He was friendly with us. As a matter of fact we were helping him, against Iran.It was a terror state and there is no indication that Saddam Hussein was friendly with any western nations.
Borderline crazy? It's called facts. It's been published in memoirs from the ambassador and multiple other accounts. Saddam was being supported by us because he was up against Iran. He met with the US ambassador and consulted about invading Kuwait. The ambassador told him "It's an Arab-Arab issue, not our problem, we have nothing to say or do about it." Saddam then decided to invade. Obviously if the US had told him at the time "Don't even think about it. If you do we will not only withdraw our support, but will come down really really hard on you. Expect 500,000 of our troops on the ground plus thousands of tanks. We'll decimate your army and bring you down from power. Furthermore, you may very well get killed." Well, most likely, Saddam wouldn't have invaded Kuwait, then. In one phrase, we'd have avoided the first Gulf War (in which we did put 500,000 men on the ground and thousands of tanks). See what I mean? To ignore that this was a diplomatic blunder is just incredible. You're doing it, I'd guess, just because the then president was from the GOP. Had a Democratic president's ambassador committed this blunder, you'd be all up in arms against it.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.
I know you do, and that's why you are wrong. Try to dig a bit deeper and have a broader understanding of history and geopolitics. You'll then understand better that immediate causes are preceded by remote causes and they are both important.We go with the last, most significant, factor.
Maybe you don't see the complexity but mostly everybody else who looks at the Middle East does. In that region of the world, things are never simple. Sure, we can follow the chronology, which is what I'm doing. Just, I'm starting the line further back in the past while you're just considering the very recent past, which is a certain way to be mistaken and narrow-minded about stuff.It's not as complex as you make it out to be. Just follow the chronology.