Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (164749)	6/25/2005 3:30:29 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 281500

Since the military only publicizes deaths on the field, I'm sure the actually death toll is higher. That much higher? Well, if it is and it gets out in any kind of official terms (leaked doc, whistle-blower, etc.) that will be a nightmare for Bush as well it should be.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (164749)	6/26/2005 1:03:33 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi stockman scott; Re: "In-country deaths (OIF): 1,731 Deaths occuring after med-evac from Iraq: 7,292 Total Deaths (OIF): 9,023" I guess it's kind of understandable that a class of people who "detest the military" would write, repeat and believe this sort of crap. Besides the example I found of a soldier properly listed in the statistics for the war who had died in the US, about 4 months after leaving Iraq, it is simply impossible for the kind of ratio of medical evacuation to be achieved. Not since the 1st World War has there been such a huge ratio of KIA to died of wounds. The whole trend in the statistics has always been the other way. It used to be that fairly large numbers of people died weeks and months after combat, now it's quite rare. To believe these kinds of numbers, you have to believe that a bit over 80% of the people who are fatally wounded in combat survive to leave the country. That's ridiculous. Do you realize what happens to the human body in warfare? Back during the Middle Ages it was easily possible to die of an infection from an arrow or thrust wound. For the last century, the character of war has been such that a large percentage of the bodies are never even located. Don't you have any suspicions as to why they keep those caskets closed? The concept that 80% of them would have a heartbeat long enough to evacuate by air is ridiculous. The whole trend in medical care in wartime has been that those who reach medical care are more and more likely to survive. The numbers you're claiming say the reverse. It's just not consistent with anything else. Sometimes I wonder how it is that you guys come up with this completely transparent BS, but then I remember that you're the left wing and you do not have a very tight grip on reality. Go ask one of your right-wing friends if the deer he shoots would have lived long enough to ride a chopper out. So what are the names of the 7000 who should be listed as died from Iraqi wounds but are not? -- Carl P.S. Read: amazon.com