If you believe that an armed invasion that would allow Saddam Hussein to eventually control 2/3 of the entire World's know oil reserves is "none of our business", it just proves how utterly out of touch with reality you are.........Polybius
And what was Saddam going to do with all that oil? If you think we would not have done business with him or he with us then you are utterly out of touch. It would have meant that the who's who of the GOP would have their business connections in Kuwait disrupted.........u-89
Are you actually so utterly naive about economics, history and Realpolitik or are you just putting on an act in order to see what reactions you can get?
As I noted before, control of the Persian Gulf would have given Saddam control of 2/3 of the entire World's known oil reserves.
Are you totally clueless about what control of 2/3 of the entire World's known oil reserves would mean economically, politically and in terms of Realpolitik?
Whether we like it or not, until an alternative is found, oil is the life blood of modern economies. If you shut off the supply of oil, modern economies come to a grinding halt. Having control of 2/3 of it means that the World is frantically bidding up the price of the remaining available oil and even then, there is not enough to go around.
Once in control of that much oil, Saddam Hussein has complete control of the health of the American economy and the other Western economies.
He can double, quadruple or raise by ten-fold the price of the World's oil if he so chooses at any time he chooses for whatever reason he chooses.
He can make ultimatums that either the U.S. cuts all ties and aid to Israel or he orders an Oil Embargo on the U.S. and Western Europe.
He can make an ultimatum on France and Germany that they either provide him with nuclear and missile technology or he orders an Oil Embargo on the European Union.
If you lived in a town in the Old West where Uncle Sam's Cavalry was not around to take care of Law and Order, if a gang of 15 year-old toughs took over the town's Railroad Station and General Store and could raise prices of food and supplies astronomically or cut you off completely at their whim, would you advise your neighbors that, since the Railroad Station and the General Store were not your property that you and your neighbors had no right to deal with those punks?
Are you so utterly spineless that you would feel the need and obligation to "do business" with those punks?
"Look, here, U-89, the other boys and I have had an eye on your daughter so, unless you don't want your food supply cut off for the next year, you had better send her over to spend next month with us. By the way,u-89, my boots are dirty. If you want this month's food supply, we want you to clean 'em right here in the middle of Main Street. We want you to clean 'em by lickin' them clean!"
"Go on u-89! Lick 'em!! Lick those boots clean if you want your food suplly for this month!! I said lick 'em!!!"
Appeasers like yourself, u-89, who see no reason to stand up to anybody or fight fight for anything, not even the life blood of your economy, can only survive, either individually or collectively, in a society where there are others made of sterner stuff who will do the fighting for you.
First off by claiming that our economic concerns override property rights of other nations i.e. we should control the oil supply we are in practice justifying theft and murder. If I don't like the way one of the suppliers to my business operates I have no right to take him out and take over. Sponsoring a coup and putting in a puppet ruler may give plausible deniability to my hostile take over but it does not alter the deed (overt military action is the same thing only different). If such activity is immoral for me as an individual how can it be moral for the state?
If Saddam has oil of his own plus Kuwait's he would then no doubt control a lot of quality oil. But that is not the only oil in the world and he is only in power as long as sales finance his military. By cutting off the supply to the world he would cause economic hurt to the rest of us in the short term but before long would only cripple himself. If supply is short and prices too high it becomes economical for other world supplies to be tapped that currently are too expenses to profitably operate. Therefore by raising prices he opens a wider competition which could put himself out of business. He and the world's leaders all understand that.
If the function of the government is to protect the lives, liberties and property of its citizens how is it correct for them to rob its citizens of their money (taxes) and even their lives (military casualties) for anything other than the literal defense of the nation? How is it moral to coerce one's fellow citizen into supporting one's pet causes even if they are noble in themselves. Engaging the country in war because another country half way around the world is threatened can not be justified, individual passions and attachments do not override the evil of confiscating one's neighbors wealth and even his life. Economic excuses like you mention may sound like legitimate national defense but as I illustrated they are not. Military engagement in such cases actually only ensure US influence and control of the region and lucrative contracts for well connected corporations but it is not wise, productive, good for the general welfare or moral.