JOACHIM FISCHER,
Madam, - Hugo Hamilton's article "Don't mention the war", (Weekend, February 15th) makes a strong case that, as both perpetrators and victims of war, the Germans understand its horrors better than most peoples. But his reference to Germany's "liberation" by the allies is completely misleading. It was the rest of Europe that was liberated from the Nazis, not Germany.
Germany was defeated, devastated and occupied by the allies.
This was the essential foundation of Germany's post-war liberation from its Nazi past.Contrary to his intentions, the logic of Hamilton's historical analogy supports the war party rather than the peace party in the current debate over Iraq: only when Saddam Hussein is overthrown by external action will the Iraqi people be able to liberate themselves from tyranny.
History, however, is not always the best guide to future action. While the liberationist case for attacking Saddam is overwhelming, the key issue is the costs and consequences of such an action - for Iraq, for the Middle East, for the international community as a whole. Bush's and Blair's proclaimed aim is to keep the world safe from weapons of mass destruction, rogue states and international terrorism. But will their chosen course of action make the situation better or worse?
Such doubts have nothing in common with the polemics of those who characterise Anglo-American policy as aggressive, predatory and reckless. Those accusations would be better directed at Iraq. However you weigh up the pros and cons of war it is clear that the prime source of the present crisis is the Iraqi regime. It is Saddam Hussein who stands in the way of a peaceful and democratic Iraq, not Britain and the United States.
The best outcome to the present crisis would be a crumbling of the Iraqi dictatorship in the face of Anglo-American preparations for war. But, as history shows, sometimes war is the only way to topple dictators. - Yours, etc.,
Dr GEOFFREY ROBERTS, Department of History, University College Cork.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - I write to express my thanks to Hugo Hamilton for his important article on Germany's opposition to war on Iraq. As a German living in Ireland, I found it revived my confidence in the politics of the current German government, which, at least in this instance, is doing what it is supposed to do: representing the will of the majority of its people.
Germany has learnt from its history. That the Irish Government should continue to insist that negotiation is preferable to bombs in Northern Ireland while seriously considering siding with those who see it the other way round (when it suits their political objectives) is not learning from the past but simply furthering the befuddlement and schizophrenia of the present.
If forced to make a choice between Boston and Berlin, Ireland would do well to stay true to some of its traditional human values and side with "old Europe" in support of the principle that no political strategy justifies the loss of thousands and thousands of lives. - Yours, etc.,
JOACHIM FISCHER, Ballina, Co Tipperary.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - No one who supports military action against Iraq would want to see millions of people on the streets calling for war with a jingoistic disregard for truth to match the slurs of the so-called pacifists in London and Dublin against President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, who have reluctantly endorsed the war option.
The great peace demonstrations sent the world's dictators and terrorists exactly the same message that mass murderers such as Hitler, Stalin and their most recent imitators in Yugoslavia recognised in the pacifism of the 1930s: the democracies will not fight.
War can never be a last resort, or else resistance to tyranny would never take place; for there is always the options of surrender, or for third parties to walk away from aggression or threats against allies or friendly people. There is a time for military action before an aggressor gets too bold or a victim has suffered too much.
The anti-war protesters must live with their consciences for supporting rallies which equated democratically elected leaders of free countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom with Hitler - rallies that were full of anti-Bush venom but failed to condemn the Iraqi regime .
Tariq Ali, one of the London speakers, even suggested it was not Iraq which needed regime change, but Britain.
These rallies were a re-run of the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations of the 1960s and 1970s, when the US was forced to take the "walk away" option and its unfortunate allies in Saigon were left to face destruction at the hands of an enemy which pretended to be negotiating a solution at talks in Paris while preparing an onslaught whose victims are never mentioned.
There were no protesters against the Communist offensive in South Vietnam then and there would be no protesters if Iraq attacked Kuwait again or another of its neighbours now. - Yours, etc.,
JOHN McCRORY, Castlemurray, Strabane, Co Tyrone.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - The issue of war on Iraq has become clouded in a rather parochial debate on "anti-Americanism" versus Ireland's special and/or pragmatic relationship with the US.
The recent CBS News/New York Times poll regarding US views on war on Iraq (The Irish Times, February 15th) should be food for thought. I note that a full 29 per cent of US citizens oppose military action against Iraq, all of whom, we can cautiously assume, are "pro-American". According to the recent US census, this means that over 83 million "pro-American" US citizens do not support any kind of military intervention in Iraq.
Furthermore, the New York Times indicates that 56 per cent of the US public approve of military action against Iraq only if this carries UN approval. Surely these people are not "anti-American"; they are pro-American Americans who are against unilateral military action against Iraq.
Finally, the results of the New York Times poll indicate that only 15 per cent of the US public support unilateral military action on Iraq. Crazed for war as he may appear, President Bush will not, of course, launch military action that has the support of only 15 per cent of his electorate. To do so would cost him the next election, and a new more responsive, accountable administration would enjoy success at the polls.
It is interesting that the Irish Government has signalled that, if it comes to the crunch, it will support unilateral action in an effort to protect its much lauded "special relationship" with the US. Pragmatic? Or short-sighted and self-destructive in the extreme? - Yours etc.,
MARY VAN LIESHOUT, US Citizens in Ireland for Alternatives to War, Upper Camden Street, Dublin 2.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - In the debate about US plans for war against Iraq there is much talk of democracy - Government representing the people.
In view of the official evasions on questions of policy in this area, who in our present Government represents the 100,000 people who marched in Dublin on Saturday? - Yours, etc.,
TONY BURKE, Abbey Park, Baldoyle, Dublin 13.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Here is one of the few certainties likely to arise out of the Iraqi conflict: the moral equivocation of Bertie Ahern and his associates in Fianna Fáil will ensure that the Irish people will be waiting for them in the long grass when this is all over. - Yours, etc.,
GERRY WALKER, Garryhoe, Tinahely, Co Wicklow.