Madam, - The strong interventions of Pope John Paul in favour of peace are a source of encouragement for many. Would it not be wonderful if the Pope were to take his peace-making a stage further by going on a visit to Iraq at this time? It would be almost unthinkable that the US and UK would attack as long as the Pope stayed there.
If they did go ahead with an attack, it would at least be very clear to the Iraqi people, and to Muslims everywhere, that the attack was not part of a Christian crusade against Muslims. This would be even clearer if the Pope were joined in Iraq by other leaders of Christian Churches, especially from the US and UK.
In addition to its obvious effect of inhibiting an attack, a visit by the Pope to Iraq in this hour of need could lead to a dramatic breakthrough in the present strained relationship between Christians and Muslims. It would go a long way to undermine support for Islamic fundamentalism.
The Pope has shown on several occasions in the past that a visit by him to a country does not imply support for the regime, so we could trust him to make quite clear that his arrival was not a sign of support for Saddam.
If Christians, and others, all over the world were to rally behind this idea it might encourage the Pope to take the risk. Furthermore, it would restore the credibility of the Church leadership and help to heal the wounds within the Church. - Yours, etc.,
DONAL DORR, Dublin 6.
Madam, - Supporters of US policy who like to invoke the 1930s policy of appeasing Hitler, and by implication cast themselves in a Churchillian mould, are reading history wrongly. In the 1930s, Hitler was the aggressor; the appeasers went along with him for fear of the consequences of standing up to him. Today, no matter how uniquely nasty the Iraqi regime, the aggressor is the United States, which is contemplating a pre-emptive strike: an act of war. The appeasers are the likes of the British and Spanish governments - and in Ireland those who speak for the PDs - who are prepared to back unilateral US action, for fear of the consequences of not doing so. - Yours, etc.,
EOIN DILLON, Ceannt Fort, Dublin 8.
Madam, - Does it not occur to your Editorial writer of March 3rd that the only reason Saddam Hussein has suddenly found stocks of Anthrax and VX nerve gas, supposedly destroyed in 1991, is the presence of some 400,000 troops near his borders?
We in Ireland can afford to take what we condescendingly think is the moral high ground when we dither about Shannon. But it is not our troops who will be putting their lives on the line. Tony Blair is putting his career on the line for a principle.
Maybe that is what is so foreign to us. We are elevating Saddam to the status of a David fighting a Goliath. Tell that to the Kurds, those who are still alive. Tell that to the Kuwaitis that survived his invasion and to the Saudis who would have been next.
Were it not for that Gulf War and the brave men who fought it, the Celtic Tiger would never have been born. Perhaps the Greens, the Shinners and the Michael D. Higginses of this world would have been happier, but not many people have their intellectual arrogance. - Yours, etc.,
JOHN MADDEN, Carndonagh, Co Donegal.
Madam, - If the Americans see themselves as some kind of international police force, forcing Saddam Hussein out of power and destroying his WMDs with or without UN backing, I ask: who will police the police? - Yours, etc.,
MARK GRAY, Clonskeagh, Co Dublin.