Skip to main content

View Diary: Iraq War Dead (240 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I disagree. (4.00)
    It's a little unfair to assume that everyone who recommended that diary did so because they believed its premise.

    I was one of the 100 people who recommended it because I felt that it was something that required further investigation.  But diaries don't receive much scrutiny unless they hit the recommended list.

    In fact, when the diary first went up on the list, most of the comments were questioning the diaries validity.  There were more than a couple people who posted comments like "if this is true, blah blah blah." But most people were withholding judgement until it could be confirmed.

    If it weren't for that diary, we wouldn't have the diary we're posting on right now.

    Take that for what you will.

    •  I can understand your point (none)
      But see my response above. You really wouldn't believe it required "further investigation" unless you, on some level, "believed its premise." Right?

      Reality-based progressive.

      by Pops on Wed May 18, 2005 at 01:59:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believed its premise was PLAUSIBLE (4.00)
        That doesn't mean I believe it's true.

        With this Administration, and the way they've tried to manipulate the media coverage of this war, I believed it was entirely possible that they were hiding the total numbers through classifying the dead as something other than "causualties".  

        •  Well I guess that's my point (none)
          No matter how much we can all hate this administration, it's a real discredit to our cause to entertain as "plausible" an unsourced notion that they are somehow hiding thousands of war dead. C'mon now.

          Reality-based progressive.

          by Pops on Wed May 18, 2005 at 02:07:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There's nothing wrong with asking for more info (4.00)
            There's a lot of things that start out as "unconfirmed" on this site that turn out to be entirely true.

            I'm not trying to argue about the validity of that particular diary, or whether it deserved to be on the Recommended List.  Or whether it has become a function of how this administration has run loose with the truth.

            I think that diary would have been a bigger discredit to us had we not debunked it so quickly.  How long was that diary up there?  4 hours?  

            •  You're still slipping around here (none)
              It would be one thing if this outlandish post had just appeared on DKos. But it was actually eaten up by a bunch of readers, and recommended. Recommending brings a level of responsibility with it. The original post didn't deserve recommending. It's as simple as that.

              Reality-based progressive.

              by Pops on Wed May 18, 2005 at 02:47:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I recommended because (4.00)
                I thought it was worth looking in to further, discussing, debating.  Which is what dailykos is so good for.

                I didn't recommend it because I immediately thought the 9000 number was true.

                As you can see by my posting about a soldier listed on the DOD total who died in US hospital.

                I think we disagree about what it means to recommend a diary.

                •  That could be the issue (none)
                  And it's probably not worthwhile to start the discussion here, but in short I'd say that a diary post with outrageous allegations made without evidence is one that I wouldn't recommend.

                  Reality-based progressive.

                  by Pops on Wed May 18, 2005 at 03:31:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Outrageous is in the eye of... (4.00)
                    An outrageousness radar test.

                    Please rate the following possible diary subjects, which I may or may not be posting in the next 24 hours, as Outrageous, Plausible, Worth Investigating, or  True!

                    Up until the 1970s the U.S. government studied the effects of syphylis on American black men. As they slowly died, they never told them what disease they had--or that it could be easily  treated.

                    The U.S. government once tried to develop a space ship that would be atomic bombs that would be blown up behind it at regular intervals.

                    The U.S government tested Agent Orange--on Canadian military bases. Thousands of Canadian soldiers were contaminated.

                    P.S. Pops, I know I'm not including the issue of sources or evidence here, which you rightly brought up. I post this only because I believe there are, and reasonably so, widely divergent views on what is "plausible." Perhaps that needs further investigation...

                    Anything by Loudon Wainwright III

                    by Earl on Wed May 18, 2005 at 03:47:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Outrageousness can be ... (none)
                      ...made less outrageous by citing some credible sources, which the Diary in question didn't do. On the contrary, its only link took us to a much discredited site which presented the "evidence" without any links of its own.

                      When the Associated Press story on the Tuskegee experiment broke, it was totally vetted.

                      •  Yes (none)
                        I tried to say as much in my comment. I was focusing on something that I think was relevant in the conversation in the comments: that some things can seem outrageous and ridiculous on first glance, but turn out to be true. I hoped to not divert from the need for sources and evidence.

                        And in case those who read that comment aren't aware, all of those stories actually happened.

                        Anything by Loudon Wainwright III

                        by Earl on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:29:11 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  True Story (none)
                      "The U.S government tested Agent Orange--on Canadian military bases. Thousands of Canadian soldiers were contaminated."

                      Federal officials unsure how many affected by Agent Orange tests in N.B.
                      May. 17, 2005

                      FREDERICTON (CP) - Federal officials say they have no idea how many people may have been affected by the testing of the herbicide Agent Orange at a Canadian military base in New Brunswick 40 years ago.

                      Janice Summerby, spokeswoman for the Veterans' Affairs Department, said Tuesday that since 2000 the department has considered 21 applications for disability pensions, but only two have been granted.

                      She said most of those applications were from people who were at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in 1966 when Agent Orange, now known to be hazardous to human health, was tested by the U.S. military on the base's forests.

                      The fact that Agent Orange was sprayed at CFB Gagetown in the 1960s has been a matter of public record since the early 1980s. In 1981, the military gave journalists an aerial tour of the areas sprayed, all of which had long since grown over with foliage.

                      This Canuck still loves John Kerry

                      by edie on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:34:31 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Wait a second (4.00)
            Are you saying that intentionally under-reporting war casualties would be the worst thing Bush Inc. has done?  Worse than lying us into that same war in the first place?  Worse than doing everything they can to dismantle the New Deal?  Worse than running our national economic prospects into a ditch with deficits?

            I don't believe they're cooking the casualty numbers, but I do think it's well within the bounds of this blatantly amoral administration.  If a news source I trust broke this story and had solid evidence, I would believe it in a heartbeat.  I would ache from head to toe for what my country had become, but I would believe it.

          •  Sadly... (none)
            there is not much I WOULDN'T consider plausible as regards this Administration.

            Unless the rumour had to do with legions of staffers threatening to strike unless someone were held accountable.

            THAT is beyond plausibility.

            Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.

            by Maryscott OConnor on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:05:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Nonsense (4.00)
        Further investigation is needed sometimes to refute allegations. Belief is unnecessary.

        Anything by Loudon Wainwright III

        by Earl on Wed May 18, 2005 at 02:41:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Totally with you on this (none)
      I recommended because I was glad that someone had bothered to ask the question.


      How can you consider shopping at Wal-Mart if you have other choices?

      by JR Monsterfodder on Wed May 18, 2005 at 04:58:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (130)
  • Community (55)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (30)
  • Environment (26)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Media (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (17)
  • Labor (17)
  • Law (16)
  • GOP (16)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Marriage Equality (14)
  • Racism (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site