In conclusion, these three acts by Kuwait are very threatening moves by Kuwait. Kuwait, in other words, was launching an economic war on Iraq. Hence Iraq, in retaliation to the threatening of national security and economy, attacked Kuwait.

Kuwait was to blame for the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait.

Thirdly, Kuwait threatened to block Iraq's access to the Gulf. As stated earlier, Iraq is largely dependent on oil export for its economy. By controlling two islands controversially inherited from the British, Kuwait threatened to block Iraq's access to the Gulf and hence its exports are threatened. Given Iraq is land-locked and had only a small port that was damaged by the war with Iran, Kuwait's threat to its exports has the potential to destabilise the national economy of Iraq.

Kuwait was to blame for the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait.

Second, Kuwait overproduced oil from the Rumaila. Using slant drilling technology, Kuwait increased the production of its oil, eventually producing higher than the quota set by OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), leading oil prices worldwide to decline., in turn landing Iraq into an economic disadvantage. In addition, Iraq's economy was badly hit by the war with Iran, and was largely dependent on oil to rejuvenate its economy (while in compliance to the quota set by OPEC). Kuwait's overproduction of oil leads to oil prices declining and thus leading to less revenues for Iraq.

Kuwait was to blame for the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait.

First of all, Kuwait stole oil from Iraq's side of the Rumaila oilfield. The Rumaila oilfield is an undefined border separating Iraq and Kuwait. Kuwait exploited the border by over-producing oil from the oilfield, leading Iraq to feel intruded.

Japan was dependent on trade for its economy, and hence the Great Depression, coupled with the protectionist measures adopted by other countries, affected them badly. They could no longer get cheap raw materials and were losing market. Hence Manchuria was seen as a potential overseas market and could provide cheap labour and raw materials.

During the period of the Great Depression, Japan, whose economy was very dependent on luxury goods (such as silk), could not generate enough profits. This was because at that time, no country was interested in spending on such luxury goods when their economies were very bad. In addition, to counter their economy downturn, they instilled protectionist measures, putting Japan at an economic disadvantage. As Japan relied on imports for necessities, such as coal and oil, the protectionist measures adopted by other countries hit them hard.

Since Manchuria was close to Japan, and at that point in time China was involved in an internal conflict, Japan saw Manchuria as a weak target to attack, seizing its raw materials such as timber, and trading with them on terms that were disadvantageous of them. Hence the Great Depression was the main reason Japan attacked Manchuria, as they needed to generate more economy and obtain more materials for themselves.

In all of our lifestyles, we always need a moment to be away from public's scrutiny, to take off our masks in society and let our hair down. At times, we feel pressured by the constant inspection of media, and simply wish to be in private.

An inspirational speaker on stage, a seemingly warm and kind person, may not actually portray those traits off-stage. He or she may be a temperamental person and even possess 'undesirable' habits under stress, such as smoking and what not. We all need our own space and time.

Isn't it ironic that some public figures display exceptional qualities in private, while under media scrutiny, but in truth, perhaps they are not that outstanding? Many of these public figures try to keep up their image and maintain their reputation by 'putting on a show', to convince the public that they have excellent conduct. There seems to be no honesty in the actions of these public figures then, since everyone's acting. Should we not trust them then? However, if these public figures are really held accountable for their private actions, it is also implied that we should not trust them again. Then who should we trust while these figures are in public scrutiny?

Whereas the public actions of public figures must be accountable for, whether or not the private actions of public figures should also be justifiable is not well-founded. Privacy is a fundamental right we all possess. Scrutiny in their private lives only serves to generate more and more distrust for effective public figures who do their job well. If a public figure, of considerable status in society, is able to do his or her job well, and able to serve the general public, why should they be doubted about and held accountable for their private actions?

Another instance would be that Stalin implemented collectivization, whether the peasants were willing or not. Even though collectivization did manage to let Stalin control the workers and increase productivity rates, many of the people living in the collectivized farms were allocated strict working hours and had a relatively low wage. They were unable to have much freedom, and low productivity or absence from work was met with punishment. The peasants who lived in collectives had access to shelter, food and basic needs, but they were under the control of the state and everything was state-owned. They were also pushed to the limit to work for the state.