Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

80% of torso deaths of soldiers in Iraq could have been prevented

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-08-06 11:50 AM
Original message
80% of torso deaths of soldiers in Iraq could have been prevented
Frankly, I'm scared of this forum, but I keep seeing inaccurate statements and subject lines about soldier deaths in Iraq that could have been prevented by the use of proper body armor.

It's 80% of deaths that resulted from torso wounds that could have been prevented, not 80% of all deaths.

You know how the other side loves to obscure things by muddying the water. They don't have to win a point to maintain their lies. All they have to do is implant doubt in the "minds" of their supporters. Any inaccuracy on our part will come back to haunt us.

80% of torso wound deaths is no doubt a huge number. We don't need to inflate it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-08-06 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. And... torso deaths??
Gee I thought when a person died they die not just a part of their body. I guess that means the rest of the soldier is still alive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-08-06 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Not torso death
Edited on Sun Jan-08-06 12:58 PM by wryter2000
Deaths that resulted from torso wounds. Body armor would have done nothing for a soldier who had his/her head blown off.

I'm only interested in accuracy. I don't want them squirming away from this one on a technicality.

Ooops. Too late to edit. I see my error in the subject line. I did say "torso deaths."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Surya Gayatri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-08-06 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. Of the 2100 +
deaths, how many can be qualified as "torso deaths". Do you have those statistics by any chance? This is a good point, wryter. We must guard against using the adversaries' tactics of exaggeration, hyperbole and over-simplification. SG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-08-06 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I don't have the figures, unfortunately
The Pentagon must have computed it for their secret study. I imagine it's a substantial number.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-08-06 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well, 100 % of the deaths could have been avoided if...
we had never allowed that idiot to steal the election. You are right however, though I do not think people here are deliberately fudging the numbers, they are probably not reading the entire article, or just missing the point. I was so pissed after just the beginning of the article, that I repeated it to my wife, without the "torso wound" limitation (I did correct that).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-08-06 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. You're absolutely right
None of our soldiers should have ever gone there.

I don't mean to minimize the outrage. It's a crime, and the people responsible should be doing hard time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 04:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC