[canuck_conservative]

I guess every "war" has some similarities to another, and I get the point. But there's also crucial differences:

1) Vietnam wasn't really a war, since Congress - the only body under the US Constitution that has the power to declare war - never officially authorized action. That's not the case with Iraq.

2) More importantly, with Vietnam, the US public always felt that the was no compelling reason for the US to be there, that it was interfering (more or less) in the internal affairs of some far-away, non-threatening country.

After 911 and direct threats from Saddam / various terrorist scum, the US saw Iraq as a RELEVANT threat to the country.

No matter how hard the leftist media tries to portray Iraq as Vietnam-all-over-again, the public won't bite - they're behind the Iraq operation.

This is not 1968 again (thank God!!!)

[Matchett-PI]

"After 911 and direct threats from Saddam / various terrorist scum, the US saw Iraq as a RELEVANT threat to the country. No matter how hard the leftist media tries to portray Iraq as Vietnam-all-over-again, the public won't bite - they're behind the Iraq operation."

Fear of death has a way of focusing the mind.:)

That's why Kerry and the DemocRATS are trying their best to play down the threat:

[CyberAnt]

Well .. the public is biting - people used to be for the war by 65% - I think the approval for the war is down to 48% - and I am convinced the media has been largely responsible for this.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: "the US public always felt that the was no compelling reason for the US to be there"

That is misleading. Of course the left lied that it was an uprising of the people against an oppressive and corrupt government. The fact is the North Vietnam Communists created and directed the National Liberation Front, called Viet Cong by most, in 1961, I believe was the year.

Vietnam was just one of several "wars of liberation." Some were in Africa. Why Vietnam? Clearly the Communists were directing the attacks on South Vietnam. I'd have to refresh my memory of SEATO but there was that. The public was very much aware of the Soviet's aims and our worldwide confrontations. That's why it was called the Cold War.

According to James "Scotty" Reston Kennedy's humiliation by Khrushchev in Vienna in 1961 made him realize he'd have to make up for coming across as a wimp. His options were limited at the time. Berlin and Vietnam were two hot spots. At the time I thought he'd pick Africa's "wars of liberation." We all knew Khrushchev hammered JFK but Reston didn't mention all the details and the Vietnam connection until 1965.

Also, re: the American public. There was the mainstream media portrayal of the "American public" and there was us, the American public. We had no Internet and talk radio was being harassed by FCC "Fairness Doctrine" complaints threatening station owners' licenses. We were the silent majority. Never again silent!