There are???

Would you please list them, and cite sources, please. As far as I know, Reagan instituted sanctions against Iran because he was allying the US with Saddam because Saddam had ordered Iraq to attack Iran and occupy Iran's oil fields and water ways.

What is confusing is why then VP Bush didn't institute sanctions against the Kuwaitis when Saddam ordered Iraq to invade and occupy Kuwait's oil fields and ports.

Why support one attempted invasion, but not support a successful invasion?

And Saddam did run his plan to invade Kuwait by the Bush administration and they didn't object, saying that what happened in the Persian Gulf was a "local matter." Bush did apparently have second thoughts, so he did ask the Saudis what they thought of Saddam's suggestion that he was planning to invade Kuwait, especially given the Iraqi army massing on the Kuwaiti border. Why Bush didn't ask Saddam what he was planning, or better yet, simply send Saddam a message like "That Iraqi army on the Kuwait border better not enter Kuwait or you will suffer the consequences."

If anything, that is a really good example why leaders of nations need to talk directly with each other to make their positions clear.

Both Bush's method of talking indirectly and and refusing to listen to what leaders like Saddam are saying has taken the US into several unnecessary wars. And the only reason I'm hopeful that Bush won't take us into yet more wars is that his administration of the US military has ensured that they can't possibly handle another war without abandoning one or more of the others.