Talk:Iraqi invasion of Kuwait

"Iraqi decisive victory"
Someone can explain to me the usage of this term, if: Other than "Saddam is a military genius!", that is ;) --HanzoHattori 17:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Iraq's best and overwhelming forces suffered greater casualties than enemy
 * Kuwaiti forces were not destroyed, and
 * In a few months they were back in Kuwait - in a true "decisive victory" of Kuwait's coalition forces


 * The outcome was decisive both tactically (the Iraqi's won and held the field) and strategically (they conquered Kuwait). The fact that the victory could have been greater isn't much matter; it was enough.  Toby Douglass 19:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Needs Kuwait forces and more casualty estimates
Among other things. --HanzoHattori 14:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Where did the aircraft casualties come? I think this invasion involves no air force. Peace. --Nielswik(talk)

The Iraqi air force did indeed invade Kuwait, with fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft and the Kuwaiti Air Force played a small role in the fight (their air defenses were more effective than their air force, though). See my recent edit, which links a good account of the invasion, with emphasis on the air combat aspect. Hzoi 08:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

More details?
More detail would be great. I knew a guy who ran a freight company in Kuwait at the time of the invasion. The day before the Iraqi's came, he fired one of his staff. Then at 5am, the now ex-employee calls him and says "the Iraq's have invaded!". He thinks nothing of it - must be a sour grapes - and he sleeps another hour. He gets up, gets in his car and goes to work, none the wiser. As he commutes to the office, he drives over the crest of a hill, only to see the Kuwaiti army dug into a defensive position, with tanks and soldiers taking aim at traffic coming over the hill. He realises now what's going on, and the Iraqi army is advancing down the highway behind him. He drives on, and a short time later hears heavy fire and smoke behind him in the distance. Later than morning he says, all the ATM's shut down. No more cash. All the rich people became poor - they could not get to their money. Poor people became rich - looting was rife. In the weeks that followed, he got out and made his way home to Lebanon. After the liberation of Kuwait, he came back to see what was left. His entire fleet of trucks were gone, warehouse empty, office looted and wrecked. He eventually rebuilt his business from scratch. Months later, he spotted one of his old trucks on the road - he pulls the guy over demanding an explanation - turns out he bought it second hand in Basra. I wish I had references for all of this.... --Commking (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein launching an attack on his own country?!
In the following Invasion of Kuwait, Alleged International Conspiracy, its posted:

Saddam Hussein’s decision partly came as a reaction towards the alleged international conspiracy against Iraq which, in his view, was meant to weaken and destabilize the regime. Subtle shifts in the American policy together with the British and American efforts to block the export of dual-use technology to Iraq, a consequence of its nuclear program, were seen by Saddam as part of a concerted effort to build a case against Iraq.

So I really wonder, did Saddam Hussein really made a case against his own country or its just some random typo error?

Since I'm not an expert in this field, I didn't do my own editing and instead add a discussion topic here. Thanks for viewing!

Ben1941 (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Efforts" is attributed to USA/Kuwait/UAE. Imad marie (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Iraq" in 1913???
"After signing the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, the United Kingdom split Kuwait and Iraq into two separate emirates." -

from where is this nonsense??? СЛУЖБА (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

C person above what are you saying is allegedly "nonsense", Iraq (and many Iraqis) view Kuwait as historically just another part of Iraq that the British cut off and used an installed monarchy to rule. The British were able to use Kuwait to cut Iraq off from the Persian Gulf water via making Kuwait separate. Read any real history of how European colonialism shaped the map of what has become the modern Middle East. This European colonialism mostly came in the form of the colonial British and French and their system of imperialistic "mandates" (really just neo-colonialism at that time) in places like Palestine (the source of the Palestinian-Zionism conflict), Syria (and Lebanon which was cut off from mainland Syria by the colonial France as a divide and rule tactic and too give a "state" to France's preferred Maronite Christians), Iraq (which was a British Mandate), and almost any other nation or fake border the colonial British and French drew up after WWI and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.--Historylover4 (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Kuwaiti Resistance
The article mentions Kuwaiti resistance movement, which I assume means some form of guerilla fighting went on during the 7 month occupation. If anyone has any sources for this sort of thing I would like to read them and perhaps add to the article's aftermath section. This could be an interesting addition.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

'Alleged International Conspiracy'
I've just flagged this as POV and Synthesis.

POV: the use of the term 'conspiracy theory' - and especially 'conspiracy theorists' is clearly a pejorative label (WP:LABEL). Use of 'alleged' is probably a WP:ALLEGED violation, but it's a bit hard to tell, because:

Synthesis: the section appears confused and to have run together several different ideas: (1) a possible strategy to provoke or at least encourage the invasion - by giving assurances to Kuwait and maybe to Iraq, (2) a different strategy, involving the US and possibly others, of an unspecified kind (3) a belief ('alleged international conspiracy') on the part of Saddam about the US (and UK fwiw) and Kuwait being involved in the strategy described in 2; (4) the argument - by 'conspiracy theorists'! - that Saddam had the belief described in 3.

The first of these overlaps with the following section on US/Iraq relations.

The second is not clearly described.

The third is not clearly distinguished from the second - i.e. argument about what Saddam believed is mingled with argument about what was in fact the case.

The fourth uses the term 'conspiracy theorists', which is entirely unjustified - why is a claim about what S thought a 'conspiracy theory'? - and anyway is always a WP:LABEL, as (I would suggest) is 'conspiracy theory', since this has come to denote something weird, unreliable or outr&eacute;.

I would suggest

that this section be restricted to 3, i.e. the account (sourced to Khalidi) of Saddam's (supposed) belief that Iraq was being victimised by multiple opponents.

that said account be improved, in particular the reasons why it would motivate an invasion of Kuwait.

that all use of the term 'conspiracy theory/ist' be removed, since it adds nothing but an evaluative spin.

that the 'according to some' be replaced with the actual source

that 'alleged' be removed, and the section be retitled: 'Iraqi perception of victimisation' or similar

that the issue of the US promising protection to Kuwait be moved to the following 'US/Iraq relations' section, which might also be retitled 'US involvement' - since the US was certainly involved in the build-up to war - experts differing only in exactly what that involvement amounted to.

that said section be expanded to include a fuller description of US involvement - including but not limited to widespread, respectable views which hold that the US manipulated the situation (in various ways) to ensure war. As Kellner's cited work (available online at http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/gulfwar1.htm) points out they certainly omitted to prevent the war by discouraging either side from escalating the situation, an omission which is almost impossible to ascribe to incompetence. But that's a matter of substantive content and this is not the place for that. I mention it only to rebut the suggestion that any such view is to be treated as on a par with stereotypically extravagant or demented 'conspiracy theories'.

I'll watch this talk page and the page itself, and if in the next few days no-one has anything to add I'll make the changes myself. Stax68 (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed
What's it mean : "In 1990, Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing Iraqi oil through slant drilling, however some Iraqi sources indicated Saddam Hussein’s decision to attack Kuwait was made only a few months before the actual invasion suggesting that the regime was under feelings of severe time pressure." ??? I can't make anything out of that reasoning. I thought i could read fine. --Jerome Potts (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That "Saddam Hussein’s decision to attack was made only a few months before the actual invasion" has anything to do with slant drilling accusation ?
 * "suggesting that the regime was under feelings of severe time pressure" : which time pressure ? Of what ? How ?

Sentence in intro: "although"?
The intro says
 * In 1990, Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing Iraqi petroleum through slant drilling, although some Iraqi sources indicated Saddam Hussein’s decision to attack Kuwait was made only a few months before the actual invasion.

Maybe I'm missing some background story, but the word "although" doesn't make sense here. The two half-sentences seem to me to be quite unrelated, while "although" suggests some sort of contradiction. AxelBoldt (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Allied belligerents
Is there any reason that the UN and various Western powers are listed as belligerents? In the period of this conflict (early August according to the same infobox) they played absolutely no part other than to condemn the invasion. That is not enough to justify their inclusion.... Ranger Steve  Talk  08:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed them, as they played no part in the three days of action in this article. Ranger Steve   Talk  13:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Invasion of Kuwait. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_213.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Invasion of Kuwait. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081205122602/http://www.themanitoban.com:80/2002-2003/0205/features_index.shtml to http://www.themanitoban.com/2002-2003/0205/features_index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

An air battle with the Iraqi helicopter airborne forces was fought over Kuwait City
I added [citation needed] after the sentence "An air battle with the Iraqi helicopter airborne forces was fought over Kuwait City, inflicting heavy losses on the Iraqi elite troops" (section Invasion).

Reference (Cooper/Sadik) (working archived link) used for the complete paragraph claims the opposite:


 * On the contrary, some 50 IrAAC Mi-8/17 and Bell 412ST commandos-carrying helicopters, escorted by Mi-25s and Bo.105s reached Kuwait City almost unopposed: at the time they arrived no KAF aircraft were airborne. The Iraqis did lose several helicopters when these have hit high tension wires: this caused significant losses and some chaos ...


 * Fighting the ensuing chaos, the KAF scrambled to bring as many aircraft into the air as possible – not to fight the Iraqis, but to evacuate them to Saudi Arabia. Despite Kuwaiti claims that their interceptors were scrambled and engaged Iraqi helicopters at low level over Kuwait City, downing up to 15 of these in the process, no eyewitness reports exists for such an engagement. On the contrary: it is obvious that KAF Mirage F.1s fled to Saudi Arabia, unarmed and without any fight.

Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The Evacuation of 170,000 Indians from Kuwait
For the full details, watch the film: Airlift (2016). When the Iraqi soldiers invaded, Mathunny Matthews helped evacuate over 170,000 Indians. The film describes everything but that's just a short summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:BE0C:8F00:908C:F7ED:311:1DD (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Invasion vs Liberation
The land was invaded. The people are majority Arab, living under a monarchy they cannot constitutionally overturn, whilst Iraq was at the time Pan-Arab. As the Kuwaiti people had been denied access into the independent Iraq in 1932 by the British invaders of the land, any move toward unification with Iraq is a liberation for the people, even if the land was invaded. That is why I only changed the word "invasion" in three places. --Mwoofsh (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hidden information
Does anyone know why the casualty figures for the Kuwaitis is not being shown in its entirety? It is clearly there if one views the 'edit' page, but is abscent from the 'view' page. PersianFire (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.historynet.com/today-in-history/january-15. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC) BiologicalMe (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The claim of Iraqi nationalists wanting to annex Kuwait
I think this was absolutely impressively added to the article, 'nationalist' is a broad definition not exactly 'settled' when analyzing political views, when you have similar (but not equal) words like patriotic. Kuwait is an ancient demand for Iraqis like the text suggests. However, supposing that nationalists were behind it it's at least polemical. I can mention the question about the Falkland Islands and the Argentine people, doesn't matter who is nationalist, conservative, liberal, globalist, a great majority of Argentineans think that the island it's theirs. The source should be reevaluated and unless some factual pools are discovered, i think it's a mistake simplifying it this way.

Requested move 7 March 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  02:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Invasion of Kuwait → Iraqi invasion of Kuwait – As in the lead. fgnievinski (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. May also be the common name, per this ngram - many of the uses without "Iraqi" will involve context that makes it redundant. BilledMammal (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: The suggested title is a much more clear, complete, natural and informative identification of the topic. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: The title is more explanatory, as in Iraq invaded Kuwait, not an anonymous country. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:54C4:2045:6607:E33F (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support: provides clarity Wikiman92783 (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

(Comment: participants here might be interested in a similar proposal at Invasion of Iraq. fgnievinski (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Actually, that's at 2003 invasion of Iraq. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Iraqi tanks in kuwait city 2 august 1990.jpg