SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bilow who wrote (164783)6/26/2005 1:16:58 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (2) of 281500
 
I have not followed this in detail -- but I take issue with one aspect of your reasoning: the extent of injuries our troops sustain. When you are "protected" by body armor there is a higher chance of surviving the initial impact of an attack -- a blast for example. But the damage done to limbs, internal organs is considerable. The protected human body is not easily pierced, but it is so violently impacted that everything inside is a mess. Under these circumstances it might be wise to look for actual data on initial survival from an attack versus survival after some days or weeks -- and after evacuation. The US clearly does not want to have a high death rate in Iraq -- in fact or in the media as this would undermine support for the war and would hurt recruitment even more than it has already. The incentive to ship out the wounded and sweep the numbers under the carpet is clearly there -- it deserves to be researched. I don't see "authoritative" news on this subject.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News