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

[Xavier_Onassis]

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?

================================
Well, one thing is the struggle to make MY country an independent democracy without any king, and a very different thing is to do this for the Iraqis, who have never had the inclination to do this in 6000 years.


I may find some justification for there being a prime mover, but the entire Christian schtick, that somehow someone being seriously tortured to death in some strange way saves me from some sin I acquired because a distant ancestor took very poor culinary advice from a snake, well, I can't bring myself to believe that. Sorry.

I was alluding to the bizare title you have decided to call yourself by, "Christians United 4 Less government". Jesus seemed to dislike pretty much all government: the Romans, the Sanhedrin, the whole bunch. I suppose he was against all government.

Then again, how can one dude be united? Is there even the teensiest shred of evidence that any political party that has a chance of electing anyone to anything is going to make the government smaller? Why is this a Christian endeavor? This is deeply into high weirdness.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Fatman, I can understand your sentiments
sorry but I feel I am reacting to an extreme case of word parsing
so I chose my words carefully

[Universe Prince]

So are you actually arguing that the increased attacks after "anti-resolve statements" could be a "coincidence"? Lol, yeah sure.

No, I'm arguing that insurgents cause insurgent attacks.

"anti-resolve" statements = increased attacks
increased attacks = more US Soldier deaths
the above two lines can not be disputed via the study

Not true. The article at no point says "anti-resolve" statements equal increased attacks. You keep making statements about the content of the study and the article that are simply not true.

it isn't very complicated unless you will go to great lengths to argue against the obvious

Of course it isn't complicated. Not being complicated, however, does not make your simplification correct.

you can deflect from the above two statements

Says the man in the process of deflecting.

the "but Bush does too" deflection does not takeaway from the two bolded statements truth and my subject line being accurate.

I'm not trying to take away from the bolded statements or any other part of the article. I'm not saying the study isn't true. I'm saying your conclusions, and your subject line, about what the study means are faulty. Yes, the "Bush does too" argument does not make your subject line less accurate because your subject line is not at all accurate in the first place. But then if the "Bush does too" argument is a deflection, then so is your "anti-Iraq liberation agenda kills US soldiers" argument. It deflects responsibility from the Commander-in-Chief to others.

"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.

Heh. No. Now that is an apples to oranges comparison. The article never says there is a causal relationship between "anti-resolve" statements and increased attacks. Yet you keep saying it does because you already believe there is one.

An opinion is not tainted because further evidence comes out that supports the same conclusion.

Of course. On the other hand, starting with a conclusion and then stretching the evidence to fit does tend to weaken the support for the conclusion being true.

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.

I accept the article as evidence of exactly what the article talks about, a correlation between "anti-resolve" statements and increased attacks. That I do not accept your far-fetched and, frankly, absurd conclusion does not mean I do not accept the article or the study as proof. I simply don't agree with you regarding what the article indicates.

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.

There is no pride involved here. At least, not on my end. And frankly, your conclusion is not obvious. It is, in point of fact, obviously false. This I do not say from pride, but from critical and rational thinking.

It may be because what I said earlier about your hate, or maybe ego, who knows.

You said something about my hate and my ego? Wait, what hate? I have no idea what you be talking about there. I suppose I have an ego, however I do not disagree with you out of ego, but because I believe your conclusion is wrong.

So I will be placing you on "personal ignore".
I will never again respond to anything you write.

Whatever, pal.

I know you wont care and I am sure you'll have lots of "cheerleaders" tell you how great you are.

I don't understand your obsession with cheerleaders.

But I just feel it's an honesty issue that you have with me personally.

Well, I do honestly believe you're wrong, and I do honestly believe that the article does not support your conclusion; but no, there is nothing personal about it at all. I have nothing against you personally, and no reason to yank your chain on this or any other issue.

Oh one last thing, beyond the "gotcha games", "word mincing", deflections, and change of subjects

None of which occurred in this discussion. At least, not on my end.

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!

The study, as reported in the article, does not show that. Your subject line is 100% subjective conjecture based on pre-conceived notions and not on anything in the article. Therefore your subject line is not correct.