• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why Did Iraq Invade Kuwait?

The idea

Graduate Poster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
1,540
Did the people who currently control Kuwait illegally seize the land from Iraq? Did the world let it happen? What should be done now to redistribute the land that is currently known as "Kuwait"?

Alternatively, was Kuwait an independent state entitled to independence? If so, then what motivated Iraq to invade? Was it all about oil, oil, oil?
 
Kuwait used to be part of Iraq until it secceded. Unlike Tawain it was sucessful in becoming an indepedent nation in reality and in name. The Iraqie's have long considered Kuwait to "rightfully" belong to them, which is why Saddam invaded in the early 90's.
 
Like all genius moves, it was a well thought-out plan. Who'd have guessed it could go horribly wrong?
 
History of the Kuwait-Iraq Border Dispute

Kuwait has never been part of Iraq. It was an independent political entity (1899) before Iraq was carved out of the Ottoman Empire(1923) by colonial powers at the close of World War One.

Iraq maintains that Kuwait was merely a territory within the Ottoman vilayet (an Ottoman administrative district similar to a province or governorate) that was administered by Basra, a city in modern day Iraq. This claim is not supported by historical evidence. Although there were very brief periods when a ruler of Kuwait paid tribute to an Ottoman ruler, Kuwait’s independence long preceded that of Iraq’s independence from the Ottomans. As early as 1863 the British representative to the Gulf reported that Kuwait was “practically independent despite recognizing Turkish suzerainty.”[1] Three years later a different British officer wrote that Kuwait paid no tribute to the Ottoman authorities.[2] Kuwaiti citizens paid no taxes to the Turks, and Kuwaitis were never conscripted into the Ottoman military.[3] And most telling, Kuwait never housed an Ottoman garrison.[4]

Later, on July 20, 1961, the Arab League, in the absence of the Iraqi delegation, unanimously voted to admit Kuwait as a member. Inasmuch as membership in the Arab League is limited to independent Arab states by virtue of the League’s charter, the unanimous consent of the other Arab states represented a universal Arab recognition (excepting Iraq) of Kuwait’s independent and sovereign status.[15] After Kuwait’s admission into the League, Iraq’s Baathist regime dealt with Kuwait for 30 years as a sovereign state.

The impetus behind Iraq’s claims to Kuwait does not stem from historical will, but rather from Iraq’s desire to secure a deep-water port.
 
The idea:
Alternatively, was Kuwait an independent state entitled to independence?
This invites a long discussion on what confers "entitlement". There's no long-standing nationalist feeling in the Middle East, where the historical experience is of rule by empires (large and small). Interests are generally local, loyalties are personal, rulers are distant and mysterious (and quite often preferable to more local alternatives).

Outcast points to a particular time in the Gulf's history - 1863 - and an opinion provided for the British Government. (The strategic value of Kuwait needs no explaining.) In that opinion we have "... despite recognizing Turkish suzerainty ...". That point would have been quite sufficient for the British to support Ottoman claims against the Russians, as in the Crimea. In Kuwait it is not of "practical" significance. Quelle surprise.

Kuwait was most certainly Ottoman under Suleiman the Magnificent, and prior to that was ruled by the Seljuks or local potentates usually based in Basra. The modern borders in the Gulf are just the result of recent historical accident and the perceived interests of the powers-that-be/have been. The British certainly wanted an independent Kuwait since it would always require a foreign guarantor (expected to be the Brits, but times change) against Iraq. So that's what we've got. No right, no wrong, no objective "entitlement", just an outcome.
 
Of course it was about oil. Kuwait sits on top of the most concentrated oil deposit in the world. Iraq invaded Kuwait in order to control the oil supplies.
 
It can also be argued that the US gave the "green light" to Saddam in his intentions towards Kuwait who the Iraqi`s maintained were cross drilling into Iraqi territory.
 
As always the Saddam apologist, and the US basher.
You must be jumping for joy that your 'insurgents' in Iraq have managed to kill some 30 Americans and scores of 'collaborators'. Are you going to gnash your teeth in rage when the insurgency is put down?
 
You people are all ignoring the fact that Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil by slant-drilling under the Iraqi border. That was the very reason Saddam gave for the invasion before it happened, when he talked to US Ambassador April Glaspie, and wondered if the US would retaliate if he invaded Kuwait to sieze the oil back again (he was told we wouldn't).
 
Ah, strawmonkey, so you are saying it can`t be argued that the US gave the "green light" to Saddam in his intentions towards Kuwait who the Iraqi`s maintained were cross drilling into Iraqi territory?
I think you`ll find there is some controversy over the exchanges between April Galspie and Saddam and there seems quite a bit of agreement that Kuwait was using cross-drilling methods.
For mentioning this I`m ipso facto a Saddam apologist? Well, in that case I hate to tell you but there is a lot of it out there.

If you think there is no argument over these issues then go for it, show me the proof that my eyes have been deceiving me.
Otherwise do yourself a favour and stop being an apologist for idiocy.
 
Shanek:
"You people are all ignoring the fact that Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil by slant-drilling under the Iraqi border. That was the very reason Saddam gave for the invasion before it happened, when he talked to US Ambassador April Glaspie, and wondered if the US would retaliate if he invaded Kuwait to sieze the oil back again (he was told we wouldn't)."

On the contrary, see my post above. I mention just these factors.
Guess that makes you a Saddam apologist too for mentioning them;)
 
My understanding was that in addition to being a port, having lots of oil (though Iraq does pretty OK in that department), Kuwait had a higher standard of living than most of Iraq, which led to resentment on the part of the Iraqis.

Probably not a determining factor, but I can't imagine it didn't help foster popular support.
 
demon said:
On the contrary, see my post above. I mention just these factors.

Oops, you're right; I missed that. Sorry about it.

Guess that makes you a Saddam apologist too for mentioning them;)

Yeah, I'm a Saddam-loving anti-American terrorist sympathizer who cackled evilly as the world trade towers went down...

(An that's NOT some kind of humorous exaggeration; I've actually been called ALL of those things.)
 
The book called "Battlefields Then and Now" by John Man and Tim Newark says on page 136:

"Saddam had long wanted to seize Kuwait, which had been administered with Iraq until the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War. It was therefore in effect a Western artifact, with no older historical "right" to exist. But he was inspired less by history than by Kuwait's oil, worth $22 billion a year. He was in dire need of help, for in 1988 the end of an eight-year war with Iran had left his country bankrupt. A declining economy meant rising unrest. To have Kuwait would be a welcome economic and political boost."
 
JAR said:
But he was inspired less by history than by Kuwait's oil, worth $22 billion a year. [...]
You are suggesting that Saddam Hussein was no better than a common thief? Please. You are tarnishing Saddam Hussein's good name. All he ever really wanted was some SPAM, some Mars bars, and a good hole in the ground. ;)
 
demon said:
It can also be argued that the US gave the "green light" to Saddam in his intentions towards Kuwait who the Iraqi`s maintained were cross drilling into Iraqi territory.

Oh, I see. Saddam invaded Kuwait and it's the US fault. Why don't you save us all time and just tell us what you think ISN'T the US fault.

The weather? Oh wait: weird weather --> global warming --> Kyoto protocol --> greenhouse emissions --> US not reducing it --> it's the US fault.

Your losses in chess? Oh wait: Russian players dominate the chess scene worldwide --> because the USSR collapsed allowing free emigration --> Ronald Reagen responsible for that --> it's the US fault.

Damn, I'm sure you can think of SOMETHING...
 
Skeptic, you go from:

"It can also be argued that the US gave the "green light" to Saddam in his intentions towards Kuwait who the Iraqi`s maintained were cross drilling into Iraqi territory."

...to...

"Oh, I see. Saddam invaded Kuwait and it's the US fault. Why don't you save us all time and just tell us what you think ISN'T the US fault.

The weather? Oh wait: weird weather --> global warming --> Kyoto protocol --> greenhouse emissions --> US not reducing it --> it's the US fault.

Your losses in chess? Oh wait: Russian players dominate the chess scene worldwide --> because the USSR collapsed allowing free emigration --> Ronald Reagen responsible for that --> it's the US fault.

Damn, I'm sure you can think of SOMETHING..."


Hmmm, velly intervesting Mr Skeptic, have you been on the bulldozer fumes again?
 
Skeptic said:


Oh, I see. Saddam invaded Kuwait and it's the US fault. Why don't you save us all time and just tell us what you think ISN'T the US fault.

The weather? Oh wait: weird weather --> global warming --> Kyoto protocol --> greenhouse emissions --> US not reducing it --> it's the US fault.

Your losses in chess? Oh wait: Russian players dominate the chess scene worldwide --> because the USSR collapsed allowing free emigration --> Ronald Reagen responsible for that --> it's the US fault.

Damn, I'm sure you can think of SOMETHING...

The US is like the the Godfather, before you wack someone, you check it out first with the boss.
 
Skeptic said:
Oh, I see. Saddam invaded Kuwait and it's the US fault.

Where did he say that? You're just reading what you WANT into other people's arguments because you don't want to deal with the truth of what actually happened.
 

Back
Top Bottom