Difference between revisions of "Talk:Oxford Research Group"
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Also, the list of patrons etc seems fairly balanced. There are individuals one can be critical of, but then there are others whose names you'd find on few mainstream think tanks. --[[User:Idrees|Idrees]] 15:00, 14 Jul 2007 (BST) | Also, the list of patrons etc seems fairly balanced. There are individuals one can be critical of, but then there are others whose names you'd find on few mainstream think tanks. --[[User:Idrees|Idrees]] 15:00, 14 Jul 2007 (BST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | When I first came across them I seen a lot of overlaps with other networks. I'd take issue with them being sound through and through - Rifkind? | ||
Revision as of 12:19, 22 February 2008
I'M NOT FINISHED WITH THIS I'LL GO THROUGH THE OTHERS AND PICK OUT THE HIGHLIGHTS
I have seen ORG's research in the past couple of years, and I have found them to be pretty sound and critical. Is there anything concrete on them, or are we just critical of them because of the links to the military? Once again, that wouldn't say much, since their reports on Iraq and Iran have been critical, and could mean dissenting factions within the military use them to relay their discontent.
Also, the list of patrons etc seems fairly balanced. There are individuals one can be critical of, but then there are others whose names you'd find on few mainstream think tanks. --Idrees 15:00, 14 Jul 2007 (BST)
When I first came across them I seen a lot of overlaps with other networks. I'd take issue with them being sound through and through - Rifkind?
