In this case one view of history is shaped by direct personal experience and the other by media and written words. There are not even that many vets with the experience and knowledge of that war (or even the area in general) as Charles. He knows more about the real war and the lives it affected than he could ever get permission to write about.


>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.
>
>
>>>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 ? )