Do you also think that Putin invading Ukraine isn't aggression, but the US funding them is just because of distance?

Or do you think that Finland and Sweeden joining NATO is Western aggression because they are closer to Russia than the US?

What do they have to do with anything in this context?

They were two wars of ideological struggle. One to contain what was believed to be a totalitarian dictator while the other was to contain a terrorist state. Both tried to install democratic governments in their respective regions, and only one succeeded. They were not wars of conquest, although neither were really good for the US or the invaded party, if you exclude Kuwait, as they were liberated as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

Regardless, my opinion of those wars don't change the fact that the countries in the South China Sea see the United States as a valuable strategic partner in containing Chinese aggression in the region, and vice versa.

The United States does not have active claims to the territory of another sovereign state or any claims outside of the territory it currently controls. Claiming otherwise either shows serious delusions or is intentionally misleading.

Furthermore, I did not comment on the outcome of the Vietnam War, only that after the US had left the region, regardless of why they left, that the PRC proceeded to invade Vietnam in an attempt to annex its sovereign territory.

China litterally invaded Vietnam after the US pulled out. Not only that, China has been acting belligerent and has claimed 90% of the South China Sea. They have also threatened to invade Taiwan.

From what I understand, the Philippine government values US military involvement in the region, primarily because China is a massive problem for any country in the South China Sea.

Having a counter to your biggest geopolitical opponent on hand as a strategic partner is generally something countries like.

Had a dog that lived to 24 and a cat that lived to 23.