Gulf War I, and the current war, Whats the Difference?

Taking the "War on Terror" out of the picture, what is the difference?

Saddam invaded Kuwait, the world stepped up behind the US led coaltition.

Current world leaders say Saddam has WMD's, the US goes infront of the UN with their Proof, the world is not in agreeance with the US measures for a solution by military means, The US leads a tiny coalition into Iraq.


I am looking for peoples idea's on this. Most of the world sees the US as Invading Iraq for oil, staging grounds for more war, conquering the world, etc.. and the slim majority see it as fully Liberating the country. Iraqi's did not ask for help as Kuwait did, nor did any other world leaders. The 9-11 Comission Report stated that Saddam was not directly involved in 9-11, so with that I'm throwing out the "War on Terror" reason. There are too many countries who openly associate themselves with terrorists, more than they 'claim' Saddam did, and more are a direct threat to the world in general than Iraq was. (IMHO)

So what is the difference?
What are the reasons both of these wars are just?

Reason I am throwing this out there is to find more of a feeling around the world as to whether or not the US is seen as invading Iraq rather than liberating it. Please try not to attack mine or any other person in regards to their statements. Please only attack the statements with some well found and informative ones of your own.

READ MY LIPS!

Son, Just like when I was President... War = Good, good gewwwd.

Economy....BAD...baaahd.

Bush was lacking the proper intelligence

So, Bush Presidency, Recession, Oil Prices, War in Iraq. Not much difference

OK, but do you see it as the US invading Iraq like Saddam did Kuwait?

The difference in Gulf War I and Gulf War II is in the first one, it was an effort with a larger coalition force to oust Iraq from Kuwait without invading Iraq.

In the second one, it's a much smaller coalition, but the intent was to overthrow Saddam's Regime.

12 years and 3 months is the real difference though.

[edit on 27/9/04 by Intelearthling]

first one was about getting saddam out of kuwait


secound was about busg securing a majour tactical area
and for oil
and was against international laws

Ok the thing Im trying to bring across with this is.....
Do you see now in hindsight that the US invaded Iraq, just as Iraq invaded Kuwait?

I'm starting to realize that this is other countries perspective on the war. Not Leadership, but civilians. That the US and it's coalition of England, not to take away from others that are involved, but England provided more than the others combined. (If I am wrong about this someone please point it out.

.
GULF WAR - WE AND ALLIES TURNED BACK AN IVADING AGGRESSOR.

IRAQ WAR - WE ARE AN IVADING AGGRESSOR.
.

The main diferences are.

1. A Joint Chiefs of Staff that were intelligent, cared for the troops. Used common sense.

2. A president who listened to his Military leaders.

3. A president who served in combat and not just read about it.

P.S. Intelligence is apparently not hereditary.

I really only saw a delay in the fighting for about 10 or 12 years and the current war as a finish to the war on Sadam that started during the Persian Gulf War. Sadam was constantly violating cease fire agreements. What we're doing afterwards trying to establish democracy is another issue as I see it. Should the US just leave Iraq now and let them fend for themselves?

In hind site, the world would probably have a better opinion of the US if we had just dropped sanctions on Sadam and let him build WMD's first and then let him start a holy war of terror on everyone as he threatened Europe and the Middle East down the road after he built up his military and WMD's. Then after he had nukes or biological and chemical weapons, the US could go in and save the day minus a few cities that would have gotten hit by Sadam. That's just my opinion and I believe most people in the world probably will not agree but I don't really care. I guess the next time the US sees a strong possibility of a third world dictator building up massive armies and WMD's we should let him take out a few nearby cities first or the world will condemn the US again. Then again if only nearby cities get hit by third world dictators, maybe the US could just stay home and stop being the world policeman.

Maybe if the US kicks the oil habit we can let the Middle East fight as much as they want and just stay out of it. That would be fine with me.