ANDREW O'CONNOR,
Madam, - Fear of China is the underlying reason why the Bush administration is so hell-bent on going to war with Iraq. Today's China is a country of a billion people going through the first convulsions of economic revival, mainly as a result of increased levels of trade freedom in the past 15 years. China's star is rising, slowly but surely.
By contrast, the US is a mature economy with slowing growth and a social structure that seems to be splitting at the seams. When the people behind George Bush take a 50-year view of how they want the world to develop in the coming century, they can see the greatest threat to American pre-eminence is China.
The key to maintaining global dominance is economic might. Economics has always delivered for the US, making up for its geographic isolation and relatively small population. It is the cornerstone behind the massive footprint they have made in the past 50 years - militarily, in language, culture, morality and the media.
No matter how many Kyoto protocols are signed in the coming years, and short of some global ecological disaster which forces a major change of heart, the world's most powerful economies will continue to depend on oil for the next 50 years. So it becomes strategically imperative for the US's struggle to retain a lead against China that the oil fields of Iraq are under direct American control.
So America needs a friendly face in Iraq. Regime change is the aim, but to retain international credibility and the support of the American people, US leaders need a reason to go in. Thus began what one commentator recently called "the longest and most sickening political striptease in history".
I am very pro-American. I am much happier that today's US and not today's China is "in charge". And I accept that regime change in Iraq is highly desirable, not only for the Iraqi people to rid them of Saddam, but as a world economic imperative. But I do not agree with this war.
What is wrong here is firstly the American refusal to admit to an educated world audience that this war is about economics and not terrorism, world peace or humanitarian concerns. Secondly, despite the smokescreens, this is a pre-emptive war - and the correct term for a pre-emptive war is an invasion. George W. Bush's move against Iraq is not comparable to his father's move 12 years ago. It is comparable to Saddam Hussein's move 12 years ago, when he invaded Kuwait. - Yours, etc.,
ANDREW O'CONNOR, Chapelizod, Dublin 20.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
A chara, - It is past time for Ireland to contribute to the endeavour to force Saddam Hussein to destroy the weapons specified in UN Resolution 1441, and others. I call on the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs to lend support, diplomacy, and other assistance to the United States, Britain and others, to bring Iraq into full compliance with the UN's demands.
It is no longer responsible for Ireland to remain neutral in the face of the clear evil with which Saddam continues to threaten world peace and to burden the Iraqi people with the stresses of economic sanctions. Ireland cannot remain silent or on the fence if she is to behave as a civilised nation. To do so is to pass the burden of defending peace, international order, and freedom onto someone else's shoulders.
Ireland should step out of the confines of the European Union, if that institution will not act, and support the ultimatum now in front of Saddam Hussein. Ireland should use its diplomacy and influence to press for Saddam Hussein to step down to allow the Iraqis to choose a new leader. We must also demand the immediate lifting of sanctions on Iraq; along with other relief measures for the Iraqi people.
In the same breath, the Irish Government should push for compliance by Israel with UN resolutions which demand its withdrawal from the occupied territories. Israel must be pressured to end the two-and-a-half-year-old siege of Palestine, and to open peace talks with its leaders. - Is mise,
JOHN PAUL O'DRISCOLL, Prattville, Alabama, USA.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam - Anti-French vitriol is being expressed by many American commentators because of France's refusal to be bullied by the United States to back its attempts to topple the present Iraqi regime. Perhaps they might re-acquaint themselves with some of their own history.
In 1775 France made the first of several loans to the Americans, which enabled them to purchase weapons and supplies to keep their revolutionary armies intact. One of the most important figures who volunteered and fought in the American revolutionary war was the Marquis de Lafayette, a young French nobleman who took no pay, sought no command, and asked only to serve.
In 1778 the new United States of America signed an alliance with the French whereby France became the first country to recognise American independence.
In July 1778, France formally declared war on Great Britain. On September 5th, 1781, Admiral De Grasse's naval forces defeated the British fleet, which left General Cornwallis in Yorktown without a means of escape and enabled Washington's forces to defeat him in the battle that followed.
These were services that one of the oldest countries in Europe did for the New World's fledgling democracy in the late 18th century. With age comes maturity and wisdom. Perhaps when the United States of America emerges from its present adolescence, it too may acquire such enlightenment! - Yours, etc.,
PAT BURKE, Rathsallagh, Shankill, Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - The American government says it supports the Iraqi people, but is hostile to Saddam Hussein.
Al-Qaeda releases a statement from Osama bin Laden supporting the Iraqi people, but hostile to Saddam Hussein.
Colin Powell says this proves there is a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
I must have missed something. - Yours, etc.,
FRANK O'NEILL, Miltown Malbay, Co Clare.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Your Editorial of February 15th asserts that the "real and unpalatable threat of force" produced Iraqi co-operation. Morally, however, it is wrong to threaten to do what it would be wrong to do. Threatened aggression is self-evidently evil. - Yours, etc.,
J.A. BARNWELL, St Patrick's Road, Dublin 9.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Ireland may be officially neutral but in practice we have never been. In the second World War allied airmen were sent back to the UK but German airmen were imprisoned. So letters and articles praising Ireland's long and proud tradition of neutrality have no basis in reality. And Ireland will be judged not by the official position but by our actions.
The weapons inspectors would not be in Iraq now if it was not for the credible threat of force by the US and UK, and we have to thank them for that. Part of that credible threat is the movement of troops to the Gulf and the US and UK saying they are willing to go to war if necessary.
The world today has many non-democracies, and most are tolerated. There are a few, though, whose leader is a real tyrant and the free countries of the world must stand together and say, "Enough. We will not sit idly by". I think this is one of these times.
Let's get rid of Saddam, using diplomacy if possible; but we must not shirk from our responsibility. The threat of force must be shown to be real, and we must be willing to use it if all else fails. - Yours, etc.,
DONAL KELLY, Taylors Hill, Galway.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - President George Bush is a great man! He has managed to achieve something that has eluded many politicians in the Western world for the past 20 years: he has politicised the youth of Europe.
It was a moving experience to be at the anti-war protest last Saturday. Thanks, George! - Yours, etc.,
SHAUN and BRENDA McCANN, Church Avenue, Dublin 6.