In Vietnam we were engaged in combat with the 4th largest army in the worl

yet it was not called a war but a "Conflict" The Vietnam Conflict. If Vietnam did not rise to be worthy enough to be officiall called a war how in the hell can we justify Iraq being called a war. There is no army at all let alone the 4th largest army in the world. In vietnam we actually had military targets. We actually had engagements with a conventional force. What we did not have in vietnam was a desire to win. All we were doing was holding an enemy at bay. Is that the same strategy in Iraq?

Viet Nam differed from Iraq in one other important way as well.

We got into Viet Nam after the Military false reports were given to the President who, believing them, informed the people and acted on the information.

In Iraq we have the President misinforming the military, misinforming the people, and then acting on the misinformation he himself presented.

Significant differece.

Then there were the tanks (both sides), the aircraft (both sides) the artillary (both sides) the logistics systems (both sides), voluntary multinatinal involvement (both sides), groundwar (both sides), sea war (both sides), airwar (both sides), and each with its own clandestine forces.

If you are referring to the Gulf of Tonkin as the trigger for US involvement in Vietnam, then you have to also ask why was it the US was probing their coast with warships?

Seems to me we stuck our ships in a position where an "incident" was not only likely but very much expected.

Nonetheless, your comparison is a good one.

I would add that the US had almost nothing to gain economically from aiding Vietnam there was no equivalent to Iraqi oil. Vietnam was about a cold war ideology showing our willingness to prop up a domino. Iraq is a demonstration project about global military hegemony.

...on November 26, 1963. That NSAM basically stated that the U. S. was going to ramp up our military support of South Vietnam. This countermanded JFK's last NSAM, number 263 signed on October 12, 1963, that ordered the first 1000 U. S. troops out of Vietnam.

LBJ needed an incident of some sort to trigger an escalation of the war, and he got that incident with the Tonkin Gulf fabrication.

Sound familiar?

It was the Generals who wanted a war and they fed an excuse to an unwitting LBJ. Never mind that LBJ's intent was enabled by the lieing, at least he did not initiate it. That is the difference between LBJ and Bush. In today's case it was the President who initiated the false information. JBJ may (or may not) have welcomed and used the news (lies) but he did not originate it.

LBJ is a very ambiguous figure in all of this. He was very torn and troubled by all that was going on as if he had no control.:shrug:

would be a bit more accurate

If we lost the cause in Vietnam (and we pretty much did, in the end), wasn't there supposed to be a domino effect in which numerous countries went communist and slowly but surely the world was lost to us and we would cease to exist as a nation and our way of life would be lost forever and we would be unable to own private property because communism would take over the world?

Isn't that what we were fighting for?

And isn't China no longer even called "Red China", and isn't it our most-favored trading partner, and isn't it a growing bastion of economic progress and huge capitalist-style projects such as that big dam they're building?

Sure is a funny brand of communism they've got over in China. Doesn't seem to be all that different from our own desire to grow economically and own more stuff and have a "higher standard of living".