>We have different views of American history. Viet Nam was worse in terms of casualties but it wasn't this completely unnecessary and dumb.
>
>No, I didn't get an email from you. Please re-send.

Perhaps it is not our views but our knowledge of American history that is so different <bg>

I'm resending to the email address ( mbeane2-at-comcast.net) that is triggered by the icon next to your name. If that's no longer functional send me your current one at charleshankey-at-f1tech.com. )



>
>
>>>The Iraqi invasion has been the stupidest episode in our history. Viet Nam was nothing compared to this. At least then we thought it was a good cause and we didn't irritate the entire world in the process.
>>
>>I can only conclude you we too young to understand what was happening from 1961-1975.
>>
>>Just for openers, 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam and whole lot more were wounded - physically and psychologically. More bombs were dropped on Laos than were dropped in Europe in WWII. Laos had 13 miles of paved roads.
>>
>>A conscript army and troop levels of over half a million, rules of engagement that were dunderheaded at best, and host country allies that were certainly no better than what we have in Iraq in a country with no strategic resources that affected our national security ...
>>
>>As to thinking it was a good cause and not irritating the entire world in the process ... well, I guess you weren't a history major or reading a lot of newspapers in the 60s. There were those who weren't 100% supportive of the idea <s>
>>
>>As to the stupidest episode in our history ... man, you *really* weren't a history major <g>
>>
>>( did you get my email - I didn't know if the address was right ? )