AS A regular reader of your letters page I have noted with interest the number of letters supporting the position that the war on Iraq was, in fact, illegal and that it was carried out in breach of international law. I do not pretend to have any knowledge of law, either national or international, but, if what your readers are stating is indeed true, then surely there can be only one possible solution to this gross miscarriage of justice.
Saddam Hussein should be released immediately from internment, as this must surely be the most blatant, and publicised, case of unlawful arrest and imprisonment that the world has witnessed. Legally, he should then be reinstated to his position prior to the illegal invasion - ie, that of president of Iraq - and he should be given the authority to reform and restore his armed forces to their former peace-keeping status before the illegal invasion took place. The list is endless.
I can see Donald Findlay already stroking his sideburns and thinking to himself: ''Aye, and what about compensation for the trauma he suffered?'' Then again that would be silly - Mr Findlay usually only represents alleged murderers, doesn't he?
John Morrison,
7 Gladstone Place, Kirkcudbright.
ON Saturday, October 23, you published a letter from a Richard Watson of Glasgow, which (in defending the Bush/Blair Iraqi expedition) contained the following words: ''The inspectors would have had more time to allow Saddam to demonstrate his compliance with United Nations resolutions. This, we now know, he would have been able to do. But what Hans Blix would not have discovered was Saddam's intention to continue to develop WMD once sanctions were lifted. Thus we would now have Saddam in power, the UN satisfied, and every prospect of oil revenues in full flow to fund WMD production along with the means of their long-range delivery.''
Interestingly, on Wednesday, October 20, a new London-based upmarket tabloid (aka the Times) published a letter from a Ron Osmond of Hinckley, Leicestershire, expressing the following sentiments: ''The inspectors . . . would have had more time to allow Saddam to demonstrate his compliance with United Nations resolutions. This, we now know, he would have been able to do. What Hans Blix would not have discovered, however, was Saddam's intention to continue to develop WMD once sanctions were lifted. Thus we would now have Saddam in power, the UN satisfied, and every prospect of oil revenues in full flow to fund WMD production along with the means of their long-range delivery.''
I wonder - is this a case of great minds thinking alike, or of fools failing to differ? Or could it perhaps be yet another example of the same New Labour cut-and-paste research technique that produced the original lying dossier?
Brian D Finch,
56 Fingal Street, Glasgow.
THERE is a sense in which Thomas McLaughlin's critique (October 26) of Dr Jim Macgregor's reference to ''neo-fascist'' - not fascists, as Mr McLaughlin would have it - is correct. If one accepts the definition provided by Gentile, the so-called ''philosopher'' of fascism - ''The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State'' - then Mr McLaughlin is technically correct in placing this in antithesis to his tenuous claim for the neo-cons as ''tragically over-zealous apostles of liberal democracy''. (When capitalised ''Fascism'' refers only to Italy.) As with all such nouns, meanings may migrate from the particular to the general - hence ''fascism'' as it is more generally used and
understood today - and ''neo-fascist'' in this instance.
Anent this, we were warned by the prophetic President Eisenhower: ''In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.'' Particularly, one might add, if the presidential electoral process is suborned by these same forces.
In this context, I prefer the following definition: ''Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.'' A perfect description, ontologically and practically, one might venture, of the present military-industrial (neo-fascist?) US state.
Its author? Benito Mussolini - and he was in a position to know.
Dr John J O'Dowd,
3 Downfield Gardens, Bothwell.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article