but sirs "with all due respect" isn't it a surprise to see this study from Harvard?
What? You mean when Saddam invaded Manhattan?
If soldiers died in an unnecessary war, he (Bush) is to blame.
The researchers conclude that the increases in attacks are a necessary cost of the way democratic societies fight wars and say they are concerned that the research may be seized upon by the Iraq war's supporters to try and silence its critics.
"We are a little bit worried about that," Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government told United Press International in an interview. "Our data suggests that there is a small, but measurable cost" to "anything that provides information about attitudes towards the war."
But he added the cost was outweighed by the benefits of vigorous debate about military undertakings.
"There's a body of research, which we cite ... that suggests that public debate about strategy helps the military to fight wars more effectively," he said.
Yes I suppose it is "interesting" for me to decide what I feel are points I want to highlight in an article I post.
I wonder if you can you convince XO of this?
I think he believes Bush is to "blame for the killings".
Yes I suppose it is "interesting" for me to decide what I feel are points I want to highlight in an article I post.
What gets highlighted compared to what doesn't says something about your thinking process.
What gets highlighted compared to what doesn't says something about your thinking process.
Well duh, lol, thats why I highlight it, to show thats where my points lie.
In any case, my point remains, the article taken in context and as a whole does not support the subject line.
Well thats your opinion, I think the article very much does support the subject line.
No it is not at all a deflection. It's called exposing a fallacy in the logic of one of your statements.
It's funny, UP even admits he posts excerpts (which I very, very rarely do)
Posting excerpts is much more limiting for a reader to get the whole picture, than simply bolding certain sentences.
Is that kind of like if you tear just a page out of book and steal it
it's better than stealing the whole chapter? ::)
No perhaps you should.
Fair use is decided on a case by case basis.
Yes for but for people in a hurry, like at work, they will have a far greater chance of missing some of the bigger picture as they quickly glance.
But you seem to enjoy making things harder on people.
And posting excerpts not only generally keeps my post short, it also is more likely within the bounds of fair use than posting an entire article.
Is that kind of like if you tear just a page out of book and steal it it's better than stealing the whole chapter?
At no point does the article say what your chosen subject line claims.
Thats like saying an article on the New York Giants winning the Super Bowl does not specifically say they are the best team in the world, so you can't say that?
Plus the article does in fact basically state my chosen title,
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.
and the portion of the article I specifically quoted contradicts your chosen subject line
No it actually makes it even stronger!
In the part you quote they actually say "the cost was outweighed by the benefits of vigorous debate".
| "Our data suggests that there is a small, but measurable cost" to "anything that provides information about attitudes towards the war." But he added the cost was outweighed by the benefits of vigorous debate about military undertakings. "There's a body of research, which we cite ... that suggests that public debate about strategy helps the military to fight wars more effectively," he said. |
What are "the costs" of increased attacks against our soldiers?
What side of the political isle pushes the agenda of "anti resolve" for the Iraq war which the studies concludes causes increased attacks against our soldiers?
as if we are about to be served subpoenas to appear in court over posting articles to discuss in this non-profit entity.
The article does not say what your subject line claims.
Yes the data within the article does in fact show the subject line as being true.
"anti-resolve statements" are not strategy.
I'll say again what I said before.
You can keep saying it, but it will be wrong every time.
No soldier in Iraq has ever been shot by an "anti-Iraq liberation agenda".
Obviously
We need to keep the blame for killing where it belongs, with actual people
who do the actual killing
That is not reality.
Blame is often placed on people not at the scene of a killing.
Pol Pot is still blamed even-though he was not actually in the Killing Fields during all the killing.
Of course the IslamoNazis or democracyHaters are to primarily to blame for killing our soldiers, but as the study clearly shows the "anti-resolve" statements made have the consequence of killing our soldiers.
Am I wrong on that, or do I need to find a different method of posting articles?
A cheerleader that pretends that he didn't know when it says the following he wasn't supposed to post it. ::)
"The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."
The study states "anti-resolve" statements about the Iraq War lead to increased attacks
on US Soldiers. Increased attacks on our soldiers lead to the deaths of US Soldiers.
Who (the Left or Right) makes the overwhelming number of "anti-resolve" statements about Iraq?
Can you answer the question?
"anti-resolve statements" are not strategy. Why?
Because anti-resolve statements are part of the debate about the strategy, they are not the strategy.
What "measurable cost" is he speaking of UP?
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.
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
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.
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.
So are you actually arguing that the increased attacks after "anti-resolve statements" could be a "coincidence"? Lol, yeah sure.
"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
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.
So I will be placing you on "personal ignore".
I will never again respond to anything you write.
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!