If in the American interest, and in a legal military action as approved by the democratic and constitutional process in America, then YES, it damn sure is.
You view keeping a king on a foreign throne as 'in the American interest' and thereby worth the blood of her sons and daughters. That's a sentiment fit for an empire, not a republic. Our differences in opinion stem from our seperate views of America's place and purpose. I see that you will forever be tilting at bogeymen, for the world is full of them when you go looking.
And the Gulf region's only elected parliament. (I know you're not just a shallow and bilious anti-American, anti-military propagandist, and must have only forgotten that part...)
as 'in the American interest'
As opposed to having Kuwait and, in the range of reasonable prediction, Saudi Arabia, and thereby over half the world's oil supply, in the hands of, not a constitutional monarch, but a megalomaniac, totalitarian dictator?
Yeah. I'd say that was in the American interest. I'd think anybody remotely sane would grant that to be in the American interest.
and thereby worth the blood of her sons and daughters.
Yes. Worth the blood of her sons and daughters. Without question. Especially since with one, or two, nations in the world's most volatile region under the occupation of a brutal tyrant, and the stated desire of said tyrant to reestablish the empire of Nebuchadnezzar, and his repeatedly vows to attack and destroy Israel, and thereby the panic (and arms buildups) that would be inspired in neighboring nations; a FAR MORE deadly war or wars, in which the United States could not avoid becoming involved, would have been the reasonably predictable result of not confronting Saddam over his unprovoked invasion of Kuwait.
Our differences in opinion stem from our seperate views of America's place and purpose.
No they don't.
I see that you will forever be tilting at bogeymen
See? Our differences stem from your delusion. To describe Saddam Hussein in control of Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, and thereby half the world's oil supply, and with further territorial ambitions, and with further aggressive, warmaking intent, and with weapons of mass destruction (which he DID have back then) as a "boogeyman"... I.e. something feared as a threat, but in fact only an imaginary threat... To not at least be able to see, but instead to hyperbolically dismiss, the sense of such an analysis...
Sorry, bud. That's not just a difference of "opinion". That's deep delusion. That's outright alteration of reality, sufficiently extreme as to most probably (if I may be premitted to speculate) related to some sick and twisted ideological motive.