"The statement from the article does not indicate a cause. It indicates a correlation.
The article does not say the "anti-resolve" statements cause increased attacks, and the
sentence you quoted notably does not say anything about a cause and effect situation"UP the study states the public debates "
have a measurable "emboldenment effect" on insurgents."
The Left's agenda is for the US to leave Iraq.
Thus the Left makes statements that show "anti-resolve" for the war in Iraq.
The study shows attacks increase after those "anti-resolve" statements.
What does it mean if the insurgents are emboldened?
Does that mean they get lovey dovey?
The study says after "anti-resolve statements" attacks increase.
So are you actually arguing that the increased attacks after
"anti-resolve statements" could be a "coincidence"?
Lol, yeah sure.
Whether it's "cause", "correlation", whatever,
"anti-resolve" statements = increased attacks
increased attacks = more US Soldier deathsthe above two lines can not be disputed via the study
it isn't very complicated unless you will go to great lengths to argue against the obvious
you can deflect from the above two statements by talking about Bush
or XO, or whatever or whoever also may have indirect links to deaths in wars, the
"but Bush does too" deflection does not takeaway from the two bolded statements
truth and my subject line being accurate.
"But this takes me back to your comment, "Plus the article does in fact basically state
my chosen title, which is in fact true and I have always known to be true long before this
study ever came out." You accept the article as proof because you already believed issue
to be true"Thats like saying because I knew that Starbucks would grow into a big successful company,
that when an article comes out supporting my prior belief that somehow my view is tainted.
An opinion is not tainted because further evidence comes out that supports the same conclusion.
You are opposed to the war in Iraq and thus do not accept the article as proof because you
already believed the issue to be untrue.
My objections, however, to both your position on this issue and the supposed proof provided
by the article of your position are not countered by your belief, and you haven't said anything to
prove me wrong.Yes I have, but honestly UP I think you are being disingenuous.
Your pride wont allow you to admit the obvious.
It may be because what I said earlier about your hate, or maybe ego, who knows.
But I feel it's really silly for me to continue this discussion after
the two above bolded statements and the article IMO have repeatedly proved my points.
Plus I don't care to have a discourse with people I feel are disingenous.
I mean really, what would be the point?
Plus it's boring.
So I will be placing you on "personal ignore".
I will never again respond to anything you write.
I am not upset, I think you are an intelligent person.
I wish you the best and hope you live a long and healthy life.
I know you wont care and I am sure you'll have lots of "cheerleaders" tell you how great you are.
But I just feel it's an honesty issue that you have with me personally.
Oh one last thing, beyond the "gotcha games", "word mincing", deflections, and change of subjects
the BOTTOM LINE is still the BOTTON LINE:
The study clearly shows:"anti-resolve" statements = increased attacks (whether you say "cause"-"correlation"-whatever)
The Left primarily makes the "anti-resolve statements" concerning the Iraq War
Increased attacks = More US Soldier Deaths
Thus my subject line is 100% correct!