LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well Iraqi folks aren't as well armed as the VC or NVA... I mean Feb/'68 showed us a bit about capability.
The troops have better BP Vests... etc.. I don't know what a camouflage shirt is suppose to stop.. but it sure ain't much..
All in all I've to agree that IF I had to be in a war zone.. I'd take Iraq over Vietnam...
I still recall the AR15 and even the M16 jamming all the time.. well ok.. put 2 less in the clip and the changes did the trick.. but that must be scary.. Snakes and Tigers... oh my.. Nope... Iraq would be my choice...
Edit: I should add that it is obvious at least to me that Iraqi Army is non existent so the death count is lower but even if it was an Army we were against... our superior weaponry and air superiority would limit the deaths 100 fold.. 1000 fold as compared to VN. We can employ them better in Iraq than in VN... All aspects of waring in Iraq go to the US in this case..
My son, who is in his second tour in Iraq, and I have compared notes about our perspectives of view in these wars.
He thinks that I had a tougher time and was in a more intense and dangerous situation,
while I think he has the tougher position.
I guess that no matter what you perceive from your historical point of view, the cut to the chase comes down to one thing . . .
'being there'.
Only an individual who has been through a specific experience can even relate to that experience,
outside observation does not serve to convey a sense of danger or urgency.
Yeah.. I think that is true... Fear is the one element that I know should exist in both places... time don't much change that... nor does much else except perhaps security.. and to some extent I think I'd feel more secure in Iraq today than that other place years ago..
But, yes I agree...
