04-13-2003, 08:28 AM
Oh, come on kandrathe. This was a childish kick in the back:
This struck me as unfair and so we will continue, at least a bit.
Sorry, but there is simply no way you can establish an institute being a part of your university system as independent and credible in political affairs! I hope you know who are they getting their money from. Do you even know where the strings of power run in your beautiful country?
But even if this would prove to be pointless: the board of this institute could consist of the most fervent followers of "Albion Childs" :-) you have ever seen.
How does that should add credibility to the institute is beyond me. I do not know Sam Nunn very well but I do not consider Ted Turner a very independent and open minded person. Can you even tell me one public person (except perhaps for known dissidents as Noam Chomsky) to be taken politically serious and not being swayed by patriotic feelings/influence? Since most of you digest this patriotism with their mother's milk this will be an influence you will not even detect most of the time. There always will be the implicit assumption of "We are the good guys"...
Just face it: most of the sources you perceive as credible are an integrated part of the US's socioeconomic system. I can not accept them as innocent and neutral for quite obvious reasons (who are the sponsors, what is their agenda, can they even afford to support an unpatriotic theory, ...).
So I see no way you could present credible (that is credible for me) proof for your claims. Thus it is pointless to continue.
Yeah, but that is all we can do. If there is not an official statement (for example from the DoD) which admits to military advice for Iraq's WMD program I can not prove anything. For you it would be even more difficult to prove anything because: who should we trust in an issue that could damage the USA's reputation this bad?
Sorry, but did you even read my previous posts and the links I have provided (for example U.S. Exports of Biological Materials to Iraq)? It is not a question of what was shipped (we at least know of the biological samples) but of which further help was given.
As to open mindedness: did you start up google with, for example, "+senate +hearing +1994 +iraq +gas +attack" and read through a lot of the more interesting links provided (from several 1000)? After reading a lot of them (of course you have to correctly weigh the source for credibility and independence (and there will be the difference between us)) I came to my opinion. Can you say the same?
Bye,
ergates
Quote:In order to learn something new, one must be willing to have an open mind, perserverance, and be presented with information. But, quit if you like. I'm sure we could dig a little deeper and discover exactly what was shipped, when, and to where if you are willing to set aside your conjectures and deal with facts. But I suspect not. I find that there are some people who are willing to change their minds, and then there are those who would rather quit the discussion before they learned anything that might upset their world view.
This struck me as unfair and so we will continue, at least a bit.
Sorry, but there is simply no way you can establish an institute being a part of your university system as independent and credible in political affairs! I hope you know who are they getting their money from. Do you even know where the strings of power run in your beautiful country?
But even if this would prove to be pointless: the board of this institute could consist of the most fervent followers of "Albion Childs" :-) you have ever seen.
Quote:Ted Turner and Sam Nunn have joined together to create the Nuclear Threat Initiative ...
How does that should add credibility to the institute is beyond me. I do not know Sam Nunn very well but I do not consider Ted Turner a very independent and open minded person. Can you even tell me one public person (except perhaps for known dissidents as Noam Chomsky) to be taken politically serious and not being swayed by patriotic feelings/influence? Since most of you digest this patriotism with their mother's milk this will be an influence you will not even detect most of the time. There always will be the implicit assumption of "We are the good guys"...
Just face it: most of the sources you perceive as credible are an integrated part of the US's socioeconomic system. I can not accept them as innocent and neutral for quite obvious reasons (who are the sponsors, what is their agenda, can they even afford to support an unpatriotic theory, ...).
So I see no way you could present credible (that is credible for me) proof for your claims. Thus it is pointless to continue.
Quote:But, I do agree that speculation and conjecture are pointless.
Yeah, but that is all we can do. If there is not an official statement (for example from the DoD) which admits to military advice for Iraq's WMD program I can not prove anything. For you it would be even more difficult to prove anything because: who should we trust in an issue that could damage the USA's reputation this bad?
Quote:I'm sure we could dig a little deeper and discover exactly what was shipped, when, and to where...
Sorry, but did you even read my previous posts and the links I have provided (for example U.S. Exports of Biological Materials to Iraq)? It is not a question of what was shipped (we at least know of the biological samples) but of which further help was given.
As to open mindedness: did you start up google with, for example, "+senate +hearing +1994 +iraq +gas +attack" and read through a lot of the more interesting links provided (from several 1000)? After reading a lot of them (of course you have to correctly weigh the source for credibility and independence (and there will be the difference between us)) I came to my opinion. Can you say the same?
Bye,
ergates