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

[Christians4LessGvt]

Public debate about strategy helps the military fight wars more effectively.

Re-read it UP.
It says public debate about strategy.
"anti-resolve statements" are not strategy.
The study clearly shows "anti-resolve statements" lead to increased attacks.
Increased attacks lead to more dead US Soldiers.

by the way UP which side releases "anti-resolve" ("cut & run", "bring the troops home now") type of statments almost daily?

[Christians4LessGvt]

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, but like the article states the "anti-resolve" statements which
we know are made primarily from the Left causes increased attacks on our
soldiers and increased attacks translates into more deaths of US Soldiers.

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.

[fatman]

No. Perhaps you should read up on Fair Use.

UP and Ami:

I was unaware of this, thank you for bringing it to my attention.  Generally when I post an article, I post it in full, with the author's name and a link to the original.  I had thought that this was sufficient sourcing so as not to cause a legal or ethical entanglement.  Am I wrong on that, or do I need to find a different method of posting articles?

[Universe Prince]

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.

There is no data in the article about a "anti-Iraq liberation agenda" killing anyone.

"anti-resolve statements" are not strategy.

Why?

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

So I'm not wrong every time.

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.

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? You don't get it both ways without hypocrisy. I'm pretty sure a study could be made that says going to war results in increased attacks on U.S. troops, 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). So shall we blame President Bush for the actions of the insurgents? Or shall we blame the insurgents for the actions of the insurgents?

[Universe Prince]

Am I wrong on that, or do I need to find a different method of posting articles?

To be honest, I'm not sure. I've looked into copyright law before, but by golly the laws are a bit confusing, as are the way copyright cases are decided in courts. I think BT has said so long as you post a source link with the article, it's okay, but I am uncertain about that. I'm choosing to be cautious, at least in part because of L.A. Times v. Free Republic, which you can read about at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Practical_effect_of_fair_use_defense and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.A._Times_v._Free_Republic. What happens here is not exactly the same, but not entirely different either. That doesn't mean BT is wrong. It just means I'm going to be posting excerpts rather than full articles.

[fatman]

Thanks for the input UP, I think that I'll begin posting excerpts as well, just to be on the safe side.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Thanks for the input UP, I think that I'll begin posting excerpts as well, just to be on the safe side

Aweeeeee isn't that sweet
UP has a cheerleader.
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."

Goaleee UP I wished I had cheerleaders that would help me. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

You have Old Ronald there, watching your every word with an expression on his face that looks like he really knew something.

[Christians4LessGvt]

There is no data in the article about a "anti-Iraq liberation agenda" killing anyone.

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?

[fatman]

Aweeeeee isn't that sweet
UP has a cheerleader.
A cheerleader that pretends that he didn't know when it says the following he wasn't supposed to post it.

After our little truce, I'm not sure what this is about?  All I did was ask UP and Ami for proper guidelines for posting in order to avoid an ethical and legal entanglement.  I wasn't "cheerleading" anyone, I was asking for advice, and thanking the person that offered it.  If I needed or wanted information that I thought that you could provide, I would also ask you for advice and thank you if you gave it.

That's called common courtesy (of course, it's more un-common these days), not cheerleading.

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."

I wasn't referring to any specific article, but to articles that I want to post.  I'm not pretending anything.

Goaleee UP I wished I had cheerleaders that would help me.  

Actually, you've got it backward.  UP helped me, not the inverse, as you stated.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Ok Fatman, but honestly though I don't see how you could
really not be fully aware of copyright law until this thread. 

I sincerely hope the police aren't outside my door!

[fatman]

Ok Fatman, but honestly though I don't see how you could
really not be fully aware of copyright law until this thread. 

I am aware of copyright law, but I am neither a legal scholar, a jurist, an attorney, or a publisher.  Ami has worked in publishing, and UP is an all around smart guy who knows what he's talking about (most of the time, don't want him to get a big head now), and that's why I asked them to clarify if what I was doing was reasonable or not.  No hidden agenda, no stupidity on my part, just asking if I was taking the right course of action.  That does not mean that I am unaware of copyright law, if I were so, I wouldn't bother to source the articles or authors at all.  I was actually more interested in the ethical side than the legal one, which are not necessarily the same.

I sincerely hope the police aren't outside my door!

I doubt it, copyright law is probably a minor nuisance compared to the things that the police generally deal with.

[Universe Prince]

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."

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."

[Universe Prince]

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.

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? You don't get it both ways without hypocrisy. I'm pretty sure a study could be made that says going to war results in increased attacks on U.S. troops, 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). So shall we blame President Bush for the actions of the insurgents? Or shall we blame the insurgents for the actions of the insurgents?

Who (the Left or Right) makes the overwhelming number of "anti-resolve" statements about Iraq? 
Can you answer the question?

Sure I can. Can you answer mine?

[Christians4LessGvt]

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

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

So you're reading into the article what you want to see. Okay, that clears things up.

No I am looking at the facts presented and making an obvious conclusion.

In fact part of the quote you chose and I said "makes my case" does in fact do so.

"Our data suggests that there is a small, but measurable cost" to "anything that provides information about attitudes towards the war."

What "measurable cost" is he speaking of UP? (When the article is about increased attacks via the statements)

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.