Harvard studies shows the Left's anti-Iraq liberation agenda kills US soldiers

[Christians4LessGvt]

You might want to double check the copyright notice on the source webpage for the article you posted. "This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in any form."

yeah really UP and you should too since you placed that exact same info
in one of your posts!

But I have called my lawyer and he is on his way to my office right now
so we can provide and "anti resolve strategy" on the charges!

[Christians4LessGvt]

I repeat: So then you agree with Xavier that President Bush is ultimately responsible for the deaths of U.S. troops because he is the one who sent them into harm's way, the consequence of which has been the killing of U.S. troops?

I do not agree with XO interpretation, but of course President Bush
is responsible for the deaths of US Soldiers, in that he is the
Commander In Chief.

The Commander In Chief is responsible for his troops.


You don't get it both ways without hypocrisy.

More like you dont get it.

See above, there is no hypocrisy, so you're WRONG AGAIN.

I'm pretty sure a study could be made that says going to war results in increased attacks on U.S. troops,

Apples to oranges.
That is a given.
All wars cost lives and result in increased attacks on troops than before they were at war.
It was not a given in many people's mind before this study that "anti-resolve statements"
lead to increased US Soldier deaths.

and using your logic one can then insist that Bush's pro-war agenda kills U.S. soldiers (and probably marines, sailors and the occasional airman as well).

see above
same answer

So shall we blame President Bush for the actions of the insurgents?
Or shall we blame the insurgents for the actions of the insurgents.

Well that depends.
There are some on the Left that do blame the actions of the enemy on Bush.
Reverend Wright type logic.
Of course we could surrender to the enemy and there would be no actions by insurgents.
So yes in one train of thought, Bush can be blamed since he is not surrendering.

[Universe Prince]

"anti-resolve statements" are not strategy. Why?

Because anti-resolve statements are part of the debate about the strategy, they are not the strategy.

Hm.

1) "public debate about strategy helps the military to fight wars more effectively"

2) "anti-resolve statements are part of the debate about the strategy"

So what was the problem again?

What "measurable cost" is he speaking of UP?

Increased attacks. That does not, however support your subject line. Why? Well, let's move onto the next part of your post, and I'll try to explain.

Whether there should be the level of debate is a different subject and can be debated, but the fact remains that the study shows "anti-resolve" statements (which are primarily from the Left) cause increased attacks on our soldiers. (which lead to our soldiers deaths).

Which makes my subject line accurate.

No, it doesn't because that is not what the article says the study shows. The article does not say the "anti-resolve" statements cause increased attacks. At no point does the article even use the word 'cause'. At best the article says the study shows a correlation between "anti-resolve" statements and increased insurgent attacks. The article most certainly at no point claims the study says that "anti-resolve" statements kill U.S. troops. The article is not saying what you keep claiming it says, and so no, that doesn't support your subject line at all.

[Christians4LessGvt]

The article does not say the "anti-resolve" statements cause increased attacks

Then UP please explain the following quote from the article.

"We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases

[Universe Prince]

The article does not say the "anti-resolve" statements cause increased attacks

Then UP please explain the following quote from the article.

"We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases

That is a correlation, not a proof of cause and effect.

[Universe Prince]

I repeat: So then you agree with Xavier that President Bush is ultimately responsible for the deaths of U.S. troops because he is the one who sent them into harm's way, the consequence of which has been the killing of U.S. troops?

I do not agree with XO interpretation, but of course President Bush is responsible for the deaths of US Soldiers, in that he is the Commander In Chief.

The Commander In Chief is responsible for his troops.

Then you admit that your previous attempt at "exposing a fallacy in the logic of one of your statements" ("I think [Xavier] believes Bush is to 'blame for the killings'") is itself incorrect?

You don't get it both ways without hypocrisy.

More like you dont get it.

See above, there is no hypocrisy, so you're WRONG AGAIN.

Heh. Don't be so sure.

I'm pretty sure a study could be made that says going to war results in increased attacks on U.S. troops,

Apples to oranges.
That is a given.
All wars cost lives and result in increased attacks on troops than before they were at war.
It was not a given in many people's mind before this study that "anti-resolve statements" lead to increased US Soldier deaths.

That hardly makes it apples to oranges. The point is activity that increased attacks on U.S. troops is responsible for killing U.S. troops, is it not? That is exactly why you made the subject line "Harvard studies shows the Left's anti-Iraq liberation agenda kills US soldiers" is it not?

and using your logic one can then insist that Bush's pro-war agenda kills U.S. soldiers (and probably marines, sailors and the occasional airman as well).

see above
same answer

See above. Same questions.

So shall we blame President Bush for the actions of the insurgents? Or shall we blame the insurgents for the actions of the insurgents.

Well that depends.
There are some on the Left that do blame the actions of the enemy on Bush.
Reverend Wright type logic.
Of course we could surrender to the enemy and there would be no actions by insurgents.
So yes in one train of thought, Bush can be blamed since he is not surrendering.

Last I checked, you disagreed with that train of thought. You criticize comments that say Bush is responsible for the deaths of U.S. troops. Hence your "I think [Xavier] believes Bush is to 'blame for the killings'" comment. Yet you want to pin blame for the deaths of U.S. troops on those who make "anti-resolve" statements. Hence your "Harvard studies shows the Left's anti-Iraq liberation agenda kills US soldiers" subject line. Looks like a double standard.

Seems to me, President Bush and those who support the military effort in Iraq should share just as much blame. When talk of bringing troops home comes up, the insistence is that this is unquestionably wrong. You're advocating leaving U.S. troops in harm's way, where they can be attacked. If U.S. troops get killed, and some "anti-Iraq liberation agenda" is to blame, so is the presumably "pro-Iraq liberation agenda".

Then again, I personally think the blame for the actions of the insurgents rests with the insurgents. However correlated "anti-resolve" statements (whatever that means) and insurgent attacks might be, no one from the U.S. political left (so far I know, or the political right so far as I know) is twisting arms of insurgents or coordinating insurgent attacks. So the blame for the actions of the insurgents, logically and reasonably, rests with the insurgents. If insurgents kill U.S. troops, then the troops were killed by the insurgents and not by statements made by some of the political left of the U.S.

[Christians4LessGvt]

UP SAYS: "The article does not say the "anti-resolve" statements cause increased attacks

CU SAYS: "Then UP please explain the following quote from the article.

Article Author Says: ""We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases"

UP SAYS: "That is a correlation, not a proof of cause and effect"[/b]

In the above statment at the top of this post, you didn't say anything about proof of cause & effect,
you said "The article does not say the "anti-resolve" statements cause increased attacks"

Clearly it does when the author says: "We find that in periods immediately after
a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases"


BOTTOM LINE:

The study clearly shows:
"anti-resolve" statements = increased attacks
The Left primarily makes the "anti-resolve statements"
Increased attacks = More US Soldier Deaths

Thus my subject line is 100% correct.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The REAL BOTTOM LINE

(a) American soldiers in Iraq get shot at.
(b) American soldiers in the USA do not normally get shot at by resentful Iraqi insurgents..
(c) If American soliders were in the USA and not in Iraq, their chances of dying would be far fewer.
(d) Juniorbush's stupidly sent the troops to Iraq.
(e) Therefore, soldiers are dying in Iraq due to Juniorbush's stupid decision.

Of course, (f) If the troops return to the US, they will not be shot at, because we will not be letting annoyed Iraqis into the US.

[Universe Prince]

UP SAYS: "The article does not say the "anti-resolve" statements cause increased attacks

CU SAYS: "Then UP please explain the following quote from the article.

Article Author Says: ""We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases"

UP SAYS: "That is a correlation, not a proof of cause and effect"[/b]

In the above statment at the top of this post, you didn't say anything about proof of cause & effect, you said "The article does not say the "anti-resolve" statements cause increased attacks"

Yes. 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.

Clearly it does when the author says: "We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases"

I can fix what is wrong with that statement. Clearly the article does not provide evidence of cause when the author says: "We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases." Again, correlation is not cause.

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. 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.

BOTTOM LINE:

The study clearly shows:
"anti-resolve" statements = increased attacks
The Left primarily makes the "anti-resolve statements"
Increased attacks = More US Soldier Deaths

Thus my subject line is 100% correct.

Okay, let's use your logic. Keeping troops in Iraq = more attacks. The Right primarily makes "keep troops in Iraq" statements. More attacks = more U.S. troop deaths. Thus "the Right's keep troops in harm's way agenda kills U.S. troops" is 100% correct. So a soldier dies, and it's your fault. How does that feel? But I can go further, since we can also say the more time U.S. troops are in Iraq = more innocent Iraqi deaths. So now you're responsible for the deaths of all those innocent people. That seems like a heavy load of blame. But hey, you asked for it.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"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 deaths
the 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!

[Xavier_Onassis]

Maybe that is what Harvard studies discovered.

But the Harvard studies are just WRONG.

The US troops have died in their thousands because they were in Iraq. Had they been in Ft.Dix or somewhere like that, maybe a half dozen would have died... in traffic accidents.

In Iraq thousands have died. Over a million Iraqis have been driven from their homes, and maybe 100,000 or more are dead.
There were no links to Al Qaeda. There were no WMD's.The remaining Iraqis have no electricity to heat themselves in the winter, or to cool themselves in 130 degrees F in the summer. e spend millions a day, and still, they blame us for their problems because we started this mess and we are there still, busting their doors down at 3:00 AM dressed in what looks to them like outer space battle gear and cuffing them and hauling them off to jail because our troops know no Arabic and are clueless as to whom the 'Bad Guys' really are.

So good for you! The title of your post was correct. Go buy a whole effing Jeraboam of Champagne and celebrate your infinite wisdom, why don't you? Hire a dozen beautiful dancing girls to stroke your enormous ego and whatever other parts need stroking.

But Jesus is not gonna make your government smaller no matter who the poo you vote for. Had he not been seriously dead for 2000 years, he still would not have had this inclination.

[fatman]

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.

Would you prefer there to be no public debate on the war at all?

[Christians4LessGvt]

Would you prefer there to be no public debate on the war at all?

Fatman, that is a totally different subject.

The subject of this article/study is about the effects of on-going public
debates and in particular anti-resolve statements which are primarily from the
left that are leading to increased attacks on our troops which leads to deaths of
our soldiers.

But Fatman to answer your question, it is not accurate
to describe my opinion as preferring "no public debate" on the war at all.

But again my opinion on whether there should be more or less public debate
on the war has no bearing on the findings of this study.

[Christians4LessGvt]

The US troops have died in their thousands because they were in Iraq.

XO if your point is that soldiers die in war, I think that is a given.

US troops died in the US Civil War, they would not have died if Abe would have allowed the South to say "bye bye".

In Iraq thousands have died. Over a million Iraqis have been driven from their homes, and maybe 100,000 or more are dead.

Yes and many died in WW2.
Does a death count somehow mean we shouldn't fight?
What was the acceptable death count to prevent Hitler from having his way?

There were no links to Al Qaeda.

Debateable, but doesn't matter anyway.

There were no WMD's.

Debateable, but doesn't matter anyway.

The remaining Iraqis have no electricity to heat themselves in the winter, or to cool themselves in 130 degrees F in the summer. e spend millions a day,

Some think it took the South a century to fully recover from the US Civil War, but you are bitching it ain't a rose garden after 5 years?

and still, they blame us for their problems because we started this mess and we are there still, busting their doors down at 3:00 AM dressed in what looks to them like outer space battle gear and cuffing them and hauling them off to jail because our troops know no Arabic and are clueless as to whom the 'Bad Guys' really are.

War is a messy business, but if others that came before us took your attitude towards it the US would never had existed,
but that may please you?

So good for you! The title of your post was correct.

I know.

Go buy a whole effing Jeraboam of Champagne and celebrate your infinite wisdom, why don't you? Hire a dozen beautiful dancing girls to stroke your enormous ego and whatever other parts need stroking.

LOL @ XO
I would but I lost all my gains this week and can't afford it XO.

But Jesus is not gonna make your government smaller no matter who the poo you vote for.

XO are you anti-Jesus?
Of course I never said Jesus would do that anyway
I just think Christians that share some of the same values have united to try and keep the Godless gvt from getting too large.
(which it already it is)

Had he not been seriously dead for 2000 years, he still would not have had this inclination.

But XO he is risen!
And this weekend we celebrate that rising.

[fatman]

Fatman, that is a totally different subject.

I agree, that's why I requested your opinion.

The subject of this article/study is about the effects of on-going public
debates and in particular anti-resolve statements which are primarily from the
left that are leading to increased attacks on our troops which leads to deaths of
our soldiers.

There's a disagreement between UP and yourself about the subject of the article vs. the subject line.  I understand that, and did not once reference it in my query.  I can come to my own conclusions about the accuracy of either of your claims, thanks.

But Fatman to answer your question, it is not accurate
to describe my opinion as preferring "no public debate" on the war at all.

I didn't describe anything.  I asked a question, for your opinion.  That's all, no mysterious agenda, no enigma.  Just a question.

But again my opinion on whether there should be more or less public debate
on the war has no bearing on the findings of this study.

I haven't claimed otherwise, I asked a simple question.  I'm not sure that I understand all of the ducking and dodging.