HP3000-L Archives

March 2003, Week 2

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Cortlandt Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:37:25 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (70 lines)
Guy,

What is your point?    The US gave some strategic help to Iraq so that Iran
wouldn't do to Iraq what Iraq later did to Kuwait.   Are you saying that an
invasion of Iraq by Iran would have been better?   Maybe the US made a big
mistake, maybe not, but so what?  How does that change the existing
situation?

Cortlandt Wilson
(650) 966-8555

>-----Original Message-----
>From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
>Behalf Of Guy Avenell
>Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:20 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT : US uses Indian 'threat' to force Pak
>support on Iraq
>
>
>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 *

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2