Anti-War Index to pages on this site and external links
Norwich Stop the War Coalition
Paddy's Normal Home page

From the Eastern Daily Press. Wednesday, October 1, 2003

Terrorism defined

RICHARD CASEY,
Framingham Earl Rd,
Yelverton, Norwlch.


In your Opinion column (Sept 29) you claim Prime Minister Blair "Was essentially right" to attack Iraq. In common with certain national publications, you now describe attacks on Coalition forces as "Terrorism".

Would you care to define "terrorists" and "terrorism"?

Twelve years of sanctions brought about the death of one million Iraqi civilians. When informed 600,000 children had died as a result of these sanctions, Madeline Albright, the-then US Secretary of State, stated: "That was a price well worth paying". Is Madeline Albright a "terrorist"?

The gas used to kill the Kurds at Halabja had been supplied to Saddam Hussein by Donald Rumsfeld, acting on behalf of the US Government; after the massacre Mr Rumsfeld supplied Saddam with further stocks. Is Mr Rumsfeld a "terrorist?

For 12 years, US and UK aircraft patrolled, and frequently bombed, Iraq's so-called "no-fIy" zones. Were these acts of "terrorism"?

In defiance of the United Nations, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair launched an illegal attack on Iraq, 10,000 civilians were killed. Are President Bush and Prime Minister Blair "terrorists"?

When Iraqis carry out attacks on those who have invaded their country, killed and maimed their children, murdered their parents, brothers and sisters, destroyed their homes, schools and hospitals, destroyed their infrastructure and stolen their oil, no question marks here, there seems absolutely no doubt they are "terrorists".

The word "hypocrisy" now stalks through the columns of a great provincial newspaper.

Let us hope it is a short-lived aberration.

______________________

From the Eastern Daily Press, Saturday, October 11, 2003

Middle East hypocrisy over 'terrorism'

MICHAEL ROWLAND
St Peter's Close,
Strumpshaw.


Once again the '51st state' has attacked another country.

And does its benefactor, the USA, condemn it?

No! George W says it's OK, therefore it's OK.

Terrorist attacks? More than four Palestinians have been murdered to evry one Israeli.

But Israelis are not terorists because they do it with tanks, helicopters and jet fighters, whereas the Palestinians make the ultimate sacrifice - they turn themselves into human bombs.

______________________

Deceit over weapons claims

GRAHAM ASHWORTH,
Common Road,
Shelfanger,
Diss.


Jack Straw tells us that because no weapons of mass destruction have not been found that does not mean they do not exist.

We have, thus far, failed to prove that we have been deceived by Mr Blair, Mr Straw and Co., but we know that we have been.

______________________

From the Eastern Daily Press. Tuesday, October 14, 2003

War is failure of the UN

PETER MEADOWS,
Oakcroft Drive,
Framingham Earl

.
The question regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq rages on and no doubt will continue to do so for some time while the real question should have been - did Iraq pose a threat to world peace and the constitution of the United Nations?

After the first world. war, many countries decided to form the League of Nations in the hope that this would secure a basis for continued "world peace" and prevent the horrors of yet another war.

This, however, did not prevent the Japanese invading Manchuria in 1932 and establishing a puppet state.

Now did it prevent the war between Italy and Abyssinia in 1935. This was followed by ineffectual economic "sanctions" by the League of Nations.

In 1938, Germany annexed Austria and marched into Poland. Later, of course, the United Nations was formed in place of the failed League. It had the same established principles of world peace and.security but with the added emphasis on human rights and individual : freedom.

In fact the United Nations has followed the example of the League of Nations and proved a complete failure, for if it had acted swiftly following the brutal massacre by poison gas of some 200,000 Kurdish men, women and children in Iraq, then it would never have been necessary for America and Britain to take any action.

Recently we have discovered horrific mass graves in Iraq of thousands of people who had been murdered by Saddam's regime.

So much for the demonstrations throughout the world against war, although I suspect many people were either motivated by self interest or just plain anti-American or anti-Blair.

I happen to be a strong Conservative but on this issue I gave Tony Blair my full support.

______________________

From the Eastern Daily Press, Thursday, October 16, 2003.

All of us are the 'United Nations'

DAVID ROBERTS,
High Green,
Norwich.

Mr Meadows (Letter, October 14) assumes the United Nations failed because "it" did not sort out Iraq long ago, because of Saddam's abuse of human rights.

To quote the Charter signed in 1948, "We, the peoples . . . resolved to end the scourge of war." We, the peoples of the world, are united in a desire for peace. We are the United Nations. It is the failure of national governments that they sometimes resort to war despite the UN and the wishes of their own people.

Nations must work together if the UN is to work effectively. Quite rightly Mr Meadows reminds us that the Security Council failed to curb Saddam Hussein years ago.

Did Mr Meadows persuade his MP that Britain should support action against the Iraqi regime? Did the British public know or care about that evil tyrant?

The United States and other governments were allowing arms sales to Saddam, in full knowledge of atrocities in Iraq. America still vetoes any action to halt Israeli abuses of human rights, while hampering control of its territories by the Palestinian administration.

Governments individually cannot overthrow tyrannies such as Mugabe's in Zim'abwe. Only concerted effort in the Security Council can defeat oppressive regimes in member states of the United Nations.

The UN cannot resort to military action without agreement in the Security Council. This is a fundamental principle of democracy. If Britain and America played a timely and constructive role in the Security Council, wars such as we have now fought - would not be necessary. Reviling the United Nations is a poor excuse for going to war alone.

The United Nations Association forewarned our Government of the consequences of invading Iraq. Even Mr Bush now recognises that he cannot tidy up the mess which has resulted.

Instead of rejecting the UN as an instrument for justice, development and peace, we all should urge our Government to respect; support and refine the United Nations organisation better to achieve a peaceful world.


Anti-War Index   Next Page

Anti-War Index to pages on this site and external links
Norwich Stop the War Coalition
Paddy's Normal Home page