I don’t get it either. Kay Forest asserts the Kuwaitis were stealing Iraqi oil and undercutting Iraqi oil prices. So what?

In the Pacific Northwest, salmon fishermen have complained about Canadian fishermen stealing U.S. salmon. Foresters have complained about Canadians undercutting timber prices.

Moreover, these complaints have largely been ignored in the regular press. Are these relevant grounds for a U.S. invasion of Canada?

If the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was not legitimate, then what are Forest’s grounds for complaining about the U.S. response?

Forest is yet another tedious academic spending her time making up excuses to hate the United States.

Curiously, her hate-America obsession does not seem to prevent her from collecting a paycheck paid for largely by American taxpayers.

She seems to have problems with the big words too. In her letter, she says naked aggression means “without reason.” Naked aggression means undisguised and indefensible, not senseless.

Forest vehemently denies having said the invasion of Kuwait was legitimate. If she thinks it was not, then she has conceded the point.

I am also curious which press she is following. The ones I read and hear have described Hussein’s “murderous history” (Forest’s terms), but have described Hussein as ruthless and calculating, rather than as a maniac.

Forest complains it was “underproductive” for Professor Karlson to rely on press accounts rather than going to the presentation.

If she has so little confidence in secondary sources such as the press, why does she care at all how the press covers Iraq?

The reason Karlson and I, along with most of the university, skipped her presentation is that if we went to every rally and teach-in organized by the drivel left on campus, we would get no serious work done.

William Sjostrom

Assistant professor

Economics