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: GST who wrote (164794)	6/26/2005 3:31:47 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<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, >> The Army is now testing a new armor for arms and legs.

To: GST who wrote (164794)	6/27/2005 1:41:16 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi GST; Re: "I have not followed this in detail" Basically, some kooks are arguing that US losses in Iraq are understated by 5x. Re: " -- 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." There is no question that body armor increases survivability for soldiers. I know this. You know this. The soldiers know this. But that doesn't mean that you're going to suddenly end up with large numbers of soldiers who survive airlift and then die. Instead, the effect of body armor is to decrease the number of soldiers who are (a) seriously wounded AND (b) killed. I don't see why there should suddenly be a 10 or 20x change in the RATIO of the number who die after airlift to the number who die on the scene. Instead, I would expect the ratio to DECREASE. The question here is what sort of injury is it that damages soldiers in such a way that they die a lingering death. The usual answer for this is damage to the lower abdomen. But this is a region that body armor is specifically designed to protect. FURTHERMORE, I showed that the US military DOES report delayed deaths due to Iraq injuries. AND I HAD TO READ THROUGH SEVERAL DOZEN DEPRESSING REPORTS OF SOLDIERS DYING IN IRAQ (BEFORE AIRLIFT) BEFORE I FOUND ONE THAT DIED AFTER AN AIRLIFT OUT OF IRAQ. I also found one who died outside of Afghanistan from wounds received inside that country. From the number of reports I had to view in order to find one that died after leaving Iraq, my guess for the ratio of died of wounds after airlift to total died as a result of going to Iraq, is that it is under 10%. MY ESTIMATE IS BY GOING THROUGH THE CASUALTY ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE MILITARY BY HAND A TASK THAT PISSED ME OFF TO A LEVEL FAIRLY CLOSE TO HOW PISSED OFF I WAS WHEN THE DAMNED THING BEGAN. Now the ratio that is being claimed by the kooks is 80%. That is, they are claiming that 80% of the soldiers killed as a result of the Iraq war are actually dying outside of Iraq. It's ridiculous. Re: "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." I don't argue with this, but it's hardly "proof" that the US does, in fact, fail to list soldiers who died of wounds outside of Iraq. In fact, I showed evidence of the opposite. You've showed no evidence of anything. Furthermore, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The (unethical) anti-war crowd clearly does want the high death rate in Iraq exaggerated to be even higher -- if it got into the media, this would hurt recruitment even more than it has already. So therefore, by your own logic, the kook's claims should be treated suspiciously. Re: "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." The only people claiming that any numbers are being swept under the carpet are kooks. WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT THESE KOOKS ARE, AUTHORITATIVE? There's no need for any "authoritative news" on the subject because only someone who is totally unfamiliar with modern war could believe that kind of BS. I haven't seen any "authoritative news" on the question of whether or not this planet is more round than it is flat, for that matter. Humans are very picky about death. The concept that the government could get away with hiding 5000 dead soldiers is patently ridiculous. Friends and relatives would be outraged. At least one such soldier's name would be made public. Re: "It deserves to be researched ..." I researched it. It's ridiculous. More than 50% of the American public would be outraged by that sort of thing and you'd have already heard of it if it was going on. What, do you think is going on? That people are getting killed in Iraq but their relatives think that they're still alive? Or that their relatives don't bother to check if they are listed in the casualties? Or that their relatives are all Republicans who know about the 5x discrepancy in deaths but are keeping quiet because they don't want to damage US interests? The fact is that the person who claimed that this was going on didn't provide A SINGLE NAME OF A SINGLE SOLDIER WHO DIED OF WOUNDS FROM IRAQ BUT WAS NOT LISTED AS A CASUALTY. What kind of "research" is that? How bad would research have to be before you failed to believe it? -- Carl