You have very warped ideas of freedom and communism if you think the USA was on the wrong side of freedom in that conflict.
No, you do.
Decades before the US taking over the war, Ho Chi Minh wrote President WILSON a letter asking for the US, as a leader for freedom and democracy, to help them be free of foreign occupation - occupation that had a history, the Chinese, then the French. The US before JFK had a policy of supporting our 'allies' like France in their colonization policies, and we did not answer his letter, supporting France as an occupier.
In WWII, Japan replace France; at the end of the war, Japan had to leave. Ho Chi Minh took the occassion to ask the US again for help to not let France return, and let them be free of occupation. He created a 'Declaration of Independence' copied from the US as the basis for a new government. The US not only supported our ally France returning as an occupier - when the war got rough, we paid up to 90% of the war costs for the French.
The US in this period had a quite paranoid approach to global politics created after WWII, inventing a lot of threat that was not there, in part for justifying our own aggression.
The US ignorantly made assumptions - Ho Chi Minh was just a puppet of the Chinese, who would use a victory in Vietnam to conquer all Southeast Asia - and soon San Francisco.
This movement for freedom from occupation was falsely turned into a global communist threat - just as the US had a policy of installing far-right brutal dictators in many countries.
The US was actively opposing democracy in many countries during this period.
Funny thing is - the US lost, the communists won - and whaddya know, after they fought a brief war with China - funny way for a puppet to act - and they put down the Khmer Rouge monsters the US destabilzation had allowed to come to power - they became they very non-occupied country they'd always said they wanted, not the spearhead of global communism. Leaders who had played key roles like Robert McNamara came to admit the errors - go watch 'The Fog of War' for his admission how little the US understood.
No, my ideas about freedom are right - people don't like foreign occupiers. It's YOUR ideas about freedom - right-wing dictators, using torture and murder and tyranny, as 'freedom', that are the wrong ones. Millions of Vietnamese killed in an unjut war, to protect the US 'image', as 'freedom'.
I suppose by that standard, Kuwait was enjoying freedom when invaded and occupied by Iraq, so we were on the wrong side of freedom in '91 as well.
The fact you have to make up a lie that's a straw man shows how you got the other argument wrong, too.
In fact, Kuwait was not all the great a mdoel of freedom before the invasion, with its typical middle east 'royal' plutocracy, limited rights for women, etc. But Saddam's invasion - whatever the justification of Kuwait 'side drilling' into Iraqi oil, historical patchwork nations built by the British to screw things up, and so on - made Kuwait less 'free'.
While the Bush administration screwed up - implying they were fine with Saddam invading Kuwait, something they'd reportedly promised him as a 'prize' for his starting a war with Iran, with our encouragement and eventual military intervention on his behalf (to punish those evil Iranians who we had screwed by removing THEIR democracy to install a brutal dictator for 25 years) - I'm consistent here - Kuwait was LESS free under Iraqi occupation and there was reason to oppose Saddam's invasion and occupation.
So, you will need to do better than a lie as a straw man. I won't hold my breath.