'And Kuwait was a disgusting, fake country that had no right to exist.'

what about 'Might makes Right' - they continue to exist for more or less this reason, and no country exists today aside from this right.

Yeah, it's not like countries just appear out of thin air. They usually come about because someone simply claimed some land without any right to it but the fact they could kill anyone who disagreed with them.

Putin making such comments...sigh....laughable. His dream would be a return of Communist Soviet Union...which forced people by right of might to be apart of their blessed national endeavor.

Putin is such a fucking hack it ceases to be funny anymore...

In Soviet Russia you don't pick government, government picks you!

"and no country exists today aside from this right."

A great number of countries exist despite having no might at all.

Please tell me what "might" the South Pacific islands have, or Seycelles, Sao Tome, Iceland and San Marino, or the Vatican, or the dozens of African countries with armies averaging 1 or 2 soldiers per 1,000 people.

Kuwait doesn't exist because of its capacity for force, but because of external security guarantees.

"Regardless of the reasons, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Therefore, the war of aggression was started by them."

Tell me, was Kuwait a territory of the United States?

Anyway that premise is very faulty, if you are being economically strangled, attempt to negotiate and are repeatedly rebuffed, then military action is not aggression. Iraq was losing tens of billions in revenues due to Kuwait.

Yes, Kuwait's capacity for force is the force utilized by the US military. But that is the only might which counts.

A great number of Pacific islands are remote and their current government are the locally mighty.

The Vatican exists with the permission of the Italian government and people...

@Putin, tell me, was Iraq right to invade Kuwait?

Yes, they were right. Iraq had two choices, either become bankrupt and not afford basic things like food or punish Kuwait for their behavior. They chose the latter. People who refuse to see this are not being objective. If Iraq had wanted Kuwait they could have gotten it in the 1970s, when the international environment was more conducive to such adventures. This was a defensive action.

"A great number of Pacific islands are remote and their current government are the locally mighty.

The Vatican exists with the permission of the Italian government and people... "

Yes, permission. All of these "states" exist because they have permission to exist, not because of any force of arms. Most of them don't have militaries of any kind. You cannot call them 'locally mighty'.

And at what point was it Iraq's right to punish anyone outside of it's sovereignty with military action?

Sure had Iraq invaded in the 70s that might have succeeded, but they were a little busy with what two or three coup's a Kurdish independence movement, and a lack of interest in the meagre oil supplies.

I guess we can start bombing Mexico tomorrow to punish them for burdening our country with illegal immigrants, who are putting an economic strain on certain school systems, medical systems, the prison system, etc.

Right on, Putin!!

"And at what point was it Iraq's right to punish anyone outside of it's sovereignty with military action?"

August 1, 1990.

"but they were a little busy with what two or three coup's"

The coups were in the 1960s. The Kurdish war lasted a year. At the time Iraq had Soviet support and Syria invaded Lebanon with no repercussions. Kuwait could have been annexed quite easily.

"I guess we can start bombing Mexico tomorrow"

Mexico is not waging economic warfare against the United States. Krellin it'd be nice if you could ever make a coherent argument.

And in return for Iraq taking military action to stave of economic strangulation at Kuwait's hands, the U.S. and others took military action against Iraq to prevent economic strangulation at their hands if Iraq had decided shit was easy pushed into Saudi Arabia.

There was no threat to Saudi Arabia. They invented a threat to Saudi Arabia, as is now well known, because that was the only way they could get Saudi to host American troops and save face. The troop build-ups were a fraud.

If there was no threat to Saudi Arabia why would any even bother fighting Iraq? The threat might have been hypothetical, but still worth staving off the theoretical possibility of Saudi Arabia being invaded.

Western invasion of Iraq was driven far more by domestic politics than anything Iraq did or didn't do.

Because, as the Joint Chiefs outlined in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War, the United States shifted from global containment to confronting regional powers. After Iraq's victory vs Iran in 1988, it had a large military (still 400,000 or so troops even after post-war cutbacks), had shown that it could defend itself against a powerful adversary, and was beginning to assert itself in Arab politics. It wanted to created an Arab Cooperative Council, with Egypt, Yemen and others, as an independent political bloc in the region. The US has never tolerated the existence of regional hegemons. It fought both Japan and Germany to prevent the rise of regional hegemons. It now threatens China and Russia for the same reason. The presence of a militarily powerful, independent Iraq was not acceptable. With Iraq defeated, the US could control the energy resources of the Gulf. The US had long stated its goal to do so, since the days when oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia.

But back to Iraq invading Kuwait, you see that as justifiable Putin? I understand it as a power play to annex a weak nation and utilize its resources, regardless of whether those resources belonged to Iraq in the first place or not, and therefore incredibly aggressive and hostile and worthy of intervention.

@ Mendax,

I don't know, at the time of the crisis there were mid-term elections and Iraq was not a major issue. The House GOP did not really campaign on Iraq, and at any rate they lost seats.

@Putin33

"With Iraq defeated, the US could control the energy resources of the Gulf. The US had long stated its goal to do so, since the days when oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia."

Exactly. The US does not want one of the key components of it's economy (cheap imported oil) to be disrupted, which would damage the economy, just as Iraq did not want one of the key components of it's economy (exported oil) to be siphoned off by the Kuwaitis. If Iraq was the regional power, then Saudi Arabia would de-facto be under it's control. So Iraq was stopped sooner rather than later.

It's regrettable that the US is dependent on imported oil, but everyone in the Iraq/Kuwait/US conflict was playing the same game. Oil companies, bank bailouts and racist dog-whistles are the things that prevent me from actually being a republican.

The US hardly threatens China and Russia at all. In fact the US lets them beat their homosexuals and jail their political opponents about as much as they want.

y2kjbk, I've presented my case for why I thought it was a defensive action. If Iraq wanted to annex Kuwait and use its resources, it could have done it much earlier than 1990. Why did they pick 1990? Why do you ignore what Kuwait was doing? Do countries have no right to retaliate to economic warfare? Why did Kuwait refuse to negotiate? Why did the US refuse to negotiate? Why did the US press on with the war even after the Soviet peace proposal was accepted by Iraq? Why did the US attack the surrendering Iraqi military if this was supposedly for the defense of "weak countries"?

Too many questions that don't add up if your theory is true.

Putin, you fucking retard, actually, IN FACT, Mexico is waging economic warfare on the US. The Mexican government educates it's citizens specifically on how to cross the border and take advantage of the US welfare system and other resources without becoming a citizen.

So...IN FACT....Mexico is **very much** waging economic warfare against the US, you fucking idiot.

Therefore....meeting Putin's criteria...we may now begin to start the bombardment against Mexico.

For that matter....we may also begin our military assault against China, who is known globally for infringing on patents, stealing technology, etc.....which is economic warfare.

YAY!!! By Putin's criteria we can now, with a clear moral conscience, invade both Mexico and China.

Oh yippeeeee! The military industrial complex will be so happy! JOBS FOR ALL!!!

@Krellin Considering the effect the shitpiles of US coke money is already having in Mexico, bombing might be redundant.

"The US hardly threatens China and Russia at all. "

The US has China surrounded by heavily armed pro-US satellites throughout East Asia with American troops as well. South Korea, Japan, the 7th fleet is in Taiwan for crying out loud. They have a long, extensive military relationship with the Philippines. They have close military ties with Vietnam. They are building up military ties with India. They are challenging the expanding presence of the Chinese navy in the South China Sea, and backing up every country that has a dispute with China.

As for Russia, the US is pressing hard to affix every country around Russia to NATO. It pushed for the Orange Revolution, which failed spectacularly. IT backed the color revolutions in the Caucasus and Central Asia. It engaged in a lot of sabre rattling over Georgia, backing the aggressive Georgian government in their repression of the Ossetians. It is now using the Olympics as an excuse to attack Russia. It passed with Magnitsky Act. It has long supported the Chechen and Dagestani terrorists in their war with Russia. Your friend Romney called Russia America's "biggest foe".

@tendmote -- no, a good war in Mexico would be great for the economy. New weapons to build, secure new natural resources within driving distance, not to mention rounding up and jailing all the illegals in the country, freeing up jobs for Americans.

The dumping of US product in Mexico annihilating small farms throughout the country, causing the migration that you, in your typically bigoted way, attack Mexicans over, is economic warfare. Immigration is a net benefit to the US economy, it is not the equivalent of losing billions in revenue and putting the US on the brink of default.