NationStates Jolt Archive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slant_drilling

1991 — Saddam contends that neighbor Kuwait is stealing Iraqi oil through slant drilling and is also violating contractual agreements in OPEC. Saddam signals partner U.S. government of intention to invade Kuwait to resolve dispute. U.S. government, through U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie, expresses no objections, stating, “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait ... . Kuwait is not associated with America.”
See: Whatever Happened to U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie? by Carleton Cole

1991 — Saddam invades Kuwait to resolve slant-drilling and OPEC dispute. President George H.W. Bush turns on partner Saddam and declares him to be a new “Hitler,” effectively dissolving the long partnership between U.S. government and Saddam. Bush declares intention to attack Iraq with UN assistance to repel Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

1991 — Persian Gulf War. UN forces, led by U.S. government, defeat Iraq and oust Iraq from Kuwait. UN and President George H.W. Bush leave Saddam in power but require him to dismantle his nuclear facilities and chemical and biological weapons.
http://www.detailshere.com/iraniraq.htm

Iraqis Accuse Kuwait of Stealing Oil

Tuesday, August 2, 1991
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) --
Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing their oil as well as chipping away at their national territory on the border.

An Iraqi delegation was scheduled to head to Kuwait on Wednesday discuss the incidents along the Kuwaiti border

"There have been violations such as digging horizontal oil wells to pump Iraq oil," legislator Jawad al-Maliki, chairman of the parliament's Security and Defense Committee, told the National Assembly on Tuesday.

In such horizontal wells, instead of drilling straight down, Kuwaitis would drill at an angle either going into subterranean Iraqi territory or sucking oil out of pools from Iraqi territory. He also said Kuwaitis have taken territories up to half a mile inside Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slant_drilling

1991 — Saddam contends that neighbor Kuwait is stealing Iraqi oil through slant drilling and is also violating contractual agreements in OPEC. Saddam signals partner U.S. government of intention to invade Kuwait to resolve dispute. U.S. government, through U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie, expresses no objections, stating, “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait ... . Kuwait is not associated with America.”
See: Whatever Happened to U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie? by Carleton Cole

1991 — Saddam invades Kuwait to resolve slant-drilling and OPEC dispute. President George H.W. Bush turns on partner Saddam and declares him to be a new “Hitler,” effectively dissolving the long partnership between U.S. government and Saddam. Bush declares intention to attack Iraq with UN assistance to repel Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

1991 — Persian Gulf War. UN forces, led by U.S. government, defeat Iraq and oust Iraq from Kuwait. UN and President George H.W. Bush leave Saddam in power but require him to dismantle his nuclear facilities and chemical and biological weapons.
http://www.detailshere.com/iraniraq.htm
Yes indeed. This was double cross number 2 by the US.

The first double cross was during the Iraq/Iran War. When Iraq started to mount a campaign that was successfully repelling Iranians and when it appeared that Iraq might indeed defeat Iran, the US started to supply arms to Iran (Iran/Contra scandal).

The longer the current Iraq war continues, the more that people are going to discover regarding US/Iraq history. It is not a pretty story to say the least.

Here is a copy of a transcript regarding a conversation between Saddam and Ambassador April Glaspie:

APRIL GLASPIE TRANSCRIPT (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html)

Here is another of interest:

Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with U.S. Envoy (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html)

Here is a copy of a transcript regarding a conversation between Saddam and Ambassador April Glaspie:

APRIL GLASPIE TRANSCRIPT (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html)

Here is another of interest:

Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with U.S. Envoy (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html)thats very detailed...

good stuff CH

added a Poll.

The longer the current Iraq war continues, the more that people are going to discover regarding US/Iraq history. It is not a pretty story to say the least.normal people will discover more behind the scenes puppeting...

But some Pro-Bush people in the US are pressing their hands very hard...against their eyes and ears...

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v42/xenina/blog/3-monkeys.jpg

Wow I didn't know that the US told Saddam they could care less if he invaded Kuwait. Looks like it was a set-up to get an excuse to invade Saddam. Those sneaky conservative christian Republicons. tsk tsk.

who cares!!!!! its been done

Who appointed April in 1989?

You know what this really points out, don't you? An ambassador must represent the administration that he serves. I think that makes the President's choice for the UN even more appropriate.
Erm... was Ms Glaspie representing herself?

I suspect that if Miss Congeniality had been replaced with a competent ambassador by GHWB, there would have been no confusion about the US position on Iraq and maybe no Gulf War I.
Ms Glaspie was appointed Ambassador to Iraq in 1989. I presume it was GHWB who appointed her.

Wow I didn't know that the US told Saddam they could care less if he invaded Kuwait. Looks like it was a set-up to get an excuse to invade Saddam. Those sneaky conservative christian Republicons. tsk tsk.
You know what this really points out, don't you? An ambassador must represent the administration that he serves. I think that makes the President's choice for the UN even more appropriate. I suspect that if Miss Congeniality had been replaced with a competent ambassador by GHWB, there would have been no confusion about the US position on Iraq and maybe no Gulf War I.

What (from what I understand) really happened was Iraq had just finished it's USA supported war with Iran, the country was almost bankrupt, then Kuwait flooded the oil market making it near impossible for Iraq to re-build and or pull herself out of near ruin. So, Saddam asked for a peace summit and was refused. He then directly contacted the Americans (his oldest and long allies) and basically asked for the green light to invade Kuwait, which he was told very clearly that "The United States has no opinion on your border disputes" So, Saddam seen this as a green light by the Americans to invade Kuwait and rightfully so. Then, Saudi Arabia contacted the Americans and the Americans being who they are, reneged on Saddam and took the side of Saudi Arabia. Mostly because it was more in American interest to screw over Saddam for the house of Saud.

That's what happened and it's well documented.

A cute little flash movie that is very (surprisingly) accurate that I like to post when this subject comes up is HERE (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html) .. (turn your speakers up too, the music is nice)

You know what this really points out, don't you? An ambassador must represent the administration that he serves. I think that makes the President's choice for the UN even more appropriate. I suspect that if Miss Congeniality had been replaced with a competent ambassador by GHWB, there would have been no confusion about the US position on Iraq and maybe no Gulf War I.

What do you guys estimate the G force involved in this change of subject is?

What (from what I understand) really happened was Iraq had just finished it's USA supported war with Iran, the country was almost bankrupt, then Kuwait flooded the oil market making it near impossible for Iraq to re-build and or pull herself out of near ruin. So, Saddam asked for a peace summit and was refused. He then directly contacted the Americans (his oldest and long allies) and basically asked for the green light to invade Kuwait, which he was told very clearly that "The United States has no opinion on your border disputes" So, Saddam seen this as a green light by the Americans to invade Kuwait and rightfully so. Then, Saudi Arabia contacted the Americans and the Americans being who they are, reneged on Saddam and took the side of Saudi Arabia. Mostly because it was more in American interest to screw over Saddam for the house of Saud.

That's what happened and it's well documented.

A cute little flash movie that is very (surprisingly) accurate that I like to post when this subject comes up is HERE (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html) .. (turn your speakers up too, the music is nice)

ahh, yes, St. Saddam, the murderer of hundreds of thousands of his own people... his word cannot be doubted. lmao

She obviously screwed up. Since Bush appointed her, he screwed up, too. One should always learn from history.

[edit]
I just found out she was born in Canada. That's the problem.

maybe she took a slapshot to the head as a young girl or something... hehe

What do you guys estimate the G force involved in this change of subject is?
I really thought I had saved it. A single reference to a related subject isn't really dragging the subject into the weeds. I'd give it a 2 on the G-meter. No real stress, but noticeable.

She obviously screwed up. Since Bush appointed her, he screwed up, too. One should always learn from history.

[edit]
I just found out she was born in Canada. That's the problem.

That would be all fine and dandy, except there is, well more than one, but at least one glaring problem with your argument... it wasn't just her, Jim Baker also gave Saddam the green light right from the White House, but nice try at revisionist history. ;)

Erm... was Ms Glaspie representing herself?


Ms Glaspie was appointed Ambassador to Iraq in 1989. I presume it was GHWB who appointed her.
She obviously screwed up. Since Bush appointed her, he screwed up, too. One should always learn from history.

[edit]
I just found out she was born in Canada. That's the problem.

I wonder about the truth in that statement, as well. Glaspie has been reputed to have said several different things in that regard. None of which were recorded by a reputable source. I believe the transcripts that are referenced were released by the Iraq government.

The hallowed wikipedia has this to say, in part:


and


So maybe the mistakes weren't made by the U.S. Maybe Sadam underestimated us for the first time.

do not underestimate the guile of a sociopathic killer.

Wow I didn't know that the US told Saddam they could care less if he invaded Kuwait. Looks like it was a set-up to get an excuse to invade Saddam. Those sneaky conservative christian Republicons. tsk tsk.
I wonder about the truth in that statement, as well. Glaspie has been reputed to have said several different things in that regard. None of which were recorded by a reputable source. I believe the transcripts that are referenced were released by the Iraq government.

The hallowed wikipedia has this to say, in part:

One version of the transcript has Glaspie saying: "We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?"


and

When these purported transcripts were made public, Glaspie was accused of having given approval for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which took place on August 2, 1990. The transcript, however, does not show any explicit statement of approval of, acceptance of, or foreknowledge of the invasion. Indeed Glaspie's opening question ("Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?") would suggest that Glaspie (and presumably therefore also the State Department) did not know the purpose of the troop concentrations and was concerned about them.

The transcript also shows clearly that when Glaspie expressed the hope that the Iraq-Kuwait dispute would be "solved quickly," she meant "solved by diplomatic means." The references to solving this problem "using any suitable methods via Klibi or via Mubarak" make this clear. Nothing Glaspie says in the published versions of the transcript can be fairly interpreted as implying U.S. approval of an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.


So maybe the mistakes weren't made by the U.S. Maybe Sadam underestimated us for the first time.

So maybe the mistakes weren't made by the U.S. Maybe Sadam underestimated us for the first time.

Wish I could back you on this, but it's well documented, the US stabbed Saddam in the back after they had supported him for 40 years. Jim Baker is where the statement came from, she was only relaying the message. Sorry dude, you're wrong on all counts.

do not underestimate the guile of a sociopathic killer.Saddam is no Longer there...Yet Iraq is still accusing Kuwait of stealing Oil.

Saddam is no Longer there...Yet Iraq is still accusing Kuwait of stealing Oil.

First I've heard of this accusation. Care to provide proof that they are still saying it please?

First I've heard of this accusation. Care to provide proof that they are still saying it please?
I saw in on TV...

I sow in on the TV...

Care to provide me more information considering I haven't heard anything on it?

Care to provide me more information considering I haven't heard anything on it?earlier today I had a link...give me a few minutes...I will get it for you.

I wish i had a lost-and-found Links service...

Damn I cant find the Link...but basically this was the storyline...
Back-to-the-Future II...
Iraqis Accuse Kuwait of Stealing Oil

Tuesday, August 2, 1991
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) --
Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing their oil as well as chipping away at their national territory on the border.

An Iraqi delegation was scheduled to head to Kuwait on Wednesday discuss the incidents along the Kuwaiti border

"There have been violations such as digging horizontal oil wells to pump Iraq oil," legislator Jawad al-Maliki, chairman of the parliament's Security and Defense Committee, told the National Assembly on Tuesday.

In such horizontal wells, instead of drilling straight down, Kuwaitis would drill at an angle either going into subterranean Iraqi territory or sucking oil out of pools from Iraqi territory. He also said Kuwaitis have taken territories up to half a mile inside Iraq.

Damn I cant find the Link...but basically this was the storyline...
Back-to-the-Future II...

Ok, that's old news. I thought you were talking that they were still saying it today. Alwell.

Ok, that's old news. I thought you were talking that they were still saying it today. Alwell.same ol-same ol...

its Todays News...Kuwait is still stealing Oil (say the Iraquis)

Just change the date from 1991 to 2005.

same ol-same ol...

its Todays News...Kuwait is still stealing Oil (say the Iraquis)

Just change the date from 1991 to 2005.

I'll wait for you to provide me a link.

Damn I cant find the Link...but basically this was the storyline...
Back-to-the-Future II...

I remember seeing something about Iraq accusing Kuwait of stealing oil in 2001 or 2002

I'll wait for you to provide me a link.http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-iraq-kuwait,1,4829476.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

Ok, that's old news. I thought you were talking that they were still saying it today. Alwell.

I believed they accused them of doing it right up until the invasion, hard to say if the new government will accuse as well. If it's true, they probably will. This was the most recent article I could find, while I admit, I didn't look too hard. It's from 2000.

Kuwait Stealing Oil (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/09/14/world/main233586.shtml)

I know that Kuwait flooded the oil market and drove down prices and that was one of the main reasons Saddam invaded Kuwait, as they were killing Iraq's chances of re-building after basically being bankrupt from the USA backed war with Iran.. but as to whether Kuwait actually "stole" the oil, I'm not sure. I suppose it's possible.

I believed they accused them of doing it right up until the invasion, hard to say if the new government will accuse as well. If it's true, they probably will.the old and the New still say Kuwait has stealed Oil in 1990...more-over they say Kuwait is still stealing...

Check this one out from Aug. 2nd

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050802/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_kuwait_1


EDIT: Ocean beat me to it. Same story.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-iraq-kuwait,1,4829476.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

At least there going to talk about it. That's a plus and thanks for the link.

Check this one out from Aug. 2nd

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050802/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_kuwait_1

Thanks Sumamba... there we have it. :)

I believed they accused them of doing it right up until the invasion, hard to say if the new government will accuse as well. If it's true, they probably will.here is another link http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/08/02/international/i124809D69.DTL

You know, no one trusted Saddam to be "honest" , but if it turns out that Kuwait was/is in fact stealing Iraqi oil, it will by all counts justify Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990/91. And mean this whole thing has been an even bigger farce than we already believe it to be. That thought just sort of popped in my head.. If Kuwait was stealing Iraq's oil.. they had every right to invade them.

You know, no one trusted Saddam to be "honest" , but if it turns out that Kuwait was/is in fact stealing Iraqi oil, it will by all counts justify Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990/91. And mean this whole thing has been an even bigger farce than we already believe it to be. That thought just sort of popped in my head.. If Kuwait was stealing Iraq's oil.. they had every right to invade them.

Then you can legally say we did the right thing by booting him due to the oppression that was in Kuwait during the short time that he held the country. So now we are right back to square one all over again.

You know, no one trusted Saddam to be "honest" , but if it turns out that Kuwait was/is in fact stealing Iraqi oil, it will by all counts justify Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990/91. And mean this whole thing has been an even bigger farce than we already believe it to be. That thought just sort of popped in my head.. If Kuwait was stealing Iraq's oil.. they had every right to invade them.
Historically Oil has been a source of war...viewed as an strategic asset...Govs have not hesitated to use military force, risking war and Death...

other source of Wars have been border territorial dispute...both were key factors in 1990...and are still today.

with or without Saddam.

Then you can legally say we did the right thing by booting him due to the oppression that was in Kuwait during the short time that he held the country. So now we are right back to square one all over again.

No, not at all. In fact if Kuwait was stealing Iraq's oil, then the Americans and co, had no right to go to war with Saddam in the first place. If it had not been for that first war, than all of the justifications for the second war would be null and void. As would the oil for food scandal. Among many other things.

No, not at all. In fact if Kuwait was stealing Iraq's oil, then the Americans and co, had no right to go to war with Saddam in the first place. If it had not been for that first war, than all of the justifications for the second war would be null and void. As would the oil for food scandal. Among many other things.

Way to miss everything I said. You totally ignored the part about oppression. Alwell. Liberals always seem to miss that part.

I wonder though, why hasn't anyone confirmed that Kuwait has pulled a Mr. Burns on Iraq with the slanted drilling? Wouldn't Saddam or somebody have gotten proof? Why are people blaming Kuwait in teh first place? is it because of the amount of oil they are producing or do they have some sort of hard evidence?

I wonder though, why hasn't anyone confirmed that Kuwait has pulled a Mr. Burns on Iraq with the slanted drilling? Wouldn't Saddam or somebody have gotten proof? Why are people blaming Kuwait in teh first place? is it because of the amount of oil they are producing or do they have some sort of hard evidence?

Well, I think Saddam claimed he had proof.. but no one would believe him. If the new Iraqi government makes the same claim, it will by all counts vindicate Iraq and Saddam.

I mean you can't go after Saddam for gassing the Kurds, first of all he did it with American chemicals..so if Saddam is guilty so are the Americans. Also, it happened over 15 years ago, it's a strawman. Not to mention that there is quite a bit of evidence to support it wasn't Iraq at all, in fact it very well could of been Iran. You can't go after Saddam for the war in Iran, again if Saddam is guilty, so are the Americans.. so what are you left with? Not freaking much!

I wonder though, why hasn't anyone confirmed that Kuwait has pulled a Mr. Burns on Iraq with the slanted drilling? Wouldn't Saddam or somebody have gotten proof? Why are people blaming Kuwait in teh first place? is it because of the amount of oil they are producing or do they have some sort of hard evidence?
Some in the Intelligence community say that the US gave Kuwait the Tech to use more flexible tubes...

Iraq suspected all along this was going on...

at some point Iraqi fear became more upsetting when some ex-employee confirmed the stealing...(then again some say he was from the CIA).

At that point Iraq had verbal confirmation from a top ex-employee...but no hard Proof.
More important Iraq was very outraged...that Kuwait was dumping stealed Iraqi Oil to keep the War Debt high...using this to get border concessions.

You give Kuwait all this oil rich land...and Kuwait erases the Ballooning War-Loans.

Keep in mind that Iraqis never forget that Kuwait was part of Iraq...forcefully separated by Britain.(sp?)

Disclaimer...I do not have any Links for this (it comes from family member working in the middle of this Bloody mess)...Take it at face value..or dismiss it.

Keep in mind that Iraqis never forget that Kuwait was part of Iraq...forcefully separated by Britain.(sp?)

Yup, also true, Kuwait was the 19th province of Iraq.

I mean you can't go after Saddam for gassing the Kurds, IMO....
Its 2 separate issues...

Kuwait was Probably stealing Iraq's Oil...and its probably still doing it.

Kurd gassed >> Saddam is a Criminal...AND the US gov was his accomplice.

Kurd gassed >> Saddam is a Criminal...AND the US gov was his accomplice.
I wonder how did we let all the TV Cameras for OJ-Simpson Trial...and no coverage for Saddam?

What are we so worried about?
What do we have to hide?

Some in the Intelligence community say that the US gave Kuwait the Tech to use more flexible tubes...

Iraq suspected all along this was going on...

at some point Iraqi fear became more upsetting when some ex-employee confirmed the stealing...(then again some say he was from the CIA).

At that point Iraq had verbal confirmation from a top ex-employee...but no hard Proof.
More important Iraq was very outraged...that Kuwait was dumping stealed Iraqi Oil to keep the War Debt high...using this to get border concessions.

You give Kuwait all this oil rich land...and Kuwait erases the Ballooning War-Loans.

Keep in mind that Iraqis never forget that Kuwait was part of Iraq...forcefully separated by Britain.(sp?)

Disclaimer...I do not have any Links for this (it comes from family member working in the middle of this Bloody mess)...Take it at face value..or dismiss it.

very interesting thnx!

I wonder what the US would say if its borders were forcibly redrawn and much of its oil was given away. I'm sure many Republicans would support such a move and it wouldn't anger them at all so they would also conclude that Saddam had no right to be angry either.

I wonder how did we let all the TV Cameras for OJ-Simpson Trial...and no coverage for Saddam?

What are they so worried about?
What do they have to hide?

Open the doors...let the World see the Truth...

If you kill the Truth...your Freedom is fake.

Yes Ocean Drive! Speak the truth...

...so long as this thread doesn't end up with you suing someone. ;)

You know, no one trusted Saddam to be "honest" , but if it turns out that Kuwait was/is in fact stealing Iraqi oil, it will by all counts justify Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990/91. And mean this whole thing has been an even bigger farce than we already believe it to be. That thought just sort of popped in my head.. If Kuwait was stealing Iraq's oil.. they had every right to invade them.
Erm... no. Stealing something is not an act of aggression. Remember the Cod Wars berween the UK and Iceland? Not very much of 'war'...

Yup, also true, Kuwait was the 19th province of Iraq.
When?

scenario: Someone is stealing from you. YOu appeal to the authorities but they tell you to deal with it yoruself. What do you do?
Definitely not bludgeoning him with a baseball bat. Maybe I'm a bit of a pacifist, though... Saddam definitely wasn't.

Erm... no. Stealing something is not an act of aggression. Remember the Cod Wars berween the UK and Iceland? Not very much of 'war'...


When?

scenario: Someone is stealing from you. YOu appeal to the authorities but they tell you to deal with it yoruself. What do you do?

Yes Ocean Drive! Speak the truth...

...so long as this thread doesn't end up with you suing someone. ;) haha... Damn you :D :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

When?

That's what I want to know since Kuwait was established in the 16th century.

That's what I want to know since Kuwait was established in the 16th century.

Prior to World War I, under the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, Kuwait was considered to be an autonomous caza within Ottoman Iraq. Following the war, Kuwait fell under British rule and later became an independent emirate. However, Iraqi officials did not accept the legitimacy of Kuwaiti independence or the authority of the Kuwaiti Emir. Iraq never recognized Kuwait's sovereignty and in the 1960s, the United Kingdom deployed troops to Kuwait to deter an Iraqi annexation.

Prior to World War I, under the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, Kuwait was considered to be an autonomous caza within Ottoman Iraq.
I don't think that international law is concerned with adminitrative divisions of the erstwhile empire. It wassn't the same for the Iraqis, I suppose.

Following the war, Kuwait fell under British rule and later became an independent emirate. However, Iraqi officials did not accept the legitimacy of Kuwaiti independence or the authority of the Kuwaiti Emir. Iraq never recognized Kuwait's sovereignty and in the 1960s, the United Kingdom deployed troops to Kuwait to deter an Iraqi annexation.
Actually the Hashemite Kings of Iraq recognized the border with Kuwait, which was the British protectorate then.

A Brief History of Kuwait

Kuwait's modern history began in the early 18th century, when several clans from the Al Aniza tribe migrated to the northern shore of the Gulf from the Najd, their famine-stricken homeland in central Arabia. These settlers combined to create an oligarchic merchant principality, whose economic prosperity was based on fishing, pearling, and trade. Eventually the Al Sabah emerged as the dominant clan, and were formally established as rulers in 1756.

Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Al Sabah proved adept at the kind of maneuvering that was necessary for a small state to survive next to powerful Saudi, Rashidi, and Ottoman neighbors. By the late nineteenth century, however, fears of growing Ottoman influence led Sheikh Mubarak Al Sabah or "Mubarak the Great" (r.1896-1915) to enter into an agreement with Great Britain, which effectively established Kuwait as an autonomous British protectorate.

Under the 1899 agreement, Kuwait maintained control over its internal affairs, while Great Britain assumed responsibility for the country's security and foreign relations. The British also provided advisers to staff the country's nascent modern bureaucracy. Another British legacy is Kuwait's borders, which were established in 1922 and 1923. Iraq affirmed its border with Kuwait in its 1932 application to the League of Nations for membership as an independent state.

In the mid-1930s work began on the development of Kuwait's petroleum industry, the basis of the country's modern prosperity. Oil was first discovered in Kuwait in 1938, but the development of the industry was interrupted by World War II. By 1945, drilling had resumed on a large scale, and the commercial export of crude oil began in June 1946. Oil production and revenues grew rapidly, fueling a dramatic expansion of the entire economy. By the 1960s Kuwait enjoyed a level of economic development that made it one of the richest states in the world on a per capita basis.

On June 19, 1961 Kuwait gained full independence from Britain. Iraq initially refused to accept Kuwait's independence and threatened to annex its neighbor, falsely alleging that Kuwait had once been part of Iraq. Iraq's military threats resulted in a deployment of British troops, which were soon replaced by an Arab League force, and the crisis subsided. In 1963 Kuwait became a member of the United Nations, and later that year Iraq agreed to abandon its threats and recognize Kuwait's independence and borders in a treaty signed by both governments (although there were border clashes in 1973).

In the 1980s Kuwait's stability was shaken by the Iran-Iraq War, terrorist attacks in Kuwait City, and economic difficulties caused by a worldwide oil glut and the 1982 collapse of the country's unofficial stock market, the Suq Al-Manakh. Kuwait's sovereignty and continued existence were critically threatened when Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait on August 2, 1990, claiming that Kuwait was harming Iraq economically by refusing to reduce its oil production. Many Kuwaitis were forced to flee to Saudi Arabia and other countries. In Saudi Arabia, Kuwait set up a government in exile. As an international coalition of 30 states, led by the United States, prepared to reverse the occupation, Iraq announced it had annexed Kuwait, claiming again that Kuwait had been historically part of Iraq. The Iraqis were forcibly ejected at the conclusion of Operation Desert Storm on February 26, 1991. Departing Iraqi troops looted homes and businesses, and inflicted serious damage on Kuwait's oil industry and environment by setting ablaze 742 of its 1,080 oil wells and allowing crude oil to flow into the desert and the sea. They also took thousands of Kuwaiti prisoners with them.

In November 1994, Iraq formally accepted Kuwaiti sovereignty as well as a UN-demarcated border. Nevertheless, Iraq has provided only partial compensation for property and environmental damage sustained during the occupation and has refused to comply with U.N. resolutions stipulating that Iraq repatriate all prisoners of war. Eight years after Kuwait's liberation, Iraq continues to hold 605 prisoners of war (of whom 570 are Kuwaiti citizens), many of whom were kidnapped from their homes or were arrested at random on the streets during the Iraqi occupation.


source from Kuwait information office (http://www.kuwait-info.org/For_Students/history_of_kuwait.html)

Prior to World War I, under the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, Kuwait was considered to be an autonomous caza within Ottoman Iraq. Following the war, Kuwait fell under British rule and later became an independent emirate. However, Iraqi officials did not accept the legitimacy of Kuwaiti independence or the authority of the Kuwaiti Emir. Iraq never recognized Kuwait's sovereignty and in the 1960s, the United Kingdom deployed troops to Kuwait to deter an Iraqi annexation.

Interesting. However, I'm still not seeing evidence that they were under Iraqi rule.

Historically...Oil has provoked War and death

and Border disputes has also provoked War and Death...

If Panama or Egypt try to ban US-bound Oil Tanks...the US would kill-or-arrest the presidents and install a puppet...

If Panama or Egypt had a strong enough army...war would happen.

Historically...Oil has provoked War and death

and Border disputes has also provoked War and Death...

If Panama or Egypt try to ban US-bound Oil Tanks...the US would kill-or-arrest the presidents and install a puppet...

If Panama or Egypt had a strong enough army...war would happen.

You'll never convince the Republicans that the US would go to war over economic interests (especially if it concerns oil). It only happens because we have to help the downtrodden and thats that.

I wonder how did we let all the TV Cameras for OJ-Simpson Trial...and no coverage for Saddam?

What are we so worried about?
What do we have to hide?
What the hell? The government didn't direct the television cameras to OJ Simpson. The producers did, and not because of some whacked-out conspiracy, but because that's what would get better ratings.

Prior to World War I, under the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, Kuwait was considered to be an autonomous caza within Ottoman Iraq. Following the war, Kuwait fell under British rule and later became an independent emirate. However, Iraqi officials did not accept the legitimacy of Kuwaiti independence or the authority of the Kuwaiti Emir. Iraq never recognized Kuwait's sovereignty and in the 1960s, the United Kingdom deployed troops to Kuwait to deter an Iraqi annexation.
That doesn't make it a nineteenth province though. It was made part of Iraq by foreign powers, and later one of the foreign powers involved decided that they'd made a mistake.

Historically...Oil has provoked War and death

and Border disputes has also provoked War and Death...

If Panama or Egypt try to ban US-bound Oil Tanks...the US would kill-or-arrest the presidents and install a puppet...

If Panama or Egypt had a strong enough army...war would happen.

The U.S. did install a puppet in Panama. His name was Manuel Noriega. Also Panama was originally part of Colombia, until the U.S. decided they wanted to build a canal.

The U.S. did install a puppet in Panama. His name was Manuel Noriega. Also Panama was originally part of Colombia, until the U.S. decided they wanted to build a canal.
And helped the Panamanian rebels break free from Colombia. We didn't go and make Panama our own personal colony, we just helped the locals break away from a government they didn't want.

And Noriega seemed like a nice little lap dog for a while, but he became unstable and started risking all sorts of chaos in the region. We got rid of him.

The U.S. did install a puppet in Panama. His name was Manuel Noriega. Also Panama was originally part of Colombia, until the U.S. decided they wanted to build a canal.

And the Panamanian people also wanted independence and asked the US to help them out. One Gunship that fired no shot gave Panama their independence and we also took out Noriega too.

No, you stepped in when you decided the price Colombia was charging you for the territory on which you planned to build the canal was too high.

No we stepped in when approached by the citizens of Panama who wanted to be free. Most people wanted independence from Columbia and even had money to purchase a gunship. They approached us and we sent a gunboat off of the Columbian coast and they let panama go.

No, you stepped in when you decided the price Colombia was charging you for the territory on which you planned to build the canal was too high.
As Corneliu said earlier, we stepped in after the Panamanians paid for a gunboat. A gunboat that just sat there doing nothing.

And helped the Panamanian rebels break free from Colombia. We didn't go and make Panama our own personal colony, we just helped the locals break away from a government they didn't want.

And Noriega seemed like a nice little lap dog for a while, but he became unstable and started risking all sorts of chaos in the region. We got rid of him.

No, you stepped in when you decided the price Colombia was charging you for the territory on which you planned to build the canal was too high.

With regards to Noriega...

"General Manuel Antonio Noriega Moreno (born February 11, 1938) was a Panamanian general and the de facto military leader of Panama from 1983 to 1989. He was initially a strong ally of the United States and is said to have been paid by the CIA from the late 1950s to 1986."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega


"Oliver North, who met with Noriega's representative, described the meeting in an August 23, 1986 e-mail message to Reagan national security advisor John Poindexter. "You will recall that over the years Manuel Noriega in Panama and I have developed a fairly good relationship," North writes before explaining Noriega's proposal. If U.S. officials can "help clean up his image" and lift the ban on arms sales to the Panamanian Defense Force, Noriega will "'take care of' the Sandinista leadership for us."

North tells Poindexter that Noriega can assist with sabotage against the Sandinistas, and suggests paying Noriega a million dollars -- from "Project Democracy" funds raised from the sale of U.S. arms to Iran -- for the Panamanian leader's help in destroying Nicaraguan economic installations.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm

Regarding the canal...

Panama became a part of independent Colombia in 1821. Its significance as a crossroad was enhanced again when U.S. settlers bound for Oregon and the goldfields of California passed through Panama. W. H. Aspinall built (1848-55) the Panama RR, and the question of a canal across the isthmus became paramount. The project ultimately led to a revolution against Colombian sovereignty and the establishment of Panama as a separate republic
The United States, interested since the late 18th cent. in trading voyages to the coast of the Pacific Northwest, became greatly concerned with plans for a canal after settlers had begun to pour into Oregon and California. Active negotiations led in 1846 to a treaty, by which the republic of New Granada (consisting of present-day Panama and Colombia) granted the United States transit rights across the Isthmus of Panama in return for a guarantee of the neutrality and sovereignty of New Granada.

The isthmus gained more importance after the United States acquired (1848) California and the gold rush began, and the trans-Panama RR was built (1848-55) with U.S. capital. At the same time, interest in an alternate route, the Nicaragua Canal , was strong in both Great Britain and the United States. Rivalry between the two countries was ended by the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty (1850), which guaranteed that neither power should have exclusive rights or threaten the neutrality of an interoceanic route. In the 1870s and 80s the United States tried unsuccessfully to induce Great Britain to abrogate or amend the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

After the United States acquired territory in the Caribbean and in the Pacific as a result of the Spanish-American War (1899), U.S. control over an isthmian canal seemed imperative. Following protracted negotiations, a U.S.-British agreement (see Hay-Pauncefote Treaties ) was made in 1901, giving the United States the right to build, and by implication fortify, an isthmian canal. It was then necessary for Congress to choose between Nicaragua or Panama as the route for the canal.

Hay-Herrán Treaty 1903, aborted agreement between the United States and Colombia providing for U.S. control of the prospective Panama Canal and for U.S. acquisition of a canal zone. It was signed by U.S. Secretary of State John Hay and Colombian foreign minister Tomás Herrán on Jan. 22, 1903. The treaty stipulated that the New Panama Canal Company, which held an option on the canal route, might sell its properties to the United States; that Colombia lease a strip of land across the Isthmus of Panama to the United States for construction of a canal; and that the United States pay Colombia $10 million and, after nine years, an annuity of $250,000. Although it did not give the United States complete governmental control over the proposed canal zone, the treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate. The Colombian congress delayed ratification, hoping to increase the price offered by the United States; finally, it rejected the treaty because of dissatisfaction with the financial terms and fear of “Yankee imperialism” and loss of national sovereignty.

The Hay-Herrán Treaty would have given the United States a strip of land across the Isthmus of Panama in return for an initial cash payment of $10 million and an annuity of $250,000, but the Colombian senate refused to ratify it. An insurrection, involving Bunau-Varilla and other proponents of the canal as well as the regional population, was encouraged by the United States.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/Panama_History.asp

If there's anyone else who needs to be educated I suggest you start a new thread.

What the hell? The government didn't direct the television cameras to OJ Simpson. The producers did, and not because of some whacked-out conspiracy, but because that's what would get better ratings.
The world Media does not want to cover Saddam's trials?

You really believe that?

That's what I want to know since Kuwait was established in the 16th century.
You are only off by a couple hundred years but what the heck?

You are only off by a couple hundred years but what the heck?you noticed too? :D