GERRY CORCORAN,
Madam, - The United States and Britain would have us all believe that the reason they are prepared to declare war on Iraq is for altruistic purposes, namely to liberate the Iraqi people from the despot Saddam Hussein.
If this is indeed their motivation perhaps it has some merit. However, given the numerous anti-war protests that have taken place throughout the world recently, it would seem that many people are having difficulty accepting their bona fides in this regard.
It would be most helpful to alleviate these fears if both the US and Britain were to publicly undertake to remove their armies from Iraq within a time span after a successful regime change. It would also be helpful if they undertook publicly not to attempt to control the vast oil reserves in that country for their own selfish benefit.
In the absence of such assurances the international community are likely to remain very sceptical of their motives. - Yours, etc.,
GERRY CORCORAN,
Smith Gardens,
Kilkee,
Co Clare.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Your publication of the appalling diatribe by Ruth Dudley Edwards in your edition of February 20th has reduced your standards to those of the English Daily Express or Daily Mail.
No intellectual argument is seriously offered as to whether we should support the "leader of the free world" and his sidekick the committed Christian Tony Blair, or by her assumption the tyrant Saddam Hussein.
Instead we are treated to the customary Edwards style: vilify your opponents, abuse and personalise, especially when you are not capable of propounding a rational argument.
If I were to resort to her methods I could describe her quite legitimately as a "right-wing ideologue" with a peculiar propensity for a rabid group of backwoodsmen known as the Ulster Unionist Party in the North East of this island.
This is, however, not the way to win your argument.
I am, as a socialist, Marxist, Trotskyist, trade unionist, and red flag waving Communist, quite proud that myself, and 100,000 others did not march in her name.
We marched in the name of peace - not for oil or re-election or for the fundamentalist Christian "Right" that surrounds the Texan President. - Yours, etc.,
KEITH CARGILL,
Drinagh,
Ennistymon,
Co Clare.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Mary Harney's remarks abou the march in Dublin on February 15th bring to mind the comments made by her at the height of the public outcry against the proposed appointment of Hugh O'Flaherty to the European Investment Bank, when she haughtily suggested that the entire matter would be forgotten in three months.
She misjudged the public mood at that stage and she seems to have learned nothing from her mistake.
The marchers on February 15th, as many commentators have pointed out, came from all walks of life. Unfortunately this Government is made up of those who are too stupid or too arrogant to hear what was being said about a plan which, if it is carried out, will bring death to hundreds of thousands of men, women and children and which will have unimaginable consequences for wildlife and the environment. - Yours, etc.,
CARMEL COURTNEY,
Sandyford Road,
Dublin 16.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - I believe that "anti-war movement" is a misnomer. No one in Ireland is "pro-war" (except perhaps the likes of the IRA but that's another story). There are, however, I believe many people who are pro disarming Saddam Hussein.
Many rational, intelligent people believe that there will be less death and suffering if Saddam Hussein is disarmed than if he is not. People should not think that if there is no war, no one will be killed. This is clearly not the case because Saddam Hussein will do the killing.
So if people agree that Saddam should be disarmed then how can this be achieved? There is no reason to suspect that what has been tried already will work. The only thing that has caused any movement by Saddam Hussein in the past 12 years has been the current build-up of military power and the imminent threat this poses for Saddam.
However, a military build-up cannot continue indefinitely. There has to be a time limit for logistics purposes.
Make no mistake: this is a stand-off between Saddam and the rest of the world and the protests against the US action only strengthen Saddam's position. If the forces are backed down now, how likely is it that Saddam Hussein will listen any more?
The proposed war is not "all about oil". If it were purely economic, it would not make sense to anyone. Billions of dollars have already been lost. Just look at the stock exchanges around the world.
It may be partly about oil but this is secondary, I believe, to a genuine concern for the safety of the Western way of life. - Yours, etc.,
MICHEAL MAC GIOLLA
CHEALLAIGH,
Westbrook,
Galway.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - There is a widespread assumption that, if the UN Security Council approves an attack on Iraq, the morality of such an attack is self-evident. Not so: legality and morality are not always coincidental. Many reports indicate that the US is ready to spend billions of dollars, if necessary, to buy the assent of other members of the Security Council. Whatever about "legality", morality is not purchased.
If the Irish Government declines to condemn the imminent war against Iraq, could it at least speak publicly in favour of basic standards of military ethics? All wars are atrocious but they should never involve the slaughter of large numbers of civilians. In the present instance, responsible commentators predict tens of thousands of civilian deaths.
To launch a war against the notorious terrorism of Saddam Hussein by employing other forms of terrorism will merely inflate the very evil against which the war is allegedly being fought. Arms used in a way that does not discriminate between military and civilian casualties also become weapons of mass destruction, even if not normally called by that name.
In advance of the outbreak of war, our Government should oppose attacks on functioning schools, hospitals and places of worship, whether or not they are reported to be harbouring Iraqi forces. Similarly, the targeting of water resources and sewage plants results in the deaths of countless civilians. Further, the use of armaments incorporating depleted uranium means not only that today's non-combatants will be put at grave risk of contracting cancer, but that this hazard will continue for generations.
The Pope recently asserted that war against Iraq would be "a crime against humanity". On January 13th he stated:
"I say: No to War. War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity ... As the charter of the United Nations organisation and international law itself remind us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations."
In my view the lottery of votes in the UN Security Council in no way diminishes the truth of the Pope's judgment. - Yours, etc.,
JOHN FEIGHERY, SVD,
City Quay,
Dublin 2.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - I was glad to see Mary Harney clarify her remarks in Tuesday's edition. It is interesting to note that she persists in using the term "infect" in connection with the spread of ideologies that differ from her own.
I myself would be uncomfortable proscribing a particular ideology. I would also be cautious, in today's supposedly open society, about likening the beliefs of others to contaminations or diseases, which are what one becomes infected with. That is, of course, unless those beliefs were fascist or in some way restrictive of freedom of thought. - Yours, etc.,
GARRET SHANLEY,
Royal Terrace West,
Dun Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Are the people who are anti-war pro-Saddam?
And if they aren't pro-Saddam, how else do you remove someone like this? - Yours, etc.,
CONOR RYAN,
Elm Drive,
Caherdavin Lawn,
Limerick.