-
Posts
299 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by MolotovCocktail
-
-
Here is an article about the suspected causes of autism, and it talks a little about mercury poisoning, which has long since been discredited.
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/autism/page2_em.htm#Autism%20Causes
Also, this is the list of symptoms of mercury poisoning compared with Autism, which one reason why its regarded as a myth:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002476.htm
and
http://www.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/autism/autism.html
and a list of disorders that mimic it:
http://www.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/autism/pddinfo.html#mimic
I understand that my previous link may have been a bit ambiguous or confusing. Hope this clears up. In the vast majority of studies, there has been no link established between Thimerosal (Which contains mercury), and autism.
0 -
hmm you do realise that that doctor was focusing primarily on "alernative" autism treatments, not mainstream autism treatments and science.
He was talking about his experience with it, and the reason I chose that article because his actions were based on the mistaken belief that Mercury Poisoning was the cause. He then goes on to tell you in the end that it is total crap. He calls them "alternative" because these treatments aren't, as you said, mainstream or proven.
Another contributing problem is that of definition of psychological illness. The list of such illnesses increase every year. While autism is real' date=' and very devastating to many people, it is also rather probable that many so-called psychological illnesses, including some mild forms of autism, are simply one end of the normal distribution curve.
The number of people with such ills increase every year by definition change, not by fact.
[/quote']
Yeah, this is somewhat true. This is much more problematic in diagnosing ADD and ADHD though.
As far as I know, the type of autism that has actually devastated people is usually the ones at the lowest end of the spectrum, primarily since they tend have little to no language capabilities and may have severe physical handicaps. Other people who weren't treated properly can suffer from depression. Most people with autism can live normal lives provided they have the right treatments and interventions.
0 -
Oh, and one more thing. I have every reason to believe that this Ethan Russo is a total quack. For example, the only reference to his "Cannabis Health 2002 Vol1" anywhere can only be found on that site you put up. Here is the list of his books that he wrote on the subject: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=Ethan+Russo&z=y&cds2Pid=9481
Some of the titles on there do merit skepticism, because they sound a lot more like they are pushing an agenda rather than focusing on the science.
0 -
Well this is more what I was talking about. Meth is very bad for you brain (lol in case you didn't know) -- it really ****s you up. Not necessarily the meth itself but all of the other chemicals that come along with it. Most meth adics use a coffee filter when producing the drug but this doesn't remove any chemical substances that are bad for you.
Meth over time alters the way your body produces and reacts to dopamine, specifically dopamine doesn't "work" as well as it should. Activities that users once found enjoyable are no longer enjoyable. What's interesting here is that while on meth the user again finds these activities enjoyable. It gets to a point where you have to have meth in order to enjoy anything and NOT be depressed, and this includes even sex. Sex becomes so unpleasurable that after long-term use it's impossible to have sex while not on the drug.
No, meth most definitely causes depression, on a chemical level, and I don't think there should be any discrepancy here. Depression is actually one of the main side-effects of meth -- after a while nothing tastes good, nothing feels good -- nothing is enjoyable period unless you're on meth. At this point meth doesn't even cause the user to really be high like before, they just need to have it on a chemical level to function, period, in daily life, and while they're not on meth they become extremely depressed. Meth in other words becomes the "cure" to the negative side-effects that it causes.
Just because Meth causes the user to lose interest in activities they once enjoyed does not mean that it causes depression. This is a correlation=causation fallacy. Also, there is far more to depression than merely losing interest. This is the official list for the symptoms of depression:
"Depression
- Persistent sad, anxious, or "empty" mood
- Feelings of hopelessness, pessimism
- Feelings of guilt, worthlessness, helplessness
- Loss of interest or pleasure in hobbies and activities that were once enjoyed, including sex
- Decreased energy, fatigue, being "slowed down"
- Difficulty concentrating, remembering, making decisions
- Insomnia, early-morning awakening, or oversleeping
- Appetite and/or weight loss or overeating and weight gain
- Thoughts of death or suicide; suicide attempts
- Restlessness, irritability
- Persistent physical symptoms that do not respond to treatment, such as headaches, digestive disorders, and chronic pain
Very often, a combination of genetic, psychological, and environmental factors is involved in the onset of a depressive disorder. Later episodes of illness typically are precipitated by only mild stresses, or none at all."
source: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/depression.cfm
meth causes the user to develop a strong addiction until it is the only thing that occupies their mind, as you said, but there are a lot of other factors at work (usually social) that will actually cause the depression. This is why I said that it increases the risk of it. Also, some people who are really stressed or are feeling hopeless will do drugs because of the high it gives them, but since this is temporary depression occurs anyway.
0 - Persistent sad, anxious, or "empty" mood
-
Jesus I'm not trying to start something here
Neither am I' date=' but I'll calm down.
I was reading your link and found this, which is what I was talking about earlier in post #4. "Research findings for long-term marijuana abuse indicate some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term abuse of other major drugs. For example, cannabinoid (THC or synthetic forms of THC) withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system5 and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine6. Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs of abuse." The specifics about schizophrenia are again found in this study: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinformation/mentalhealthproblems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx
"Regular use of the drug has appeared to double the risk of developing a psychotic episode or long-term schizophrenia."
I don't really have any direct research talking about dopamine stimulation from drug use and psychosis and but from what I've read in different sources (eg the two above) this does seem to be the case.
Just FYI further down from that quote, "Over the past few years, research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents." -- this is exactly what I was talking about above in my Cécile Henquet et al study "Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people" (British Medical Journal). This does not deal with depression, though, only the schizo-type side-effects from smoking marijuana.Again this is because of the social effects of drug use, not the chemical effects of marijuana. Saying "their findings contradict your source" because "drugs can be detrimental to both physical and mental health" is a straw man. It can cause psychosis (*cough* be bad for mental health) on a chemical level, be bad for your body physically (eg smoking), and cause depression on a "social" level, but it does not cause depression on a chemical level.
What are you talking about? I never said that marijuana causes depression, or implied that it caused it chemically. What I originally said was:
Marijuana use can increase the risk of depression because of the adverse affects on social' date=' academic, and personal life.
[/quote']
to which I used some of my sources to back up. Everything else was a response to your claim that marijuana can treat depression and that meth caused depression.
BTW, you just agreed with my earlier statement.
Before you go off making criticisms, at least read the posts and sources correctly! I am not the one making Strawman here. Also, a lot of what you wrote does not address my point.
This is an argument from ignorance. Just because your article doesn't claim anti-depressant properties does not mean that they don't exist.
No' date=' not exactly. My comment was based on my knowledge of how depression is treated. Along with medicines that stimulate Serotonin, there are also psychotherapies that are used to treat it as well. Marijuana on the other hand introduces THC into the brain which stimulates areas that aren't necessarily related to depressive symptoms. There is direct evidence that abnormal Serotonin levels in the brain help cause depression (Though its exact role has yet to be revealed in later studies and experiments), you would have caught that if you paid attention to post 10.
One the contrary I clearly provided a source claiming that they do.This is all ad-hominem. There are actually multiple other journal articles that make the same claims anyway.
I'm criticizing your source because the argument isn't solid and the facts aren't straight. For example, one of them said: "a number of sufferers were discovered who believed marijuana to be more effective than conventional anti-manic drugs, or who used it to relieve the side effects of lithium". That report is sketchy because it is relying on anecdotal reports and is quite ambiguous. They don't offer any real data, unlike [some] of the guys on the so-called "pro" side. This site, by the way, is not a medical journal. What this site is is a debate between whether or not marijuana should be used as any form of treatment, psychological or otherwise.
Beliefs and anecdotes are not evidence.
If you read down the list you'll find a motif: the pro "marijuana does cause depression" is from the social effects of drug use and the con focuses more on the chemical effects of cannabis. I'm not claiming that if you smoke marijuana you will treat depression. On the contrary I have clearly posted above that the opposite is actually the case. There is however substantial evidence that marijuana contains anti-depressant properties.
Again, read the above. And also, you did make that claim, over here:
Marijuana may actually treat depression; it has been considered for medical purposes' date=' although in most of the world this is illegal.....
Meth causes depression. Marijuana actually cures it.
[/quote']
I have no problem if you believe that marijuana should be considered as a possible anti-depressant. But I am going to ask you to keep your facts straight and not misinterpret my posts. This is not a political debate forum.
0 -
There is evidence that marijuana may have antidepressant properties on a chemical level. This is what I was talking about. The depressive effects of marijuana are on a more social level while chemically it may in fact treat depression.
"A surprising number of people so afflicted [with bi-polar disorder] have independently made the discovery that cannabis has improved their conditions, whether the mania or depression. It may also reduce side effects of other drugs used in its treatment, such as Lithium, Carbamazepine (Tegretol) or Valproate (Depakote).
No doubt, cannabis is affecting the balance of neurotransmitters that are at the basis for this disorder.
Endocannabinoids seem to be intimately involved in emotional regulation mechanisms in the limbic system. Because THC and other chemicals in cannabis mimic our own internal biochemistry, they may help replace what is missing." (Ethan Russo Cannabis Health 2002 Vol1)
Meth on the other hand chemically causes depression on top of even worse social consequences of withdrawal and apathy.
Oh really now. Well, let me see this so-called source. While my sources (e.g. British Medical Journal, NIH, RC Psych, etc.) do cite the use of cannabis, or more specifically THC, as a chemical that could potentially deal with side effects of chemotherapy or even AIDS (weight-loss that is), they never state that it can deal with symptoms of depression. Rather, their findings contradict your source and state that such drugs can be detrimental to both physical and mental health.
Here is one of many sources:
There are about 60 compounds and 400 chemicals in an average cannabis plant. The four main compounds are called delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC)' date=' cannabidiol, delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabinol. Apart from cannabidiol (CBD), these compounds are psychoactive, the strongest one being delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. The stronger varieties of the plant contain little cannabidiol (CBD), whilst the delta-9-THC content is a lot higher.
When cannabis is smoked, its compounds rapidly enters the bloodstream and are transported directly to the brain and other parts of the body. The feeling of being ‘stoned’ or ‘high’ is caused mainly by the delta-9-THC binding to cannabinoid receptors in the brain. A receptor is a site on brain cell where certain substances can stick or “bind” for a while. If this happens, it has an effect on the cell and the nerve impulses it produces. Curiously, there are also cannabis-like substances produced naturally by the brain itself – these are called endocannabinoids.
Most of these receptors are found in the parts of the brain [b']that influence[/b] pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception. Cannabis compounds can also affect the eyes, the ears, the skin and the stomach.
So far, nothing that would indicate its usefulness in treating clinical depression. Anti-depressants focus on Serotonin in any case, not the THC receptors, or Dopamine for that matter.
...........A study following 1600 Australian school-children, aged 14 to 15 for seven years, found that while children who use cannabis regularly have a significantly higher risk of depression, the opposite was not the case - children who already suffered from depression were not more likely than anyone else to use
cannabis. However, adolescents who used cannabis daily were five times more likely to develop depression and anxiety in later life.
By the way, I looked up this Ethan Russo and I find his material very sketchy. He doesn't seem to be important enough to be on Wikipedia, and I googled his books and he is cited by various liberal and conspiracy sites. He seems to be promising that marijuana can do a whole bunch of things ranging from depression to curing headaches and migraines and even chronic illnesses such as Arthritis but doesn't seem to have any real experimental evidence in his favor. Also, in your quote he doesn't even say what those transmitters are.
A surprising number of people so afflicted [with bi-polar disorder] have independently made the discovery that cannabis has improved their conditions' date=' whether the mania or depression. It may also reduce side effects of other drugs used in its treatment, such as Lithium, Carbamazepine (Tegretol) or Valproate (Depakote).
[/quote']
Very sketchy indeed. He is using anecdotes to back his claims.
Be careful with your sources, this is a tactic used by medical quacks to promote unconventional or alternative medications. Just because he is a medical professional doesn't mean that he isn't incapable of medical quackery.
Meth on the other hand chemically causes depression on top of even worse social consequences of withdrawal and apathy.
Source? As far as I know' date=' Methamphetamine does not cause depression. Rather, "Methamphetamine [b']increases the release of very high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine, which stimulates brain cells, enhancing mood and body movement[/b]. Chronic methamphetamine abuse significantly changes how the brain functions. Animal research going back more than 30 years shows that high doses of methamphetamine damage neuron cell endings. Dopamine- and serotonin-containing neurons do not die after methamphetamine use, but their nerve endings (“terminals”) are cut back, and regrowth appears to be limited. Noninvasive human brain imaging studies have shown alterations in the activity of the dopamine system. These alterations are associated with reduced motor speed and impaired verbal learning. Recent studies in chronic methamphetamine abusers have also revealed severe structural and functional changes in areas of the brain associated with emotion and memory, which may account for many of the emotional and cognitive problems observed in chronic methamphetamine abusers." (NIDA Infofacts: Methamphetamine. Revised 3/07. http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/methamphetamine.html).
Methamphetamine may cause people to display some symptoms associated with depression in the long run, but it does not cause it per se. But I can see how it leads to an increased risk of depression.
Come on! Did you actually think that a silly little book written by some no-name doctor was going to discredit me? You can do better than that... Otherwise, leave this to someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
0 -
Mercury poisoning is a myth? Or do you mean just its presumed impact on autism?
Its presumed impact on autism. Sorry, I should have been more clear . The symptoms of Mercury Poisoning are distinct from those of autism in any case.
0 -
Marijuana may actually treat depression; it has been considered for medical purposes' date=' although in most of the world this is illegal.
[/quote']
I don't think so. While it does increase levels of dopamine (as with any other drugs that give you a "high"), it doesn't really treat any of the symptoms. All it really does is put a person in a relaxed state for a limited time. Anti-depressants aim to increase and/or regulate the amount of neurotransmitters in the brain.
Any connection between marijuana and depression is usually correlation study where depressed people are more likely to do drugs and thus marijuana, not necessarily the other way around.
Yeah this is true. I googled it. In fact, marijuana use can increase the risk of depression because of the adverse affects on social, academic, and personal life.
There are however risks to using marijuana because it can cause people to be more secluded and socially withdrawn (smoking pot instead of going out etc). So although marijuana has chemical properties that cures depression, using it may actually worsen symptoms. If it were used medically (eg w/ the particular "active ingredients" so to speak that treat depression) it could actually be very effective.
Again read my earlier statement.
The science though isn't clear yet especially sense it's illegal to actually study the drug in the Untied States and Britain. It's surprising how much research is out there though. Makes you wonder what the government thinks because it's obvious some of these scientists have broke the law. I always thought it was funny because there's this product called "black hole" apatite stimulant for bodybuilders which was derived directly from marijuana. I've never used marijuana but I know people who do and they say it makes you hungry... http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/clabs/black.html
There is research, even controlled experiments, revolving around medical uses of marijuana as treatment to ease side-effects of chemotherapy, a pain killer, to help relieve symptoms of epilepsy, and treatment of cancer. Conventional medications are preferred though since they are more effective. Most of the time, they use the active drug THC in their experiments so technically it is legal. Also, studies about adverse affects come directly from the drug abusers themselves.
Kind of like how people post about smoking pot on their myspace pages. Why they don't just bust all the people who publicly admit to smoking it, I don't know.
On a similar note, I read somewhere that there is a public school in New York in which their students openly smoke pot and they don't do a thing about it. Its listed in the second paragraph, but just remember this is a student account so its factuality may be questionable. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was true .
Marijuana is actually safer then alcohol. The reason marijuana is still outlawed is because lobbyists from the alcohol industry dont want it taking business away.This is true. It is all political. We would probably be much better off if Marijuana was legal, since we wouldn't have to spend tens of billions of dollars on drug trafficking, jails, random searches, and there wouldn't be so much social stigma, or acceptance should I say, of the drug. Also, it would be easier to actually help people addicted to it since they wouldn't be afraid to tell anybody.
When analyzing the risks for depression you have to specify whether you're talking about the chemical properties of a drug or the actual use of it. So if you're asking about medical purposes, can psychedelic drugs, on a chemical level, cause depression, the answer is that it depends on the drug. Meth causes depression. Marijuana actually cures it. But using both marijuana or meth can increase your risk for depression because of the social consequences associated with drug use.
No, this is wrong. While these drugs may increase the risk of depression because of the adverse affects on their body and life, it doesn't cause depression. Likewise, euphoric affects are not to be confused as treatment. Marijuana doesn't cure depression, or treat any of its symptoms.
0 -
This should put an end to the whole tropospheric argument that global warming deniers constantly talk about because here is very direct proof that there's nothing really wrong. If anyone ever posts this mumbo jumbo again I'm just going to happily refer them to this thread because they're obviously getting their information from questionable global warming denier websites and not from the actual science journals. The numbers in this case clearly speak for themselves so there should be no problem understanding this.
Not sure if this is going to put an end to it, because the global warming deniers seem to be very, very persistent as was witnessed in the other threads. Even to the point where they would just conveniently "misinterpret" your sources :rolleyes:. Same thing happens when there is any discussion about environmental problems in general for that matter (the "A Matter of Time" thread for example). I don't know a lot about climate changes but I'll help you out when the GW deniers start posting, because I'm sick of it as well.
But anyways back on topic. From my limited knowledge of climate, this data would make sense, because the atmosphere is responsible for keeping the Earth warm in the first place, and also the level of greenhouse gases that are being dumped into the atmosphere at the present rate. How often do they update their predictions, because I'm sure that the rates will change as we put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and I read somewhere that the melting ice will have a huge impact on ocean current and ocean levels, which will translate to weather and climate changes.
0 -
Pretty much, I find that the only reason people think some words are "bad" is simply because "mommy/some other authority figure/society said so". People can't think for themselves!
Not only that, but people give these words multiple meanings. For example, the word "ass" can refer to a donkey, buttocks, a fool, or a jerk. It is somehow made more acceptable if used in conjunction or combination of another word or known phrase, such as in jackass.
0 -
I've been keeping up on all of this. What scares me about all of this is the fact that the government and the media is willing to listen more to paranoia than to reason, especially since Mercury Poisoning is a myth. Here is a link to the parent site which includes medical or psychological conditions that people exploit. I checked the sources and I'm telling you some of the medical quackery being spread is very creepy. http://www.quackwatch.org/
Yeah, pretty much this whole "autism epidemic" (fine choice of words by the media) is all paranoia, and many organizations and groups have jumped on to exploit it, such as CAN, DAN, and all the rest (How I hate these groups so much). Sorry if the post has some emotion attached to it, its just that I have autism and I'm really annoyed and angry at the fact that there are irresponsible people out there who would spread, or buy into, this nonsense. The same goes for people who promote an image of autism that isn't necessarily true, and this includes Temple Grandin (However positively she portrays autism, she also tends to stereotype it, and made some very questionable claims about Albert Einstein).
0 -
You know, it is so obvious that this guy is some sort of spammer.
0 -
I chose gardener mostly because my yard is 700+ sq yards. Plus, over half of my back yard is filled with thorny weeds that are difficult to remove. And just recently I had to de-root a tree growing on the side of my house.
0 -
"I've been searching in the books that I have, such as a Brief History of Time and Elegant Universe, and they never really talk in great detail".
That's how they sell so well.
Yeah, no kidding, but it is not answering my question.
0 -
Not sure where to put this, so I'd thought I would put this here.
In about 10 days I'm going to present to a Teacher's Workshop about Asperger's Syndrome and Autism. I'm organizing this with my case manager at the school, but I am largely hosting it.
Since this is a science site, I was wondering if you could help me out by giving me any up to date research or suggestions, etc.
Thanks!
0 -
Anyways, I think ultimately what will occur is rather severe damage will have to take place in the environment that begins to hurt people, from business, to individual, to nations. I think at that point humans per say might begin to recognize the need for say understanding and adaptation, though such is only a prediction. I think current trends though would suggest such a future, the reason being no real pressure or stress yet exists to select for something different then the current mode of operation really. Its typically just noise associate with tree huggers or what not.
Can't say I agree with you here. I happen to be a little bit of an optimist. For example, we did not have to wage nuclear war to know to avoid doing so.
Based on that, I don't think we will let things get that bad, well at least in other parts of the world that is .
0 -
I'm evil.
:eyebrow::eyebrow:
0 -
Take a look at the article I just read recently:
link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070602/ap_on_sc/global_warming_states_1
Apparently there are some states that spew out more CO2 than states with much larger populations, and even spew out more than entire nations around the world! Coal, obviously, is to blame for this and this article shows that the states that pollute the most are the ones that are powered primarily by coal. Texas, the worst one, is still planning on building new coal power plants and is not making any effort to lower emissions.
Here is another site that shows how much each state is putting up each year:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/environment.html
This site also shows that emissions by the United States have increased over the past 13 or so years.
This could be problematic towards reducing global emissions and for the development of clean, sustainable energy sources because for this to work every state has to cooperate and some states refuse to change their energy sources.
0 -
I would choose the Gardener. I really don't like to do any yard chores because they tend to be a lot of work. Laundry is fairly easy to do, and I don't mind menial house chores.
0 -
Yes, but those opinions are based somewhat on declassified documents directly from the CIA and on facts. Look particularly at the one in which they talk about relationship between the Soviet Union and the Middle East. Some other ones are heavily blocked out.
Your right, I may not be able to claim it as a fact, but they were still directly involved in the Baath Party's rise to power. These and other documents lead me to believe that there is a good chance that they did put Saddam in power.
Its important to note that the CIA still has documents that are still classified around this period of time, so its impossible to know for sure what happened. But rest assured there is strong evidence that the US did put Saddam in power.
0 -
Alright, I'll admit that I didn't check the "Representative Press" throughly. But here is an article, by New York Times, that gives support for my claim.
Forty years ago' date=' the Central Intelligence Agency, under President John F. Kennedy, conducted its own regime change in Baghdad, carried out in collaboration with Saddam Hussein.
.........In 1968, after yet another coup, the Baathist general Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr seized control, bringing to the threshold of power his kinsman, Saddam Hussein. Again, this coup, amid more factional violence, came with C.I.A. backing.
[/Quote']
link: http://readthese.blogspot.com/2003_12_15_readthese_archive.html
and here is where it came from, but you need a subscription to see it
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://gk.nytimes.com/mem/gatekeeper.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26URIQ3DhttpQ3AQ2FQ2Fwww.nytimes.comQ2F2003Q2F03Q2F14Q2FopinionQ2F14MORR.htmlQ26OQ51Q3D_rQ513D2Q5126exQ51251048222800Q5126enQ5125D3164Q5126orefQ513DsloginQ26OPQ3D646c493cQ512FAnQ515EgA6hGPEhhQ512AHAHFFqAFqAa0AhtQ5123BQ5123hBAa0Q512FLQ517BQ517B(Q5122Q512AY)&OP=4b0c24Q2F9DQ2Bo9mQ5EQ22Q2BQ5DQ3Cv9jQ22UQ5DQ24Q24mQ3A9Q24(3Q22Q2BjQ22Q2BQ3C9,Q5DQ22Q2B.Q2BQ2BQ24Q2B(njQ22U
Oh, and by the way, so what if my handle is named after a weapon? It was created by the Finnish by the way. They named it a Molotov Cocktail because if you read the article carefully, it was intended as a wartime "sarcasm", so to speak, when the Soviets claimed to the world that they were sending food supplies when in reality they were dropping bombs.
When Molotov claimed in radio broadcasts that the Soviet Union was not dropping bombs but rather delivering food to the starving Finns' date=' the Finns started to call the air bombs Molotov bread baskets.[2'] Soon they responded by attacking advancing tanks with “Molotov cocktails.”
0 -
We supported Hussein. We did not put him in power. Molotov was firmly in Cindy Sheehan territory in saying that. I stand by that reply, and note that he didn't correct himself, which means I was on target.
Well, then maybe you should read this then. The CIA was directly involved in the coup. This set of articles also has some information on the CIA's connection with Saddam from the time of his coup to the Persian Gulf. You'll find that in every case we were directly involved. We did more than just support his regime, we helped it come into existence and gave them everything from arms to helping him suppress dissidents within Iraq.
Here are some other documents regarding what the US did to support him, though it does not cover what they did to put him in power: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB21/index.html
<edit> Well, technically, we put the Baath Party in power, but Saddam became dictator later on with the help of the CIA. Also, the CIA helped to maintain his rule all the way until the Gulf War.
0 -
One question I have about Superstrings is this: What, exactly, would one look like? Or more specifically, what would be considered as evidence that they actually exist? I've been searching in the books that I have, such as a Brief History of Time and Elegant Universe, and they never really talk in great detail about what would be considered as evidence of their physical existence. Its the same with multiple dimensions that they are supposed to exist in (both 11 and 26 dimensions)
I would imagine that if we did actually find solid evidence, I'd imagine that we would measure effects associated with gravity, and it would probably crank out some exotic particles that we have never seen (maybe even turn particles of one class into another since all particles are presumed to be vibrations of a string).
0 -
How far does it magnify?
0
psychedelic drugs cause depression
in Psychiatry and Psychology
Posted