Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Body armor could've saved 80% of marines killed by upper body wounds

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 10:16 AM
Original message
Body armor could've saved 80% of marines killed by upper body wounds
Edited on Sat Jan-07-06 10:30 AM by ProSense
Most Marines killed in Iraq could have been saved by body armor
Sat Jan 7, 1:02 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP ) - A secret Pentagon study found that as many as 80 percent of Marines killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor, The New York Times reports.

"Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection," the Times reported citing unnamed military officials.

"For the first time, the study by the military's medical examiner shows the cost in lives from inadequate armor, even as the Pentagon continues to publicly defend its protection of the troops," the report said.

The United States has "maintained that it is impossible to shield forces from the increasingly powerful improvised explosive devices used by insurgents in Iraq. Yet the Pentagon's own study reveals the equally lethal threat of bullets," the report stressed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060107/ts_alt_afp/usiraqmilitaryreport_060107055554



WTF?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. What is the percentage that were killed due to upper body wounds?
Edited on Sat Jan-07-06 10:25 AM by dmordue
Inadequate armor was and is terrible. However, the title is misleading - its not 80% of those who were killed it is 80% of those who died from an upper body wound and did not have upper body armor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Edited the title, but 80%
Edited on Sat Jan-07-06 10:31 AM by ProSense
is a tragically high number if even 10 are in this group.

And that statement about 2003, shouldn't Rumsfeld's head roll for this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. I agree - Supporting the troops means equipping them.
There is no excuse in a voluntary war not to have better planed or cared for the soldiers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nuxvomica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Further down the article says 340 died from such wounds
So the number that could've been saved is 272!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelewis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
3. Not being there would probably have saved more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
5. Yet Rumsfeld turned the story of under equipping in Iraq
onto the person asking the question. Complete disregard for those asked to make the ultimate sacrifice in service of their country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
6. If just a few million bucks had been used, out of the TRILLIONS
that have been lost.

The parents and family of those soldiers must be out of their minds with fury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
8. yeah yeah yeah, and reasonable safety precautions could save miners
but they are all just expendable fodder for the corporate machine

quit whining and go buy something you commie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-08-06 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
9. This is unconscionable!
But "we go to war with the army we have...":grr:
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 Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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