It was a terror state and there is no indication that Saddam Hussein was friendly with any western nations.Stable as far as terrorism goes. Saddam as a dictator was oppressing his people and was bellicose against neighbors but terrorists had no space to thrive there.
Just think about this for a moment. If a US Ambassador was to say to any leader of the world that it is okay to invade their neighbor, then it's okay to invade? And despite this, you still think Saddam Hussein was "stable"? Stable people don't invade their neighbors just because an Ambassador gives them a wink and a nudge. I know millions enjoy criticizing the US but blaming them for Saddam Hussein attacking Kuwait is a leap in logic that is borderline crazy.Right, you've heard it before. It's not nonsense; it's called a diplomatic blunder.
We go with the last, most significant, factor.I think you're the one missing all the other factors, and narrowly considering only one factor.
It's not as complex as you make it out to be. Just follow the chronology.Don't put words in my mouth. I never said no one is to blame. It's a complex situation with multiple causes and multiple people screwed up, which is frankly quite incredible that you are unable to see.
"We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
"I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker