[Abood]

So I looked up the Sykes-Picot Agreement in Wikipedia and found this map:



Can someone explain to me how Kuwait was under direct control of the British if it had its own government and was a protectorate of the UK?

[Far-Right Sage]

Isn't that fairly obvious? I don't know what you mean by "protectorate" in this sense that it wouldn't make way for strong British influence over the Kuwaiti population. During WWII, Benito Mussolini established a protectorate over Albania, and Victor Emmanuel III and the Italians basically ruled Albania directly.

[I]

Try Hijazi (1964, Kuwait: Development from a Semitribal, Semicolonial Society to Democracy and Sovereignty, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol 13, pp. 428-438):

The 1899 Anglo-Kuwaiti Treaty prohibited the Ruler from establishing diplomatic relations with any other foreign power and from alienating any part of his territories to any other foreign state or foreign national without the prior consent of the British government. As a result of this treaty the British government took charge of all matters pertaining to foreign affairs, and the British Representative in Kuwait became in effect the Ruler's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Mikolaj]

How the hell was Britain able to hold all that territory, and yet the U.S. can't control just Iraq?

[Abood]

Because the U.S. is a n00b.

[Falx]

Same way Saddam did, with lots of poison gas, at least they should get points for trying.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Since the 1916 agreement was not implemented, this is rather academic. But it may indicate the plan was for Kuwait to be a very tightly controlled protectorate, as FRS says, or maybe for the Kuwaiti royal family to be kicked out, and for it to be a simple British colony. Who knows. The text of the agreement, rather than just the map, would be more illuminating:

Two

That in the blue area France, and in the red area Great Britain, shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.

Sykes-Picot text

[Potemkin]

Because the U.S. is a n00b.

Exactly. The US seems to want to establish a world empire, oh I'm sorry, a 'global hegemony', but they have no idea of how to actually go about it. The British were crafty and devious - people used to say that the only reason the Sun never set on the British Empire was because God didn't trust the British in the dark - but the Americans have an utterly unsubtle in-your-face approach which is completely n00bish. The British were l33t imperialists; the Americans are n00bs.

[Truth-a-naut]

How the hell was Britain able to hold all that territory, and yet the U.S. can't control just Iraq?

Weapons have become quite 'democratic', everyone and their mother owns an assault rifle.

[Potemkin]

Weapons have become quite 'democratic', everyone and their mother owns an assault rifle.

And you think the Boers were unarmed pacifist Quakers? Or the Zulus' assagais were made of balsa wood and were purely for ceremonial purposes? The British army back in the day didn't have a fraction of the firepower the American army has now. We still managed to pwn most of the world, while the Americans can't even pacify a backward shithole like Iraq.

[Thunderhawk]

while the Americans can't even pacify a backward shithole like Iraq.

The Americans can, they just wont, as the pacification would be too bloody for their PC mindsets (and voters) to stomach.

[Abood]

I think that the U.S. doesn't wanna pacify Iraq. If it wanted to, it wouldn't be planning a wall that even the Iraqis know is gonna increase sectarianism.

The sectarian violence in Iraq is a great smokescreen for Halliburton and co.

[Far-Right Sage]

We still managed to pwn most of the world, while the Americans can't even pacify a backward shithole like Iraq

Bit of a dubious comparison, no? It's not that the U.S. "can't" pacify Iraq. What was acceptable in the age of British imperialism would be classified as a reign of murderous genocide and extermination now. The world nearly blew their top over the Israelis killing a few Lebanese civilians last year

[Potemkin]

Bit of a dubious comparison, no? It's not that the U.S. "can't" pacify Iraq. What was acceptable in the age of British imperialism would be classified as a reign of murderous genocide and extermination now. The world nearly blew their top over the Israelis killing a few Lebanese civilians last year

That's a point. As the War Nerd has said, the whole world is going fag planet. It kind of makes me nostalgic for the days of Comrade Stalin.... *sigh*

Anyhoo, it's not strictly accurate to say that the British were not criticised for their toughness during the 19th century. Even back then, there were whining bourgeois liberals complaining about the poor, defenceless natives and how it was morally wrong to slaughter them and steal their land and resources. Pffft. Fuckin' liberals!

I've said this before and I'll say it again: if the 19th century Brits had been in charge of Iraq, there wouldn't be an insurgency. There wouldn't be much of anything left after we'd finished with it in fact, but there certainly wouldn't be an insurgency. If America wants its world empire, oh I'm sorry, its 'global hegemony', then it has to stop acting like some pissant schoolmarm, and start on some efficient ethnic cleansing, with a side order of genocide to go. It's how the Brits ruled their Empire back in the day, and it's how any serious imperialist power must behave.