The response has been markedly similar except for obvious reasons no one wants a major war (which Saddam couldn’t produce).
The invasion is viewed as highly invalid and unrelated to a longstanding dispute. Saddam wanted oil, Putin wants (allegedly) a larger buffer against the West (I really think he views this more as a legacy project towards his view of Russian greatness). Both Saddam and Putin had long histories of conflict for which they were mostly responsible.
I know you agreed on Gulf War 1. Me personally, I think domestic political considerations are causing you to dismiss obvious similarities. Just not how I roll, I don’t care what the GOP or other voters or whatever is perceived to have changed from the passage of time. I try to apply the same principles regardless of exterior conditions, of course my principles could be wrong.
I suppose the big difference is that we have left the Cold War mentality. At that time, the West felt functionally united because of the historical Russian threat. Interestingly Putin is at least trying to bring that back on a smaller scale with his moves the last 2.5 years.
Putin invaded Ukraine because the US leadership was weak, US diplomacy was poor and there was valid consideration of Ukraine being offered membership in NATO. Hussein entered Kuwait because he was done with Kuwaiti oil production costing Iraq.
Bush formed a coalition of unbelievable girth from all over the world, including Arab countries. Ukraine invasion? Not so much. They couldn’t even agree on how to route equipment and what equipment to send to a country being invaded by Putin.
A huge difference between the two invasions is US leadership. Gulf 1 was a Republican President who had the backing of the vast majority of Americans. OTOH, this invasion occurred under weak Democrat leadership, the same as Crimea. Obama’s team including Hillary Clinton set the world on fire for 8 years, completely misunderstanding the Arab Spring, etc. The junior dopes in his Admin are now setting foreign policy and of course are completely out of their depth. These second stringers from the Obama Admin have made China and Russia allies. It used to be we could count on both of them not working together. Economic sanctions don't work well when other large countries become markets for Putin's Russia.
Another difference between the two invasions is what it means to US voters (citizens). As an example, after 9/11 the people understood the purpose of the mission and supported it. The purpose of spending US taxpayer/printed money on a non-NATO country is extremely foggy. What was Biden and his son doing in Ukraine when he was VP?
Times have changed. Bush 43/Cheney and much of that Admin embellished about Iraq/Hussein to start a war. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, more people have come to the idea that the US doesn’t need to constantly be in wars. Viet Nam should have been the last of it. Unfortunately history repeats itself for those who forget. The insanity of the Afghan conflict/occupation is how the US government helped the mujahideen and finally Russia left. It was the Soviet's Viet Nam. Bush 43 went for the occupation anyway. The US replaced the Taliban with the Taliban. A classic case of the exporting of democracy not working for the umpteenth time. That idea is past its prime.
US demographics are completely different than 1990. We are much more diverse ethnically. I think it is important to get back to shared values of the Melting Pot, as opposed to this Tossed Salad nonsense, but regardless of those concepts, the diversity of the US population means is we are no longer connected to Europe the way we have been since 1620. Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, African-Americans. None of these groups are tied into a European "homeland".
Now add on that many European countries didn't pay their fair share for NATO. Why did so many previous Presidential Administrations accept this? The former President you despise woke these countries up. Trump made the correct point. If those European countries do not meet their obligations, why would we come to their aid? As an attorney, surely you understand what happens when contractual obligations aren't met. NATO has some serious issues and we need to look hard at what the solution is. America now has both the EU and UK trying to rule over our country as if we are subjects with the EU threatening Musk about his Trump interview. The EU has no jurisdiction over the US. The UK has some government officials claiming they are going to extradite US citizens for making social media posts about what is happening in their country. That's what unfettered globalism has accomplished. Europeans thinking they can make Americans conform to their garbage laws on US soil. We are a sovereign nation.