Madam, - When one of his enterprises started successfully, that great American Oliver Hardy usually remarked: "So far, so good!" Is it safe to assume that, when speaking about Iraq, Bush and Blair repeat the same smug remark to each other and to the rest of the "Coalition of the Willing"?
As I understand it they have a plan which consists of installing an elderly, pistol-packing American general who will pacify the country, set up an administration consisting of Americans, British and approved Iraqis until such time, say a couple of years, as democratic elections can be held to install an all-Iraqi government leading to the withdrawal of the foreign soldiers and administrators. So far, so good!
What I do not understand so clearly is what would happen in the event of the Iraqi people electing an anti-American Government which might want to use its oil as a weapon of mass disruption by raising the price or reducing production. Even worse, they might elect a fundamentalist regime whose future actions could be unpredictable. Presumably there is a Plan B.
If not, Bush and Blair might well reflect on the words of Laurel and Hardy, another Anglo-American duo, namely: "Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into!" - Yours, etc.,
ROBERT McKEOWN, Sandymount, Dublin 4.
Madam, - For many years there were people in this country who believed The Irish Times was set up as an arm of the British Secret Service, and for as many years I refused to believe that, continuing to buy and enjoy the paper unabashed. Until now, that is, when you allow the effluent flowing from the pen of your columnist Kevin Myers to gratuitously insult half the population of this country - the "Not in My Name" brigade, as he scurrilously calls us.
As one of the NIMNs, I think he must have spent too much time on his English lessons and not enough time on history. May I therefore make the following points?
Firstly, and this has been repeated ad nauseum in your letters page, the NIMNs are not against the American people. I am saddened, though, that the people of the US are being lied to by their leaders, aided and abetted by CNN and the Rupert Murdoch machine. It is no coincidence that the three countries which refused to support action against Iraq without UN backing, Germany, France and Russia, all experienced the horrors of war on their doorsteps.
Secondly, I do not know anyone who is not happy that Saddam Hussein has gone - if he is gone, that is. It is the modus operandi the NIMNs had difficulty with. The people seen on TV smiling and welcoming the allied forces in Baghdad were not only smiling because Saddam's regime was over but also because the relentless bombing of their city was over. They were very likely filled with the hope that the shredding of their children with cluster bombs was now a thing of the past.
Thirdly, Mr Myers seems to forget this is not the first time the people of Iraq were "liberated". In March 1917, Sir Stanley Maude led British troops to Baghdad. His successful invasion, after earlier defeats, though designed to secure the oil-rich and strategically important area, was dubbed a "liberation mission", but talk of liberation soon turned to the harsh realities of a conquest. - Yours, etc.,
NOREEN O'BRIEN, Mapas Road, Dalkey, Co Dublin.
Madam, - John Waters has spent many years ably exposing the self-deceit and self-righteous conceit of what passes for Irish "liberal" thought. It is disappointing to see him advancing an analysis of Irish anti-war sentiments that is of Myersian absurdity (Opinion, April 14th).
He offers the infantile "bad man Saddam" justification for the invasion of Iraq by the US and Britain. This is the only one left after the WMD, and the al-Qaeda link justifications have been dropped. The "threat to America" one was always risible. (The WMD justification will, of course, return, but will be totally incredible unless supported by UN weapons inspectors.)
He attacks those with an anti-war view for not opposing Saddam's vileness earlier. This misses a fundamental point. Those who feel there should be a proper moral justification for war see an enormous difference between invading another country and supporting the oppressed people of that country. And of course support for the oppressed in Iraq was not evident in the 10 years of sanctions preventing the import of food and medicines - sanctions imposed by today's "liberators" of those oppressed people. - Yours, etc.,
GERRY MOLLOY, Collins Avenue, Dublin 9.
Madam, - During the 1939-45 war servicemen in Europe had a saying that when the German bombers came over the British ducked, when the British came over the Germans ducked, and when the Americans came over everyone ducked!
It seems little has changed. - Yours, etc.,
D. PULLEN, Cuala Road, Bray, Co Wicklow.
Madam, - Mary Harney announced at her party conference in Galway last Saturday night last that the Government would "play its part in the reconstruction of Iraq". She omitted to add: "just as it has played its part in the destruction". - Yours, etc.,
TOMÁS MAHER, Raheenroche, Dungarvan, Co Kilkenny.