MOR, just to continue, since I enjoy banging my head against a brick wall:
a lot of the assistance the US rendered to Iraq was of more consequence than their joke of an air force, and their tank brigades
As far as I can tell (after labouring through about 50 lines of impressive-looking text) your examples, of great consequence, are:
TOW missiles - didn't figure in '91
Huey helicopters - likewise
Howitzers - if there were any left in '91 amidst the vast majority of Russian artillery, they didn't do much
Mk 84 bombs - not used in '91, if they were even still in the inventory (besides which, their rather large joke of an air force had Russian and French ordnance to go with their Russian and French warplanes)
And that's pretty much it. We could ignore your M-60 tanks and British fighters since you imply yourself they were of little consequence, but to continue the head-banging:
M-60s - see howitzers. Vast amounts of Russian armour about the place, not much in the way of M-60s
British fighters - what British fighters exactly?
The nuclear dealings were no doubt very naughty, but I think you'll find they weren't used in the invasion of Kuwait.
Yes, there's ample evidence of dodgy stuff going on - I said as much myself. But nothing you've stated supports the idea that Iraq 'invaded Kuwait using US-made weapons and tactics, thus threatening a major source of US oil supplies. Killed as many Americans as they could using the same weapons' because it is b0ll0cks. You are wrong. Still.
Now you could go and cut & paste some more impressive-looking text which totally fails to support your original contention, thereby continuing to demonstrate that you're wrong, or we could just move on from what is becoming a rather dull side-issue.