- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 53,409
- Reaction score
- 31,478
- Location
- Northern California
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Have you tried accessing wikileaks archive? I couldn't do it. Have a go and tell me what you find.
What's that? You might want to wipe away your own koolaid mustache before accusing me. You also might want to read the quote a little more carefully.
Since your Glenn Beck Decoder Ring TM didn't enable you to properly decipher that quote, let me explain it to you. The agreement was already in the original 1991 START Treaty. It was simply continued in the New START Treaty. So, if you want to bitch, then do so at Bush Sr, because it was his administration that negotiated the 1991 START Treaty. DO you understand now, or do you need sock puppets to better explain it to you? How does that koolaid taste?
DiAnna said:Edit: Now thanks to the Sgt. we now know that this process has been in effect for 20 years, and nothing has changed at all. Just another Wikileaks half-truth used by the UK's tabloid press to slam the USA and drive a bigger wedge of paranoia between our countries. Grrrrr....
wait..
so the treaty doesnt mention it at all?
if there is no disclosure whatsoever, then where is the article's writer getting this info?
it would seem as there is no verification of the story from anyone...
So let me clarify, Sgt. made the claim that the 1991 START treaty already identified full disclosure of SLBM's and ICBM's such as the Trident missiles which were sold to the United Kingdom and made a big stink about this being in place for 20 years. I'm saying, the 1991 START treaty has nothing in it that I can find to support that claim.
I'm therefore asking anyone to please point it out, and I provided the link to the 1991 START treaty.
That's true. What I do know as a fact is:i agree with youre comments.. it seems there isnt anything in the '91 treaty.. but then in contrast, there seems to be nothing to back up the Telegraph's claim either.
so.. nobody has verification of their claims.
The flames come from people who have an agenda. On this particular subject, I didn't immediately believe the U.S. sold anyone out and I'm still not sure what the Obama Administration agreed to.this thread shows that it currently takes very little effort to fan the flames. the only verifiable fact is people are upset over a mere claim that has shown nothing to validate it at this time.
You bring up a good point... I don't know how that information is being kept or how accurate it is. I just know there's a ton of information where Wikileaks is concerned and no one seems to be chomping at the bit to debunk it. That means our government and other governments are simply ignoring it like it doesn't exist. I get more information from their INACTION, in this case than anything they refute.even if someone now showed a paragraph from wiki, whos to say it wasnt planted by a vengeful wikileaks owner?
and after all, why not? its his only means to fight the possibility of extradition by stirring sentiment of the brits.
i mean really.. isnt it just too juicy?
and is everything released on wikileaks to be now taken as fact?
The Russian side provided copies of agreed statements on the use of telemetric data and on the transfer of Trident II missiles to the United Kingdom. End summary.
15. (U) Documents exchanged: - Russia: -- Russian Proposal on Agreed Statement on the Movement of SLBM "Trident-II" Missiles, Transferred by the US to Equip the Navy of Great Britain, dated February 9, 2010; -- Russian Proposal on Agreed Statement on the Prohibition of the Production, Testing and Deployment of Systems for Rapid Reload of ICBM and SLBM Launchers, dated February 9, 2010; and -- Russian Proposal on Agreed Statement on the Use of Telemetric Information, dated February 5, 2010
Finally, someone on another forum with crazy mad Wikileaks search skills located the actual cable, which the Telegraph neglected to include in its article.
GENEVA: AGREED STATEMENTS MEETING - Telegraph
Under Section 3, the relative part reads:
Here's the kicker. Section 15:
I'll confess that even reading it within the context of this entire agreement, I don't really understand what it all means. Still, I don't like it.
so the russians sent the info to the wiki dude?
though its definitely sounding more ominous, i cant tell by the section 15 statement what the flying H its means..
im just not good at gobbledygook.. can someone break this down intelligently?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?