Madam, - Bertie's position has never been clear despite his consistent belief to the contrary. Even more so now.
However, our Constitution is very clear, even explicit.
Article 29/1- Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality .
29/2 -Ireland affirms its adherence to the principles of the pacific (peaceful) settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.
29/3 - Ireland accepts the generally recognised principals of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other states.
If you are devoted to the ideal of peace and accept principles of international law why did you then allow the use of Shannon by George W. to invade another country? Why did you oppose the democratic process of the UN in doing so? Why were banned weapons (napalm) allowed to be carried through our airport? Why have you not opposed this war once? Why won't you condemn the invasion now?
Do you not recognise our constitution? Are you going to continue to allow Shannon to be used?
I'm part of the "few people who didn't really understand" your anti-war stance, maybe you'll explain. While politicians shave thin the principles and rules of law to defend their actions, people are dying. One and a half million innocent civilians have died in Iraq since 1991 through "economic sanctions" (UN reports), enforced by the US/UK, supported by the Irish Government by granting landing rights at Shannon.
Maybe I don't understand Bertie, how does killing children with cluster bombs, napalm, radioactive-depleted uranium shells, and- worst of all - sanctions, bring about an end to terrorism? I'd be inclined to think it would bring about an unprecedented rise in terrorism - oh yes, that was the information they left out of their fabricated dossiers for justifying war. - Yours, etc.,
PAUL O' TOOLE, Thorndale Park , Artane, Dublin 5.
Madam, - Despite Mr Rolfe's qualifications as a pilot, his idea that the FAA is losing sleep because of what he perceives as a lack of security at Shannon remains purely conjecture (December 11th) and he fails to explain why the airport is safe for US military but, in his opinion, may not be for civilian traffic.
His depiction of protesters who are wedded to the ideals of non-violence is nothing short of scurrilous. He would do well to remember the real source of danger comes from the very troops, weapons and munitions that use Shannon on a daily basis. The violence done by them to the Iraqi people is incalculable.
His further assertion that "professional terrorists" might use the cover of an anti-war protest to covertly sabotage a plane is plainly absurd. With heightened security at the airport before, during and after protests the chances of being caught are greatly increased. It is exactly the time when a terrorist attack is least likely.
He suggests that one way "to make the problem go away" would be to tell airlines that Shannon is not safe. This would be tantamount to turning Shannon into a purely military installation. Is this part of the real agenda in the proposed break-up of Aer Rianta? An isolated Shannon Airport company might well be weakened sufficiently to force it to depend on military traffic for its survival.
Mr. Rolfe's argument is, however, really only a sideshow, which serves to distract the public's attention from the real threats to peace that the US military use of the airport brings. The responsible approach to Shannon is to join those who condemn Bertie Ahern's ridiculous and insulting statement that his position was against the invasion of Iraq when all his actions - despite his deliberately ambiguous statements - supported the US drive to war.
Mr Rolfe and others should join in calling on the Government to withdraw the stopover facilities from the US war machine immediately and return the airport to its intended purpose, serving civil aviation.
This is the only way to make his perceived problem go away and would be a real step towards a world not ruled by overwhelming force. -Yours, etc.
Dr COLM STEPHENS, Secretary, Irish Anti-War Movement, PO Box 9260, Dublin 1
Madam, - The exclusion from rebuilding contracts in Iraq to non-coalition members is an obvious ploy to encourage countries to support the "coalition" in its future forays of bringing freedom, US style, to the Middle East - next stop Syria. War is strange these days; it's not a question of who's going to win the war, but who's going to rebuild the country afterwards.
We help to destroy a country on "some pretext" and then offer a share in that country's resources (if they have any) to anyone who helps destroy it. Let's not forget that the non-coalition members are excluded from the control and management of the country as well, except from being represented in some nominal way by the UN. - Yours etc.,
RAY DRISCOLL, Rue des Deux-Marchés, CH 1800 Vevey, France.