I really can't be bothered picking through all of this, so I'll take the easy one.

Quote:


Why not let an asshole English general chop off a small part of an area for an oil concession! Welcome to Kuwait!! Did he set up an area for the Kurds? No. Did he divide off the Sunnis from the Shi'a? No. But for an oil concession he took away the areas richest asset and made sure it was protected - because God knows they couldn't do it on their own - even in '61 the Brits ran in there. An unstable internal mess of a country is the best defense! But, people get bitter and look for other allies. Welcome Nazi Germany's bastard child: The Baath party!!!




Whose version of history have you been reading? This is total bullshit. Kuwait had existed as a separate self-governed entity since the 1700s. The Ottoman empire claimed suzerainty over it (the basis of the modern-day claim), but the local Kuwaiti leaders had other ideas and in the in the late 19th century they invited the British to come in as protectors.

Britain ruled Iraq (the mesopotamian mandate) for just 12 years between inheriting it from the Ottoman empire (1920) and granting independence (1932). It was reoccupied in WWII for a few years to prevent the Nazi-sympathising leaders from helping Germany.

On what basis could this history be construed as Britain carving up the land for convenience? Should Iraq and Kuwait have been tied together just because another empire had previously said so?

I'm no fan of empire, but it irritates me when people who are ignorant of history try to blame it for all the world's ills. The British empire gets the worst rep only because it was the most successful.
_________________________
"If I were a guy, not swallowing would be a deal breaker. So what if you cook and clean? I can get a maid for that." - Gia Jordan