World’s shameful daily death toll of children

The loss of nearly 3,000 lives in New York last year was horrifying and tragic. Our obsession with it, and comparative indifference to the 18,000 children who will die today, strikes me as shameful.

The "war on terror" may or may not be winnable against an enemy we cannot see, and whose motives we struggle to understand. A war on hunger is winnable, will cost less than the carnage threatened by our leaders, and, rather than further alienating the developing world, surely will do much to remove the environment that nurtures terrorism.

Our political leaders’ struggle for the moral high ground post-9/11, against the background of avoidable disease, starvation and thirst in our world is as revolting an exercise in hypocrisy as I can remember.

And what of the victims of 9/11 in New York? What memorial do they deserve? Many of them, about to be murdered, were able to phone home and leave a last message on an answering machine. These are the voices we should listen to in considering our response to this tragedy. Their last messages were not of hate and revenge and war, but of love and hope.

It would indeed be a marvellous memorial to those who died in New York if, as has been suggested, the World will never be the same again. As the leaders of the military-industrial complex again prepare for war, I get a terrifying feeling of dj vu.

DAVID H KELLY

Pennan

Aberdeenshire

President George Bush has challenged the UN to enforce resolutions passed regarding Iraq, but conveniently forgot to mention Israel’s refusal to accept previous resolutions passed by the body. As a consequence, can we now expect him to prepare plans for the invasion and overthrow of the Israeli government, or at least harangue the UN into action?

Iraq has been subject to United States economic sanctions, while Israel continues to receive massive economic and military aid from the US. Why? Because of the electoral importance of the Jewish lobby to any US president.

President Bush also failed to mention that the US is the possessor of most of the world’s chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction, has not hesitated to use them in the past, and has also been unwilling to allow UN inspectors free access to sensitive sites.

The US administration has consistently failed to demonstrate any connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11. However, since Osama bin Laden cannot be found, and Saddam Hussein is a sitting target, the search for Bin Laden is forsaken for the invasion of Iraq. Iraq also just happens to control a significant percentage of the world’s oil supply, and, as the largest consumer and net importer of oil, the US clearly has a vested economic interest in controlling a puppet Iraqi regime. Already, the analysts are telling us that war with Iraq will also help a severely depressed Wall Street.

The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, meanwhile continues to subjugate himself, his government and the people to the ambitions of the world’s remaining superpower, clocking up his air miles while the economy continues to slide into recession, a fireman’s strike looms and the rest of Europe distances itself from US aggression. Is this to be Mr Blair’s Falkland’s factor as he eyes an increasingly restless and discontented electrorate ahead of the next election?

ALISTAIR J GRANT

Perth Road

Crieff, Perthshire

Bill Jamieson stated (Opinion, 13 September) that "as long as Saddam remains there will never be stability in the Middle East". Most people recognise that the most destabilising regime in the region is Israel, by its refusal to a) end the illegal occupation, and b) stop the growth of illegal settlements.

Like Iraq, Israel has refused to comply with UN resolutions and has invaded neighbouring countries.

The world’s policeman, the UN, must end the double standards but that would mean acting against a client state of the US. Has the UN got the balls to stand up to the Bush/Blair/Sharon axis?

SUZANNE RILEY

Colston Road

Glasgow