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 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 More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 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 More sharing options...
Galactus Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 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 More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 edit: duh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 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 More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 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 More sharing options...
Horza Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.