I don’t usually get political on these pages, and I’m not about to make a habit of it, but this whole Bush v Saddam thing is starting to get on my nerves. Now, of course I realize that Saddam Hussein can quite reasonably be described as a dangerous evil dictator who has already invaded two of his neighbouring countries, but what would bombing Iraq really achieve? Well you wouldn’t kill Saddam for a start – I think you can rest assured he’ll be long gone, viewing events from afar.
More importantly for the American people, what about reprisals? Invading Iraq will certainly get the hackles up of any anti-American group or country. Despite the talk in today’s papers of Iraq’s supposed nuclear capabilities, I don’t see that as a real threat, especially if NATO’s all-for-one and one-for-all stance stays intact.
The real threat has to come from terrorist activities, and they don’t have to be on scale of 9/11. Just look at the way a small, well organised outfit; you may have heard of them; have terrorised Northern Ireland and England for the past 30 years. It wasn’t that long ago the IRA destroyed the centre of Manchester. The IRA chose to give a warning and no-one was killed; had no warning been given, the death toll would have been huge. Let us not forget the bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton which killed five people and very nearly killed Thatcher. And in previous, sickening campaigns the IRA were happily blowing up pubs full of people in Guildford & Birmingham.
All this was exacted by a group whose members value their own lives (if no-one else’s) upon a nation schooled in anti-terror vigilance. An unprepared America would be a sitting duck for this kind of sustained offensive.
Pete wrote:
I agree with you. But as you said, it has been going on for 30 years. If we could find a solution to the IRA problem, perhaps that could guide us on a global scale, but no solution appears to be forthcoming.
As you said, on this site you try to steer clear of political talk, but what is your opinion on how we can resolve the conflict with the IRA?
Rich wrote:
As you know, Pete, there has been a lot of progress recently with regard to Northern Ireland. The IRA proper is currently on a ceasefire and has handed over some weapons. But all this has come about though providing NI with its own governmental Assembly in a similar way to those set up in Scotland and Wales (who of course gained their degree of independence from England through entirely peaceful means).
My point is that the IRA issue was never succesfully tackled head-on. They wanted a unified Ireland. By giving NI its own Assembly, something which probably would have happened without the IRA, the IRA seems to have been appeased, accepting this as a suitable compromise – but it’s not the unified Ireland they were orginally fighting for.
Pete wrote:
Some progress, certainly, but it still looks very shaky. I fear that there will never be complete trust between all parties because no-one is going to be willing to back down all the way. In most circumstances some compromise has to be found, but then the finer points of the agreement start falling into dispute, and it all collapses again.
My concern, understandably, is that the IRA will accept no compromise. Cynical of me, I know, but in that event, is the solution to back down or to declare war?
Seamus wrote:
If you are still interested in Northern Ireland, and the process, you might check out Letter to Slugger O’Toole www.sluggerotoole.com