>Just so as not to be overlooked, Canada also supplied air power and dropped munitions, though I can't tell you how much. Of course it was teensie comapred to U.S. efforts. The Saudi Air Force participated too.
>Canada also has been active in the embargo activities in the Persian Gulf area ever since, to this day.

Although I do not speak for all of the United States, I appreciated the help of Canada.

>The Gulf War had WIDE support (only a couple of immediate Iraq neighbours didn't) because the issue was very clear-cut - unprovoked aggression needed "correction".

>Now we are facing UNPROVOKED aggression in reverse, by the U.S. and the U.K. and possibly still the U.N.!!! The fact that the U.S. has declared its intentions to vacate after "establishing democracy" does not cancel the fact that it is 'aggression'. The "provocation" seems to be that things aren't being done precisely to the U.S.'s satisfaction.

Actually, it was U.N. Resolution 1441, which called for immediate and total disarmament by Iraq. By Hans Blix's own words, Iraq has not shown a willingness to disarm.

>Any other country of this world is legitimately worried that they can be next. Especially if they have something that is of significant interest to the U.S. Remember, the U.S. was getting somewhere near 6% of its oil from Iraq ("oil for food") prior to these actions.

The only other country that needs to worry is North Korea. We have no interest in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.

>Afghanistan was attacked AFTER provocation and when the Taliban refused to turn over the self-admitted aggressor Osama (Usama in U.S. military) Bin Laden and his henchmen.

Which leads to this point: if we were really after oil, why would we go into Afghanistan?