And no, I am not saying we get Kuwaiti oil for free - but Gulf War One was not fought to "restore democracy to Kuwait" either. We are protecting a corrupt monarchy because they are friendly to our business interests, that's all.
As well we should. And that brings up the question of why we didn't confiscate at least some of Iraq's oil when we defeated them in '91.
Of course, the fact that we did not shows how completely nonsensical your argument; " and then coming to the rescue to clean up the mess and collect the spoils" really is.
And no, I am not saying we get Kuwaiti oil for free - but Gulf War One was not fought to "restore democracy to Kuwait" either. We are protecting a corrupt monarchy because they are friendly to our business interests, that's all.
Where the hell did you get that we were fighting the Gulf War to "restore democracy to Kuwait"? I NEVER heard ANYONE say that.
We fought the Gulf War to expell Iraq from Kuwait and protect the oil reserves of both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Are these two countries led by corrupt monarchies? Of course. Are they usually pains-in-the-ass? Absolutely. But we have nominally good relations with them and in that reigon, that means alot.
Of course in your perfect world we would only have absolutely free democracies as allies, but then again, that doesn't leave anybody to ally with.
But all this gets away from the silly assertion from the article which you readily embrace:
but the author does seem to think that the US relies on a strategy of "delaying entry into global conflicts long enough so potential competitors would be weakened, and then coming to the rescue to clean up the mess and collect the spoils."
I ask again. What "spoils" did we collect during the Gulf War?