LETTERS To the editor: Flagrant contradictions cannot coexist with actions that are essentially righteous and just. No wonder the current events in the gulf have embroiled this nation in a divisive debate, especially when you consider the various contradictions in our reasons for going to war, along with our murky history of Third World interventions. Consider the following facts in light of our current engagements: 1. The United States is at war with a dictator whom we supported months prior to going to war against him. 2. The United States is defending a dictatorial monarchy in the Emir of Kuwait. 3. The United States is defending Kuwait from naked aggression, and ignoring naked aggression in Latvia, Lithuania, the Israeli occupied territories, South Africa and Syria occupied Lebanon. 4. The World Court declared that the United States violated the territorial integrity of Nicaragua, and yet the United States claims that the Court has no jurisdiction. 5. The United Nations reacted with incredible resolution towards Iraqi aggression against Kuwait, in contrast to its relative inaction on the Palestinian question. 6. The United States invaded Grenada and Panama in acts of naked aggression. 7. The United States supported the corrupt Shah of Iran. 8. The United States supported the virulently corrupt Marcos regime in the Philippines. When you have such contradictions concerning historical events, it is natural to question our current policy in the Persian Gulf, especially when our government has so portrayed the war in terms of Good vs. Evil. I don't think either side can lay claim to purity of purpose. Gregory Jones Lansing, MI BEHIND THE LINES (omitted here; unscannable)