----- Original Message ----- From: "iaamoac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 4:12 PM Subject: Re: Precedents
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- "J.D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Unprecedented Logic > > > Why slippery-slope arguments against invading Iraq > > > don't hold water. > > > By Eugene Volokh > > Perhaps second thoughts are warranted: > > > > http://www.militarycity.com/iraq/1680212.html > > "...U.S. officials have said that Washington opposes a > > unilateral Turkish incursion in northern Iraq, > > > > http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20030321_776.html > > TUNCELI, Turkey (Reuters) - Turkey sent a vanguard of > > commando troops into northern Iraq overnight in a move > > that courts U.S. anger and risks confrontation with > > local Kurdish authorities. > > > > Debbi > > VFP Irony > > > Actually, I can't help but wonder if you missed the point of the > article. What the author said is that the less-than-honorable-and- > upright nations of the world have always acted unilaterally in the > past, and it is hardly possible that the US could be providing *more* > incentive for them to so. > > As it is, a bit of history is required here. The Turks have > generally had about 5,000 troops in Iraq almost continuouslly over > the past several years. Thus, the insertion of 1,000 troops, while > it sounds like a lot to us, is really pretty much small potatoes. > Remember, the Coalition has around 300,000 troops. > > Thus, while Turkey sendin 1,000 troops into Iraq is disappointing - > it isn't necessarily terribly significant at this point. I had heard a CNN report from Northern Iraq yesterday saying the Kurds and the Turks have both said that there were not any significant introduction of troops into Iraq by the Turks. It sounds to me like an agreement may have been reached. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
