Commodore Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Unbelievable, you don't do shit like that to your allies, to appease the gangster Russian regime no less. Revoke this piece of shit treaty and find out if any Senators knew about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Maid Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 I'm still a little puzzled why the US or the Uk would agree to something like this. It just...boggles my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usotsuki Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Unbelievable, you don't do shit like that to your allies, to appease the gangster Russian regime no less. Revoke this piece of shit treaty and find out if any Senators knew about this.Given that this shit goes back to the 1991 Start Treaty I suggest you write a strong letter to George H W Bush immediately.I'm still a little puzzled why the US or the Uk would agree to something like this. It just...boggles my mind.Because Start requires mutual disclosure. If the UK had an independent deterrent it wouldn't be affected but since the US manufactures, maintains and destroys the Trident missiles they're subject to the disclosure requirements whilst those missiles are in US custody.More generally never, ever believe something reported in the Daily Telegraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Maid Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Because Start requires mutual disclosure. If the UK had an independent deterrent it wouldn't be affected but since the US manufactures, maintains and destroys the Trident missiles they're subject to the disclosure requirements whilst those missiles are in US custody.More generally never, ever believe something reported in the Daily Telegraph.Ah, thanks for explaining; the article makes it very confusing. I had thought that was the reason behind it (the mutual disclosure), and the Telegraph was just...well. Not exactly a very good standard of journalistic integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repman Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 wikileaks is scum of the highest villainy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiko Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 wikileaks is scum of the highest villainyThank you for your extensive view. I will immediately report the reputed international media that they have been fooled by this scum.Secrets are supposed to be secrets, dammit! If I want to hunt civilians in my Apache, I damn well don't want to see the video on the internets! Those videos are meant to be aids, not something to be used by the left media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 wikileaks is scum of the highest villainy And what does that make the corporate controlled media, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna Stark Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 And what does that make the corporate controlled media, then?Maybe "scum of lesser villany"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 *bump*Assange has lost his fight against extradition to Swedenhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12564865 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seventh Pup Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 A question for our borders in Sweden is it truly like a Saudi Arabia for Feminists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 What do you mean by that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seventh Pup Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 What do you mean by that?Here is an article where Assange says that Sweden is, and I quote, "the Saudi Arabia of feminism.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 The man is complaining about being extradited to face rape and sexual assault charges. I'm not sure that I would take his word for it re: the idea of a society where men totally oppressed by women and feminism. It's a vague comparison at best, and a fatuous one at worst, the way it's quoted there. It means nothing, fundamentally, because there is no concrete comparison. I'm sure we could come up with a list of comparisons for countries anywhere in the world that would actually make more sense than "the Saudi Arabia of feminism". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sariel Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 *bump*Assange has lost his fight against extradition to Swedenhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12564865Well that's not entirely true. He lost for sure but I reckon he'll appeal so there's still some time to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morekyyn Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Yes Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism!Even stupid females are allowed to speak their minds... (Meaning that even radical feminists are heard in Sweden. As is racists, nazis, communists and people of moderate views. Freedom of speach exist not only in the US, which is not to say that every whim of every nutcase is made law) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Just read this opinion piece from the Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/24/julian-assange-tizzy-important-work?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487Given Assange/Wikileaks past history with the Guardian and David Leigh in particular I can't help but notice a distinct lack of objectivity in this article. In fact The Guardian appears to have it in for Assange to the extent that whatever they write has a bit of a credibility problem. David Leigh is writing a book subtitled 'The Rise adn Fall of Wikileaks' so he has a vested interest in its principal protagonist falling hard.There's 2 sides to the Guardian / Assange story, people who've read/heard the Guardian's side owe it to themselves to hear Assange's side. http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/webextra/id/600911/n/Assange-Speaks I assume it's already been posted in this thread, but it might be a little buried now. Who really knows the truth of it? I don't buy everything Assange says in the interview, some of it sounds like your typical paranoid conspiracy theorist. Though in Assange's case there are people openly calling for his assassination, so some level of paranoia is understandable, and to a certain extent justified I think. Reading between the lines of David Leigh's article it certainly seems like the Guardian isn't exactly occupying the moral high ground right now. So I am also disinclined to uncritically swallow what they have to say on the breakdown of their relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.