We gave Saddam satellite imagery of the Iranian bases to assist them with
that war.  We sold weapons of mass destruction to both sides.  Saddam's
contention with Kuwait was that they were selling more oil than they were
supposed to under an agreement and was cutting into their profits.
If we let him attack Iran, perhaps he thought we wouldn't mind if he did the
same to Kuwait.  He did tell our ambassador that he was going to have to
take some kind of action if we didn't step in.
We could have averted the movement on Kuwait if we played our cards right.
Maybe we were just giving him enough rope and now we are moving in for the
lynching.

Guy Avenell

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brice Yokem" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 5:51 AM
Subject: [HP3000-L] OT : US uses Indian 'threat' to force Pak support on
Iraq


> You mean as in: "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is"?
>
> Wirt Atmar
>
> No, I mean in how you define 'Start a war'.
>
> For instance.  Apologists for the Japanese participation in Pearl Harbor
> say we 'forced' them to do that because of our trade sanctions and other
> ways of refusing to support the Japanese conquest of the Far East.  So
> if you agree with them, then we DID 'start' WWII.
>
> We are a sovereign nation and thus have a right to choose who our trade
> partners are.  That is not an act of war.
>
> My claim is that Iraq 'Started' this war by invading Kuwait.  We drove
> him out and agreed to leave Iraq alone if he agreed to a treaty. Saddam
> has broken the treaty and so we do not have to leave him alone.
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *