Yes, definately. Thsi war is different then vietnam, and not in a good way. For those that say look at history, let's, and compare. Vietnam was a war about stopping the spread of communism, the threat was real, they were on the move. On the other hand, the war in Iraq was all a bluff, we went in because they were a threat with their chemical and biological weapons, which we never found, and now there are reports that the President knew that. If you remember the first Gulf War, that was a legitimite war, Saddam invaded Kuwait, Kuwait asked for our help, the whole world was outraged. So we went in and got him out of Kuwait and back into Iraq, if he was that much of a threat then why wasn't he taken out then. We knew then he had chemical weapons when he was using it against the Kurds, you had the perfect opportunity to get him out, and you didn't. All of a sudden, he's a threat again. Thats like having pushed Hitler back to Germany during WWII and say, "ok" guys thats it, lets just leave him in power in Germany, he gets the point. No, he doesn't, you leave someone that has shown he had some weapons, used them in the past, in power? And your suprised that he might be a threat in the future. But I think in this last scenario with Iraq, Saddam was like a little school bully, talking the talk, walking the walk, when in reality he had nothing. But he convinced the rest of the world he was a major power and threat, and we fell for it. Nothing will compare to this war as far as history goes, too many blunders and lies. And a leader that doesn't knwo when to call it quits and bring our guys home. Even Johnson realized at one point that the war in Vietnam wasn't worth it and brought our guys home. But Bush doesn't seem to get it, he seems to want to keep it going as long as he can.