Blood Vessel Shunt May Save Limbs In War 157
The FDA has just approved for military use a shunt that allows partially-severed limbs to continue to get circulation. The FDA approved the device in a fast-track process lasting only a week. The article notes: "For most, it won't be a matter of saving a limb outright but rather salvaging the quality of a wounded leg or arm... The shunt may save injured limbs from amputation, since it can be implanted on the battlefield to maintain blood flow until a wounded soldier undergoes surgery, FDA officials said. Since the start of the Iraq war, more than 500 soldiers have lost limbs, many to injuries suffered in roadside bombings."
Even better (Score:5, Insightful)
In short: stop warmongering, and soldiers will stay in one piece.
Only 500? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone know if this statistic is accurate?
War is ugly. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Even better (Score:1, Insightful)
IANL but Iraq repeatedly violated UN Security council resolutions 678, 687, 1441. I'd say that the Iraq conflict was the absolute last resort. Whilst the countries that went in were foolhardy not to get UN Security Council authorisation they were hardly warmongering, Saddam brought it on himself.
Re:Even better (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell is wrong with all of you? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not that familiar with battlefield medicine, but this seems like a big step forward for it. Anything that helps soldiers (American or otherwise) do their jobs better, protects them, or helps them live better lives after conflict is a good thing.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Even better (Score:5, Insightful)
The original poster said: tell it to bush and the republicans, we wouldn't be in there if it weren't for them
You reply with: If that is the case, you would have to tell it to every Democrat that voted for the war as well.
Democrat congresspeople voted for the war, it is true. But most of the Democrats that I know were against the war from the beginning. It was the Republican population that was supporting the war.
Do you remember that neat little debate, within the population? Do you remember how divided everyone was, and how the newspapers were writing about it? The "misinformed" + "watching Fox News" numbers going around? Remember?
Now, if the Republican population had been against the war, none of this would have happened.
Us non-Congressperson Democrats were firmly against the war in Iraq. We said things like, "We don't believe that there are WMD there," we said things like, "Let's listen to the inspectors," we said things like, "This evidence is really shoddy," and we said "This is going to be a disaster. You can't spread Democracy like this." We said all sorts of things. And you know what? We were right on just about every damn single one of them!
It was the Republican-voting population that allowed for this present reality to exist.
Not the Democrats' population.
So, tell it to the Republicans: Stop warmongering, and soldiers will stay in one piece.
Re:Just so SOMEBODY does it..... (Score:2, Insightful)
I would sleep better if there were more men and women who refused to serve in Iraq on the grounds that starting a war without international approval is a war crime. I would feel genuinely proud to be American. I'd be like "Yeah, those Nazi soldiers just followed orders but Americans are better. Americans think for themselves and don't let their leaders force them into fighting (and eventually losing) wars of aggression".
But, if unquestioning loyalty to leaders of questionable judgement is really what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, then may I suggest moving to North Korea. I hear that obediance to authority is something they do very well in North Korea.
Re:You know (Score:3, Insightful)
They're only counting Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
The inability of the average American to even consider this can be seen as the whole problem of this war in a nut shell, if you're in a grumpy mood.
An other mathematical factor is that you can amputate 600 limbs on only 150 people.
Re:Even better (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe, maybe not. Obviously it would depend on the details of how the US left but, even if the details of the are specified, no one really knows. Sure, there are news anchors who were hired because they look dignified and authoritative who will look dignified and authoritative and tell the American public that the US needs to be in the Iraq to prevent a massive genocide. The bottom line is: know one really know what would happen.
For example, if the US were to start withdrawing but were also to make it clear that they would go back if the Shia started a genocide then it is likely that the Shia would keep the lid on things. There's a good chance the Shia would divide up the country but there's a good chance that's going to happen anyway.
Sure, everyone wants peace - they just want it on their own terms. That goes double for the USA. The key point here is that the USA is not a neutral party. The USA is also a militant faction trying to promote certain outcomes. Some Iraqis cooperate with the militant faction that is the USA and other Iraqis cooperate with other militant factions. The Iraqis cooperate with whichever militant faction they think is most likely to make Iraq a better place.
Well, here's the thing. The Shia are the dominent ethnic group and they happen to like Muqtada and friends. That means that a democratic Iraq will have Muqtada and friends in power anyway. That means that a democratic Iraq will be a close ally of Iran. That means that a democratic Iraq will want to change Israel's name to Palestine and change it from being the eternal home of the Jewish people to the eternal home of the Palestinian people.
Some people in the USA seem to think that "democracy" means "whatever people in the USA want". It doesn't. It means "whatever the Iraqi people want" (and the people in Iraq want very different things than the people in the USA).
Re:Bury your head in the sand (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just so SOMEBODY does it..... (Score:4, Insightful)
I just wish there was some way for the tiny minority who knew full well in advance that this war was a bad idea could have actually stopped it. But that's not how the world works. The hotblooded masses create a mess like this and then when it becomes obvious, they just embitter themselves against those who warned them rather than learn or admit they were wrong. Whatever.
And of course this is an appropriate venue for this dissent: it's a serious fucking war. It's more important than anything. If you're complaining about the subtleties of message board etiquitte you may want to rethink your priorities.