DECLAN MANSFIELD,
Madam, - I have listened to the various arguments put forward by those who oppose the use of force against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. However, I have not heard anyone in the anti-war camp provide a realistic alternative to the current American/British approach.
Three options are left if military force is taken out of the equation: sanctions, diplomacy, or weapons inspections. Presumably sanctions are no longer an option, because the majority of those who oppose military action against Iraq today were until recently, agitating for the lifting of UN-sponsored sanctions on the dubious grounds that the sanctions were killing millions of Iraqi children - even though the oil-for-food programme, a scheme designed to mitigate the effects of the sanctions against the vulnerable in Iraq, was never fully taken advantage of by the Iraqi regime. In 1998 the UN increased the amount of oil Iraq could export under the oil-for-food programme by $5.2 billion. Saddam, however, preferred to have the propaganda fiction of sanctions-induced genocide rather than help his own people.
Diplomacy has not worked either. Twelve years have passed since the end of the Gulf War and Saddam has contemptuously flouted every UN resolution passed against his regime. Israel, too, has flouted UN resolutions, say critics, but who can genuinely claim that the Israelis, either unilaterally or through proxies, would attack Munich or Barcelona, Boston or Berlin with WMDs? If the UN does not act decisively against Iraq now, and legitimise the use of force, it will be nothing more than a paper tiger like its predecessor the League of Nations
Which leaves us with the chimera of weapons inspections. Unless the Iraqis, like the South Africans, are genuinely committed to disarmament, which they manifestly are not, weapons inspections will always be a half-hearted measure. The Iraqis have consistently lied about both the size and the content of their weapons programme. In 1995 Iraq provided the UN through UNSCOM with their third "full, final and complete disclosure" of biological weapons. Three weeks later Saddam's son-in-law defected; the Iraqis were forced to admit that, contrary to their last declaration, they had 166 biological bombs and 25 missile warheads. Given Saddam's past behaviour, and even with unlimited time for weapons inspections, would it be possible to verify the total destruction of Iraq's illegal weapons stockpile. Can we live with the uncertainty of an armed Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein? - Yours, etc.,
DECLAN MANSFIELD, Grange Road, Dublin 14.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Your edition of February 4th quoted US military officials in Kuwait as saying that the possibility of a chemical or biological attack by Saddam Hussein on US troops is "negligible". ("Pentagon released details of its plans for attack"). Later in the week, Israeli military officials estimated that in the event of war, Israel was likely to be hit by, at most, one or two Iraqi rockets. ("Arab commentators accuse US of fabricating evidence", February 7th).
If this is the limit of Saddam Hussein's offensive capability, even when his country is being attacked, how on earth are we supposed to believe that this man poses a grave and imminent threat to the whole of the Western world? The US claims on the one hand that he possesses weapons of mass destruction which he will use without provocation, and then say on the other hand that he's unlikely to use WMDs even when attacked.
Am I the only one who's confused? - Yours, etc.,
EOIN MEANY, Sutton Park, Dublin 13.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Every normal human being, irrespective of his or her beliefs, loyalties or nationality, must have been shocked and appalled by the deaths of seven very brave astronauts in the recent space shuttle explosion over Texas. All our sympathies go out to the relatives and friends of the deceased men and women in this their time of great loss, sorrow and tribulation. I am in complete agreement with the statement by President Bush that the space exploration programme must go on for the benefit of mankind and also to honour those who so valiantly and regrettably lost their lives.
However, it must be borne in mind that human beings everywhere have the inalienable right to be mourned irrespective of their nationalities, or where or how they have died. Currently President Bush is contemplating launching an attack with massive air and ground forces against Iraq and its unfortunate people. A recent assessment by the United Nations of the likely result of any such attack is a minimum of half-a-million deaths, mainly civilians, and another million or more made homeless. The people of Iraq have done nothing to deserve such a catastrophe being visited upon them, nor do I accept that the present circumstances in the Middle East justify any such warlike attack.
I would emphasise that the grief suffered by an Iraqi parent, relative or friend is every bit as poignant as that currently being suffered, not just by the relatives and friends of the dead astronauts, but by all the people of America as well. If the tragic deaths of the seven astronauts result in President Bush having second thoughts about going to war with Iraq then, in my humble opinion, they will not have died in vain.
We can but hope. - Yours, etc.,
W.G.A. SCOTT, Friars Hill, Wicklow.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - We stand on the brink of a "New World Order" (or should I say disorder) where might is right. As T.S. Eliot wrote, this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper. The possible use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction on the doorstep of other nuclear powers is greater now than at any time since 1945, over North Korea if not Iraq.
When US and British troops enter Iraq we will enter the world of Orwell's 1984 (just as Iraq has already entered the world of Joseph Heller's Catch 22) and a new epoch will begin: the epoch of barbarism.
If the world is to have any hope of getting out of this, voices of reason need to assert themselves among the American and British people and in the UN Security Council for the principle of united nations. All that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men (and women) do nothing.
In the decade of the Suez Crisis and the Korean War even Winston Churchill said: "to jaw-jaw is better than to war-war."
JOE MURPHY, Skerries, Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Gearóid Ó Clerigh exposes clearly, succinctly, and with the authority of personal experience the reasons why the US should be dissuaded by its friends from the folly of unleashing war on Iraq. The consequences, as he has pointed out, would inevitably include further hatred of the West and a long-term rise in fanaticism and terrorism.
This is not to attempt to defend Saddam Hussein who is, as Mr Ó Clerigh rightly says, a loathsome and genocidal tyrant. He deserves to be removed and made to answer for his crimes. It is not, however, for the US leaders, who have blood on their own hands, to do this, but for the Iraqis themselves. Likewise, it is for the American people, l to put their own house in order and get rid of the usurper Bush. - Yours, etc.,
RICHARD REID, Rathgar Avenue, Dublin, 6.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Philip Donnelly (February 11th) praises the US for abiding by the Roman dictum: Si vis pacem, para bellum ("Who wants peace prepares for war"). The obvious response is: Look what happened to the Romans. - Yours, etc.,
JOHN HUGHES, Ballyshannon, Co Donegal.