The Gulf War must be one of the most notorious attempts of the United States to expand their influence outside the boundaries of North America. However, not only the USA but also Kuwaiti officials seem to be in charge of an ethically questioned process of establishing democracy in Kuwait. Despite the fact that the Gulf War is no longer the issue, the diplomatic choice that the Kuwaiti officials chose in their attempt to take Saddam Hussein down still can be viewed as a sign of the state’s moral corruption. Therefore, even though it is too easy to judge the actions of the Kuwaiti government now that the drastic results of the measures taken are well-known to everyone, it can be assumed that the leaders of Kuwait might have given a better thought before taking the path that they have chosen. While the Kuwaiti government obviously had another choice, it is worth keeping in mind that, first, the temptation to cooperate with the American government was too big to resist, and, on the other hand, refusing to participate in the process of taking down the dictatorship of the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would have resulted in spoiling the relationships with the United States (Tucker 2010). Therefore, within the political context of the situation described by Stauber and Rampton, the actions of the Kuwaiti government were adequate. In addition, it cannot be denied that, under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, the Kuwaiti leaders had few choices in defining their defense strategy; it was the time when any help that the Kuwaiti state could get mattered. However, from the point of view of humanism and political ethics, the way in which the Kuwaiti government agreed to assist the United States as they clearly were going for the “oil money” (Stauber & Rampton n. d.). According to the basic ethical principles, as well as the principles of diplomacy, responding to the acts of terrorism with even more violent actions has never been the answer and can only be considered adequately when no other options are available and people’s lives are at stake. In the given case, involving the Kuwaiti people into capturing Hussein was possible; however, the Kuwaiti authorities preferred to follow the track suggested by the United States government. It goes without saying that in the present-day settings, the situation with Kuwait and the pressure that the latter experienced from the United States would have been handled differently. First of all, the role and the influence of mass media in the political realm must not be underestimated. Once the news about the USA pressuring the Kuwaiti authorities into making a highly unethical step had leaked into the media, the given issue would have been blown to epic proportions, which would have definitely restricted the actions of the United States and made the government of the U.S. to withdraw their suggestion concerning giving Saddam Hussein under the American custody and making him undergo a trial. In addition, with the current technology and the existence of such phenomenon as a social network, the issue would have reached not only the authorities, but also the concerned citizens all over the world, which would have resulted in a major discussion and, perhaps, even protesting against the measures undertaken by the Kuwaiti authorities. In other words, in a present-day world, the cooperation with the U.S. government and the following execution of Saddam Hussein would have probably been prev