No, but that's a lesson: Just because you're a "SUPERPOWAH" does't mean you're invencible...
On that point, I mostly disagree. The United States
is virtually invincible on the world stage. Only a very select few nations pose any real military threat to its survival.
You should understand America didn't lose the "Vietnam War," per se. Rather, it simply discontinued its support for a nation that lacked the will to fight. We came home, and a few years later, South Vietnam collapsed. It's as simple as that. No less important is that America cannot lose the second war in Iraq either, because that conflict ended mere days after it began (America won that conflict, by the way).
Eventually, the United States will leave Iraq, and the people left behind will complete the genocide against each other that the radicals among them have worked so tirelessly for. But discontinuing a police action for a people who seeth with hatred for their(often flawed) protectors doesn't represent a military defeat.
The United States could quite easily kill pretty much every person in Iraq in a matter of seconds, but there is simply no justification for doing so. Whittled to its bare components, your argument really resembles a benevolence=weakness conclusion. I don't agree with that at all.
If Americans create something to provoke this war, this means that they din't learn in the 'Nam, and now need to learn another lesson.
That is a much more reasonable comment. I don't think you have much to worry about, though. As a people, we've seen enough pointless conflict that only seems to increase the chaos. Who would have ever guessed that George Bush I would be vindicated by the mistakes of his bumbling son? It seemed an outrage to leave Saddam in control of Iraq back in the 90's. The wisdom of that decision is apparent now.