Don't believe everything you read

[billvon 3,110]

As this war progresses, news agencies are going to be falling all over themselves to bring people "up-to-date" coverage, regardless of accuracy. Here is a list of Iraq war stories that have already been misreported due to haste:

1. Saddam may well have been killed in the first night's surprise attack (March 20).

2. Even if he wasn't killed, Iraqi command and control was no doubt "decapitated" (March 22).

3. Umm Qasr has been taken (March 22).

4. Most Iraqis soldiers will not fight for Saddam and instead are surrendering in droves (March 22).

5. Iraqi citizens are greeting Americans as liberators (March 22).

6. An entire division of 8,000 Iraqi soldiers surrendered en masse near Basra (March 23).

7. Several Scud missiles, banned weapons, have been launched against U.S. forces in Kuwait (March 23).

8. Saddam's Fedayeen militia are few in number and do not pose a serious threat (March 23).

9. Basra has been taken (March 23).

10. Umm Qasr has been taken (March 23).

11. A captured chemical plant likely produced chemical weapons (March 23).

12. Nassiriya has been taken (March 23).

13. Umm Qasr has been taken (March 24).

14. The Iraqi government faces a "major rebellion" of anti-Saddam citizens in Basra (March 24).

15. A convoy of 1,000 Iraqi vehicles and Republican Guards are speeding south from Baghdad to engage U.S. troops (March 25).

[bvsdjumper 0]

I do not believe this post.

--Art

Sky-div'ing (ski'div'ing) n. A modern sport that involves parties, bragging, sexual excesses, the imbibing of large quantities of beer, and, on rare occasions, parachuting from aircraft.

[happythoughts 0]

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." (repeat as many times as necessary)

"I did not exhale."

... to save time... any time Clinton moved his lips he was lying.

What is the difference between Clinton and the Titanic? Only 1200 people went down on the Titanic.

[billvon 3,110]

>I do not believe this post.

D'oh! But if you don't believe that post, and I'm saying to not believe what you read, then you _must_ believe what you read . . . but then you don't believe what you read . . oh the semantic horror!

[diverdriver 7]

Quote

I do not believe this post.

--Art

I do not believe you exist. There.....take that!

[bvsdjumper 0]

This sentence is false.

Just pointing out the irony in someone saying "Don't believe everything you read" and then providing something to read.
Oh well, I guess "Don't believe everything you read" is not the same as "Disbelieve everything you read."

--Art

Sky-div'ing (ski'div'ing) n. A modern sport that involves parties, bragging, sexual excesses, the imbibing of large quantities of beer, and, on rare occasions, parachuting from aircraft.

[bvsdjumper 0]

Sometimes I don't think. Does that mean I don't exist???

--Art

Sky-div'ing (ski'div'ing) n. A modern sport that involves parties, bragging, sexual excesses, the imbibing of large quantities of beer, and, on rare occasions, parachuting from aircraft.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

This sentence is false.

Just pointing out the irony in someone saying "Don't believe everything you read" and then providing something to read.
Oh well, I guess "Don't believe everything you read" is not the same as "Disbelieve everything you read."

--Art

Not to speak for BV, but he probably didn't believe that you didn't believe what you read. I personally don't believe that you meant that, even though you said it. Call me cynical, but I don't believe everything that I read.

[diverdriver 7]

Quote

Sometimes I don't think. Does that mean I don't exist???

--Art

Huh? What? Did you say something? I was thinking about something else to not believe so when you spoke I did not hear you.

You are only coming through in waves.....

[swarley 0]

Bill, I think Peter Arnet said similar things
on the Iraq TV.

My Site

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

Sometimes I don't think. Does that mean I don't exist???

--Art

Huh? What? Did you say something? I was thinking about something else to not believe so when you spoke I did not hear you.

You are only coming through in waves.....

You seem to never tell the truth. I couldn't believe you even if you swore you were lying.

[bvsdjumper 0]

Quote

Not to speak for BV, but he probably didn't believe that you didn't believe what you read. I personally don't believe that you meant that, even though you said it. Call me cynical, but I don't believe everything that I read.

I don't not disbelieve nothing that I read.

--Art

Sky-div'ing (ski'div'ing) n. A modern sport that involves parties, bragging, sexual excesses, the imbibing of large quantities of beer, and, on rare occasions, parachuting from aircraft.

[diverdriver 7]

Quote

You seem to never tell the truth. I couldn't believe you even if you swore you were lying.

Bwaahhahahhahaha........touche!

Yah, but I'm rubber and you're glue.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

Not to speak for BV, but he probably didn't believe that you didn't believe what you read. I personally don't believe that you meant that, even though you said it. Call me cynical, but I don't believe everything that I read.

I don't not disbelieve nothing that I read.

--Art

Me neither, but I ain't got no learnin'.

[cgross 1]

Bill, how many Iraqis are dead?
How many have surrendered?
How many have we confronted directly with soldiers (not missiles/bombs)?
How far has the iraqi army pushed toward our forces?

Now, let me ask you this.
How many Coalition forces have dies in battle?
How far have we progressed into Iraq?

Who has the upper hand?


I'll tell you all this: These bleeding hearts around here are killing me.

[billvon 3,110]

>Bill, how many Iraqis are dead?
>How many have surrendered?
>How many have we confronted directly with soldiers (not missiles/bombs)?
>How far has the iraqi army pushed toward our forces?

>Now, let me ask you this.
>How many Coalition forces have dies in battle?
>How far have we progressed into Iraq?

Is all the above intended to get to the question "who's winning?" We are. No need to make up news stories to try to make it seem like we're winning even more than we are.

[wmw999 2,584]

Quote

Who has the upper hand?

We have more people, more money, more resources, more equipment, and more food. The only negative is that we are on Iraq's turf.

It's not entirely a foregone conclusion that we'll win, but if we don't harness the generals too much, it's extremely likely. And as long as we're there, we shouldn't harness the generals too much (unless they want to drop nukes -- sorry, that's high on the no way list). This isn't supposed to be about revenge, so inflicting needless damage makes our eventual rebuilding job harder -- that's pointless.

It's not that winning makes it OK to be there in the first place. That's kind of like saying "the end justifies the means." Being strong doesn't make you cooler; just stronger.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[cgross 1]

No, I was actually looking for numbers.

[Andie787 0]

Quote

I'll tell you all this: These bleeding hearts around here are killing me.

I'd rather a heart that bleeds than one made of stone and fortified by misdirected revenge.

Do you not see the irony of your statement? If more hearts bled. fewer people would be dead.

[cgross 1]

What is troubling is that in this war our priorities a F'ed up.

You and I will disagree about whether we should be there or not, but the fact is we are there, so we will skip that one.

However, in war the USA's top priorty should be keeping our troops as safe a possible.
Then the Iraqi civilians.
Then spare the lives of the enemy if you can. That is to say capture instead of kill when possible.

What I see is the media criticizing our strategey, saying it is taking too long. It has been 2 weeks, and that is too long? We unfortunately (it appears, I am not there obviously) are puting the lives of civilians above our own, and to me that is wrong. I understand we want them to like us, but if the cost is kill 3 civilians or loose 1 american, then I say c-ya Iraqis.

[wmw999 2,584]

Quote

No, I was actually looking for numbers

Why? Do specific numbers mean anything in response to a "war should be a last alternative" argument? If you're just curious, why ask here? There are lots of places to find them, and I'm sure they change.

Hippies are passe, by the way -- the current peace protesters really aren't hippies. Take it from someone who was around then (although a young teenager during the "real" hippie days).

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[cgross 1]

I have misdirected revenge because I have confidence in my administration?

Or my administration has misdirected revenge?

[wmw999 2,584]

OK, I understand why you were asking now -- (see my other post after yours). Makes sense, and I just didn't understand your point before.

I agree we're there, and we shouldn't waste American lives. I'm not sure I want to assign exactly how many civilians one American soldier is worth (well, actually, I'm quite sure we don't), but I don't think that's where you're going either.

Wendy

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[cgross 1]

about the hippie thing... I spent 3 years in central maine with a large group of "crunchy/hippies" The only thing they differed in from the "True hippies" was there lack of a cause. So, they looked for causes. Usually it was some sit in to stop people from eating meat, or they would join some PETA rally, but either way, their lack of hygiene polluted the air I breathed. And to me, that was ironic.

[Andie787 0]

*sigh* I've been in arguments before about the value of a human life. No resolution is possible. By your moral math 1 American = 3 Iraqis. I'm sure that number could go much higher and still be "acceptable".

You have to realize that the US is on thin ice internationally. Everyone knows the US will win this war, and everyone is watching to see if the US will mess up. There is immense pressure to do things by the book and not show any undue aggression or inappropriate patriotism. This must be a difficult task.

This is war. And Americans are discovering it is real. Soldiers die in wars. If an army's first priority was keeping the troops as safe as possible, then they wouldn't be fighting at all. I doubt the US Army has become "win and mnake them love us at all costs".

How do you think your criticism helps?