Originally Posted by pampl
The problem with this line of argument is that the Western world actually has cared very little about the Gulf region or other resource rich areas. If wars were motivated so much by oil, the Kosovo intervention would have never happened and a Kurdistan intervention would have, for example. The blood-for-oil thesis just doesn't describe history.
The thesis is that people go to war to acquire or protect resources, but oil isn't the only resource. The Yugoslavian civil war presented various threats to the material well-being of those who interceded, if for no other reason than that it was a major source of instability right on Western Europe's doorstep.
Also interventions aren't the only way to protect access to resources. Hussein was still selling his oil, which muted whatever motivation there might have been to intercede on the Kurds' behalf.