Madam, - With less than a week gone since the beginning of the war in Iraq we have heard reports of the deaths of British soldiers at the hands of their American allies, the death of ITN reporter Terry Lloyd and others in his team, again by friendly fire, the deaths of Syrian nationals when their homeward-bound bus was hit by a stray missile and we have seen a picture of a dead Iraqi soldier, still clutching his white flag of surrender.
If these are the mistakes we are hearing about, what hope have the innocent Iraqi civilians in Baghdad and other cities under the onslaught of thousands of American and British bombs? Are we really to believe their casualties will be kept to a minimum?
And while we're on the subject, what exactly is an acceptable "minimum"? - Yours, etc.,
Dr COLIN LAWTON,
Salthill,
Galway.
Madam, - A theory abounds amongst the pro-war lobby that says that if Saddam Hussein uses his weapons of mass destruction against the US and British forces, it proves the US and Britain were right all along. This theory is usually followed by the statement that the anti-war lobby was wrong to support Saddam Hussein.
I consider myself part of the anti-war lobby and yet again I find myself saying to those in the pro-war lobby: I am not a Saddam Hussein supporter and I do not believe that he has no weapons of mass destruction. I do believe that this war is the wrong way to attempt to disarm him and I believe that the UN should have been allowed to see its process through.
I can take all the usual insults and petty barbs that are thrown at us anti-war people. What I find hard to take is this apparently blatant refusal by the pro-war lobby to hear what I am saying. If Saddam Hussein uses his weapons of mass destruction this time, it will be because his country was attacked by US and British forces and he felt he had no alternative. - Yours, etc.,
NOEL MANNING,
Muckross Green,
Perrystown,
Dublin 12.
Madam, - It is hard to say who are the more deluded: anti-war campaigners who cling to the crude, simplistic nonsense that the war is really all about oil, or fantasists such as George W. Bush and John Waters (Opinion, March 24th) who would have us believe that the whole of Western civilisation is under grave threat from handfuls of ill-equipped Islamic terrorists.
Even if one was to accept Mr Waters's ludicrous contention that a pre-emptive war against Iraq was justified as part of an effort to secure the continued existence of the world, it prompts the question of where it would all end. Iraq, after all, had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks. So once it is pummelled into the ground once again, where does Mr Waters suggest that the US and its allies bomb next?
In a speech to graduates at the West Point Military Academy in New York state on June 3rd, 2002, President Bush said that "terrorism cells in countries that make up close to one third of the globe must be actively sought and dismantled". He mentioned a figure of 60 countries that may be engaged in developing weapons of mass destruction. Would an invasion of up to one third of the globe ease the chronic anxiety and insecurity of Mr Waters, or would the Western world still stand on the edge of the abyss? - Yours, etc.,
DAMIAN BYRNE,
Belvedere Place,
Mountjoy Square,
Dublin 1.
Madam, - So John Waters thinks that anti-war protestors are "violent" for "using cans of red paint". I'm quite sure that the Iraqi people would prefer to have red paint raining down on them, rather than cruise missiles, MOABs and cluster bombs.
He further attacks pacifists for their "rage". What reaction does he expect to images of innocent children covered in blood? Mild rebuke?
His shoddy and ill-conceived arguments simply rehash those employed by warmongers since time immemorial. Pacifists are cowards ("less valiant souls"). He speaks of their "repudiation of rule by principle" - when it is the UK and US who have ditched rule by principle in their rejection of international law. More disturbingly, he falls back on the argument that we "who live in the West, speak English and have white skin" have a superior culture and morality to a "culture which does not share our values or perceptions". This is the "logic belonging to the last century" that Mr Waters speaks of - the notion of the civilised West pitted against the barbarism of the East.
John Waters's unqualified support for Bush and Blair is yet further proof that all too many Western journalists have been sucked in by US propaganda. - Yours, etc.,
LIAM CARSON,
Jones Road,
Drumcondra,
Dublin 3.
Madam, - The horrific sight of huge explosions and fires in Baghdad, caused by the bombs and missiles of the "Coalition of The Willing", confirms to the whole world that the "New World Order", according to the US is now firmly established.
May I take this opportunity to remind your readers that the "New World Order" first showed its face this day, four years ago, March 24th 1999, when the NATO "Coalition", again led by the US and Britain embarked on a bombing campaign against F.R. Yugoslavia. Then, we were also told that this was a campaign of liberation (ostensibly the liberation of Albanians), and the prevention of a human catastrophe (which actually became worse as the bombing progressed).
We were assured, as we are now being assured, that only legitimate military targets would be attacked. How hollow that sounded when we watched the twisted wreck of a passenger train which was deliberately attacked twice while crossing a bridge, with the bodies of its passengers, mainly farmers going to the market, scattered in the gorge below the bridge; or the carts and tractor-drawn trailers full of dead Albanian refugees, bombed in broad daylight; or the civilians and children torn apart by the cluster bombs dropped on a market in Nish (visited by Mary Robinson a few days later).
This campaign was carried out in the name of democracy with the ultimate aim of getting rid of Slobodan Milosevic. Yet, once he had signed the shameful surrender, Milosevic remained in power, with the diplomatic relations restored with NATO countries and the economic sanctions lifted, until the people of Serbia united against him and restored democracy with their own hands. Democracy is planned for Iraq too, under the tutelage of a US general.
This is what the Iraqi people can expect; people of Bosnia-Herzegovina and of Kosovo are experiencing similar "democracy". They have their elected parliaments, and local authorities, but these can only function if they are in full compliance with the orders issued by the relevant Western military/civilian "governor". Any deviation, and the individual elected representative, or a group, are immediately removed from office, and replaced by those considered compliant and trustworthy.
This is the style of democracy promised by the "New World Order" to all those countries which in the words of George Bush Jnr are "against us"! - Yours, etc.,
ZIVKO JAKSIC,
Grange Road,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.
Madam, - Your Editorial of March 21st hoped for a continuing role for the UN and a more coherent EU approach to foreign policy and worried that "the hard-right wing ideologues who are so influential in the Bush administration may try to target Iran, North Korea and Syria after subduing Iraq".
I believe this latter concern is unwarranted. The Bush National Security Strategy considers the doctrine of pre-emption that is currently being applied in Iraq as limited to terrorists and two "rogue" states - Iraq and North Korea - because of their weapons of mass destruction. Regime change to achieve the elimination of WMD applied to only one - Iraq.
It would indeed be a major positive development to have a coherent EU approach to foreign policy. Whether that is possible with the deep divisions in the EU (and amongst aspirant states) is doubtful. The abject EU failure with respect to Bosnia, a very clear case of the need for decisive political/military action (per the UN report on same), does not give grounds for confidence at this time.
The second country identified by the Bush National Security Strategy as a possible case for pre-emption, North Korea, does provide a timely opportunity. It is likely that wide agreement could be obtained on North Korea in the EU and such must be welcomed particularly when the US is distracted in Iraq. This probably would have to be a non-UN process comprising the EU, US, and Japan and South Korea as any UN resolution on North Korea is likely to be vetoed by China. - Yours, etc.,
RICHARD F. WHELAN, Brighton Hall, Foxrock, Dublin 18.
Madam, - The most important debate before the Dáil on foreign policy in many years, and most assuredly within the lifetime of this Government, saw a victory for the Government of 77 votes to 60 - a margin of 17 votes.
Yet, despite the importance of this debate, and the intense public interest in it, 29 deputies did not vote! How can this Government, or this Opposition, ever hope to make any impact on voter apathy if the elected representatives of Dáil Éireann will not vote themselves, even on such an important issue?
One wonders whether the precedent set by the second Nice Referendum will be cited in calling for a second vote! - Is mise,
MARK DENNEHY,
Applewood Heights,
Greystones,
Co Wicklow.
Madam, - According to Enda Kenny, "We are not the 52nd state of the US" (Dáil report, The Irish Times, March 21st).
Of course, we're not: now, would Mr Kenny care to tell us the name of the 51st state of the US? - Yours, etc.,
PAUL DELANEY,
Beacon Hill,
Dalkey.
Madam, - Shockin' awful. - Yours, etc.,
DAVID JOHNSTONE,
Burnaby Park,
Greystones,
Co Wicklow.
Madam, - Until I read the Taoiseach's article in your edition of Saturday 22nd, I was unclear about his Government's position on the Iraqi question. I now see that Ireland is neutral but that Austria, Finland and Sweden are really neutral. Thank you for the service. - Yours, etc.,
HUGO BRADY BROWN,
Stratford on Slaney,
Co Wicklow.
Madam, - Richard Perle (The Irish Times, March 22nd) refers to the United Nations as "the chatterbox on the Hudson".
Could this old New Yorker point out to the Prince of Darkness that the UN headquarters is on the East River?
You got the wrong side of the island, Prince. - Yours, etc.,
ANDREW O'CONNOR,
Upper Lad Lane,
Dublin 2.