Lockerbie

[Volourn]

"you how strong anti-British tendencies have run in the US>"

 

No.

 

 

"Politically I can't think of a country that the US has a closer relationship with. Canada doesn't count."

 

Sure, it does.

[Hurlshort]

"Politically I can't think of a country that the US has a closer relationship with. Canada doesn't count."

 

Sure, it does.

 

No, I was only talking about real countries.

[Malcador]

Canada sure is cute when they play on the world stage, though.

[Hurlshort]

Canada sure is cute when they play on the world stage, though.

 

It's really adorable how seriously they take the Winter Olympics. That's why we don't have the heart to tell them that they aren't real.

[Guard Dog]

Then again, if the shoe was on the other foot does anybody seriously, for a moment, doubt that the US government wouldn't do exactly the same thing. It's the Speshul Relationship, stoopid.

 

I really don't think the US would have. The whole not negotiating with terrorists thing is taken pretty seriously by the US government. Not that I think it is always the best policy, but in this case it would have been appropriate.

 

LOL. You gave the Russians all of our nuclear weapons ORBATs to boost your start treaty. You gave safe haven to IRA terrorists for years, stood by whilst a section of your community funded and armed them, then your judiciary put obstacles in the way of their extradition when they sought sanctuary there. Puh-leez. That's a mighty high horse you got yourself there.

I was just about to point this out. Obama could not sell the Brits out fast enough. But, in typical spineless liberal fashion he's never seen a free country he likes or an enemy he does not want to kiss up too. As an American I am more than disgusted at watching him bowing and groveling bofore the worlds despots.

[213374U]

Then again, save for a few thousand people in a small corner of Scotland, nobody actually voted for Gordon Brown.

 

It's funny 'cause it's true.

[~Di]

LOL. You gave the Russians all of our nuclear weapons ORBATs to boost your start treaty....

 

Wikileaks crap again. I've been asking on my political forums for days to have somebody, anybody provide a link to the cable in question. Nobody could, including the UK's Telegraph that wrote the inflammatory article in the first place. You'd think anyone writing such an article would either print the "evidence" in the article or link to it. But no.

 

Finally someone (who still couldn't find the actual mystery cable) linked to this: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/05.../#ixzz1DJTleOVh

 

 

Salient points seem to be here:

 

This is bunk. Under the 1991 START Treaty, the U.S. agreed to notify Russia of specific nuclear cooperation with the United Kingdom, such as the transfer of SLBM's [submarine launch ballistic missiles] to the UK, or their maintenance or modernization. This is under an existing pattern of cooperation throughout that treaty and is expected to continue under New START. We simply carried forward and updated this notification procedure to the new treaty. There was no secret agreement and no compromise of the UK's independent nuclear deterrent.

 

If that's true, then this language has been in the START treaty for 20 years, was no secret and hasn't changed. Now if someone can find the magic cable that says otherwise, I'll take a gander. Frankly it breaks my heart when tabloid newspapers with an agenda deliberately try to widen the wedge between the UK and the USA, because judging from what I hear from many UK residents all over the web, it's pretty damned wide already.

[Monte Carlo]

I know which version I believe and it ain't the one coming out of la Clinton's office

[Nepenthe]

As a reply to the OP, I think that a consensus was reached that the intelligence officer(s) who carried out the deed weren't the people really responsible for it, just the only people in the whole chain not protected by diplomatic immunity. After the state of Libya had acknowledged its liability for the event, it really was more like an act of war, for which the state itself is liable... :/

[~Di]

I know which version I believe and it ain't the one coming out of la Clinton's office

 

Ah. You don't need to see the actual cable to make your decision. The Telegraph wins again. Yay, "we want to believe, therefore we WILL believe".

[Walsingham]

I think the point for me is that this was a human crime. People died, including eleven people who got hit by falling ****ing plane. It's a crime which it is very easy to understand in terms of the impact on the families, because they have made many statements on the subject. And above all it's a crime which we could see replicated on almost any day, every day.

 

Yet in spite of all that, we got a pantomime process that would inevitably prove hollow.

[Nepenthe]

Well, it's closer to a war crime.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Nepenthe

[Walsingham]

Well, it's closer to a war crime.

 

That's a rather overly dignified definition in my opinion. But your basic point floats just fine.

[Monte Carlo]

I know which version I believe and it ain't the one coming out of la Clinton's office

 

Ah. You don't need to see the actual cable to make your decision. The Telegraph wins again. Yay, "we want to believe, therefore we WILL believe".

 

Your faith in your government is touching, if not slightly scary. So what you're saying is that for me to reach an opinion is that I actually have to lay eyes on a caveated, sensitive government document?

 

And it's not what I want to believe, speaking as one of the more pro-American voices on this forum, which is often full of knee-jerk anti-Americans of the most tiresome sort. It's what I'm inclined to believe based on the available evidence, which is that your country is no longer particularly concerned about mine and that the current Whitehouse would happily dump a seventy-year alliance for short-term political advantage in a tough mid-term year.

 

So, yes, I bloody well think your government would intelligence share with the Russians if it was in their perceived interests.

[Nepenthe]

Well, it's closer to a war crime.

 

That's a rather overly dignified definition in my opinion. But your basic point floats just fine.

That's because I feel like my head is in a vise and formulating good opinions on international law is beyond me right now. Besides, I'd have to charge y'all.

[Walsingham]

Well, it's closer to a war crime.

 

That's a rather overly dignified definition in my opinion. But your basic point floats just fine.

That's because I feel like my head is in a vise and formulating good opinions on international law is beyond me right now. Besides, I'd have to charge y'all.

 

Thankfully you're saying this on an internet forum, not as I sit in a jail cell.

[~Di]

I know which version I believe and it ain't the one coming out of la Clinton's office

 

Ah. You don't need to see the actual cable to make your decision. The Telegraph wins again. Yay, "we want to believe, therefore we WILL believe".

 

Your faith in your government is touching, if not slightly scary. So what you're saying is that for me to reach an opinion is that I actually have to lay eyes on a caveated, sensitive government document?

 

And it's not what I want to believe, speaking as one of the more pro-American voices on this forum, which is often full of knee-jerk anti-Americans of the most tiresome sort. It's what I'm inclined to believe based on the available evidence, which is that your country is no longer particularly concerned about mine and that the current Whitehouse would happily dump a seventy-year alliance for short-term political advantage in a tough mid-term year.

 

So, yes, I bloody well think your government would intelligence share with the Russians if it was in their perceived interests.

 

That may well be true. If so, it wouldn't be the first time that I've been furious at my government's policies, and deeply ashamed. My only problem is that all roads to this story lead back to an article in the Telegraph, and article that did NOT provide any evidence of their allegations in the article itself, did NOT provide a link to the cable in question (as it has done in previous articles based on Wikileaks cables), and nobody else can find this cable in any of the Wikileaks storage sites.

 

When a newspaper prints a story with such serious allegations, it should provide the evidence. In this case, it didn't, and nobody on any of the forums I know or at any site that has picked up the story can find such a cable. If this "case" was brought into a courtroom, it would be immediately dismissed as nonsense, yet millions of people believe it based on a single newspaper article.

 

So show me the cable. Then I'll publicly criticize my government for abandoning what the American public certainly sees as our closest, most important ally. Also, I'll buy you an e-Guinness!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well, they did publish the full cable, so unless they faked it, it's pretty good evidence. I don't know if the Wikileaks site has put up that particular cable yet. It does occur to me that this may not be that big of a deal. If all US provides is a unique identifier for each missile, that wouldn't enable the Russians to track it or anything like that. US does have to account for all the missiles it sells to allies, else limiting their numbers wouldn't be very meaningful.

[~Di]

Well, they did publish the full cable, so unless they faked it, it's pretty good evidence. I don't know if the Wikileaks site has put up that particular cable yet. It does occur to me that this may not be that big of a deal. If all US provides is a unique identifier for each missile, that wouldn't enable the Russians to track it or anything like that. US does have to account for all the missiles it sells to allies, else limiting their numbers wouldn't be very meaningful.

 

Where?? Could you give me a link, because I have been all over the Telegraph's Wiki archives trying to find it!! Please, I'm begging you.

 

Seriously, no other major media outlet picked up this story... not the BBC, not CNN, not even the New York Times, which was also a recipient of all the Wikileaks. Every other story out there simply parrots the Telegraph story, which did not print the cable in question.

 

Every other cable article has had the cable printed. I searched the Telegraph's Wiki using "nuclear", "russia", "missles"... got squat.

Edited February 11, 2011 by ~Di

[Zoraptor]

Warning: If you work for the US government DO NOT click the link below

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-...TS-MEETING.html

 

Goes to the cable (presumably, it's of little interest to me)

[Wrath of Dagon]

Speaking of Joe Kennedy: http://www.historynet.com/the-kennedy-curs...ne+Publisher%29

[~Di]

Warning: If you work for the US government DO NOT click the link below

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-...TS-MEETING.html

 

Goes to the cable (presumably, it's of little interest to me)

 

I don't know how you found this, but you are clearly a Wikileaks search genius! Thanks so much. Now I can try to figure out what all the fuss is about, and if we screwed the pooch again.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Actually it was linked in the last article MC linked to.

[Calax]

Warning: If you work for the US government DO NOT click the link below

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-...TS-MEETING.html

 

Goes to the cable (presumably, it's of little interest to me)

 

I don't know how you found this, but you are clearly a Wikileaks search genius! Thanks so much. Now I can try to figure out what all the fuss is about, and if we screwed the pooch again.

Looks like a discussion between the Ruskies and the US over Strategic asset changes

 

Specifically Sub Based Ballistic systems that are being given to the Brits, and the conversion of B1 bombers to non-nuclear capable machines. Davis Monthan AFB is specifically cited.

[Zoraptor]

per WoD, much as I would like to claim to be an internet ninja it was the first link in the first Telegraph article I read.