WAR ON IRAQ: IT is with some dismay we are seeing the utmost condemnation of the UN, just because the Iraq problem persists.
The success of the UN in any crisis depends on us, you and me, all member states - our understanding of this vast world organisation, its history and achievements, our support to make it work and succeed.
The UN was never meant to be a world government. It was created immediately after the Second World War and its purpose was to maintain international peace and security, to achieve international co-operation between nations in solving problems and avoiding war.
The UN was to be a gathering of sovereign states to which more than 185 states now belong. Naturally you will find a diversity of political systems among them, but the common aim is to work for peace and prevent the scourge of war.
The US was a founder member of the UN, but over the years its support has been variable, even in the simple area of paying its annual membership fee.
Let us hope that the UN will continue its work to prevent unnecessary wars for the sake of coming generations, even if it might be sidelined by the world's only superpower this time. - David J Whittaker, EM Whittaker, Richmond.
THE Liberal Democrats believe that there is insufficient evidence to date to justify a pre-emptive war against Iraq.
As Charles Kennedy has said: "We are being bulldozed into a war not of our choosing and - on the evidence to date - not in our interests. We cannot support any UK or US military action that is not sanctioned by a second UN resolution. Even with UN endorsement many of our members will continue to have grave reservations about the wisdom and the necessity of war."
Following Mr Kennedy's lead, the party's executive has officially backed the peace marches on Saturday, February 15 to demonstrate the depth of our concern and has urged members and supporters to attend.
The main marches take place in London and Glasgow and I understand that a gathering is also planned for the Newcastle Monument at noon that day.
The dangers of massive civilian casualties from the onslaught and of inflaming international terrorism implicit in the Blair/Bush determination to go to war are too frightening for us not to stand up and say: Not in our name. - Ron Beadle, Chairman, Northern Region Liberal Democrats, Gateshead.
IF President Bush and Tony Blair invade Iraq without UN sanction and without the support of their people, the only way they will be able to justify their actions and the slaughter that follows is by discovering weapons of mass destruction once they have control of the country. What's the betting that they turn up?
Concerning the oil, Colin Powell has stated that the oil will be held in trust for the Iraqi people. I wonder who the lucky trustees will be - have a guess. Whoever they are they will have hit the jackpot. If and when a board of trustees is appointed don't be surprised if someone known to our own Prime Minister is selected. Someone say with a legal background. A woman perhaps. Pay back time. - Name and address supplied.
THE revelation of the evidence for war lifted from a student's outdated thesis (Echo, Feb 8) confirms what many people fear. Tony Blair and President Bush want a war and are prepared to spin information as is so common in domestic affairs, to get their way.
It is other people's lives they are risking. The thousands of troops they are sending out to face possible death. The thousands of innocent people they are prepared to bomb.
If the two leaders are so determined to oust Saddam Hussein, let them go and fight their own battle, face to face and hand to hand with him. Two against one are good odds. Let them be at the head of their armies setting the example and showing the way, not safe and secure at home. - EA Moralee, Billingham.
A MONTH or so ago Tony Blair addressed the nation on matters appertaining to Iraq, our relationship with Muslim people in general and at some length on the threat of terrorism.
He wasted his time because very few people bothered to listen and many of those who did suggested directly or obliquely that he was scaremongering about terrorism to divert attention from the Iraq situation.
Bearing in mind subsequent events, could it be just possible that Tony Blair has got it right? - Alan Benn, Press Officer, Hambleton District Labour Party, Bedale.
LET'S suppose that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction. Any attack on Iraq would cause Iraq to launch a counter strike against Israel as Saddam knows full well that Israel will retaliate using its nuclear weapons.
America and Britain will automatically side with Israel causing Islamic fundamentalists to attack America and British bases within Islamic countries.
Numerous Muslims will be killed by ground troops defending such bases, causing the Islamic world to turn against America and Britain. Result, a third world war.
When the Cold War ended it was revealed that Russia had developed 136 suitcase-sized half mega tonne atomic bombs of which 34 are now missing, believed to be in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists.
The start of any attack against Iraq could cause their use and in a country as small as Britain one such bomb exploded in London will bring the whole country to a stop.
This is but a theory and if you want to prove me wrong all you need do is act like John Wayne and attack Iraq without the support of the UN.
But if you use your brain and, as senior army officials recommend, let the UN inspectors do their job, Saddam's weapons can not only be disarmed and Saddam replaced, but a third world war could be prevented. - CT Riley, Spennymoor.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article