WAR ON IRAQ: IF YOU are old enough to have suffered the nightly terror of the bombing of cities as I did in Liverpool and London in 1942-1945, you would have felt very grateful when the United Nations was created.

The duty of this body was to prevent this mass terror and slaughter happening again.

If it were doing its job the UN ought to order Britain immediately to withdraw its armed forces from the Gulf where it threatens a small nation. Iraq could not be said to be a friend of Britain, but Yugoslavia was and while we were suffering Hitler's terror bombing, this gallant nation was fighting bravely on our side.

How sad I felt when Tony Blair ordered his bombers and guided weapons to attack Yugoslavia. And the money promised to repair the destroyed Danube crossings has never been forthcoming.

If the above sad tale is a pointer to the future, the poor people of Baghdad have my heartfelt sympathy.

I hope the people of old Europe have the courage to force us to withdraw using a UN Resolution. - An 81-year-old, North Yorks.

THANK YOU for covering the anti-war demonstrations so fully, and showing the strength of local support for the rallies.

Some of your readers who live near Durham City might like to know about Peace Action Durham, a campaigning group that has been established for over 20 years. Anyone wishing to be kept informed about talks, vigils and other activities in this area can join our list by writing by email or snail mail to. - Heather Speight, Southlands, Gilesgate, Durham, justine.schneiderdur.ac.uk THE main reason the US wishes to go to war with Iraq, besides the obvious desire for oil, is that since so many Americans were killed in the atrocities of September 11, the American people wish for at least as many enemies to die.

Revenge, they say, is a dish best served cold. More than enough time has elapsed since September 11. The US has digested the atrocity and has decided to do something about retribution. - K Orton, Ferryhill Station.

IF one of the reasons for a war in Iraq is to bring about a change in regime, why can't the fit, young Iraqi asylum seekers who seek the same objective, be given training in the army and sent back to liberate their own country? - K Foster, Wheatley Hill.

BRITAIN is trying to be the world's policeman: high minded, laudable. But you will notice the lack of will from the rest of Europe.

We seem to be at risk from any idealist type wanting to set off a bomb to prove a point.

This is proving disastrous to business and tourism. Would it be so cowardly for Britain not to go to war or could it be deemed wise, before the event? - F Atkinson, Shincliffe.

WE'RE told that one of the war aims justifying an attack on Iraq is to 'impose democracy'. Modern Iraq has had no experience of democracy.

Imperial Britain received Iraq as a League of Nations mandate in 1918 from the Ottoman's cruel rule. Borders were redrawn ignoring minority rights like those of the Kurds and certainly grabbing the vast oil reserves for British exploitation. Russia and Germany were kept away from the Persian Gulf by offering Iraqi business leaders superior bribes and railway concessions. An Arab royal dynasty from outside was installed in Baghdad. No popular emancipation, land reform, literacy, or democracy was ever envisaged or encouraged. 'Rebel natives' were efficiently bombed from the air by Bomber Harris and the RAF.

Iraq is famous not for peoples' participation but for coups. King Feisel was assassinated in 1958.

In 1968 the President was despatched by the Ba'ath Party's strongmen, one of whom was Saddam Hussein. CIA agents were there to help.

In 1979 Hussein, now in power, foolishly took on the Ayatollah's Iran. That war was long and bloody. Iraq, though, received plenty of aid (arms, intelligence, funds) from the US, Russia, France, Italy, West Germany, Japan, Jordan, Egypt, and the UK.

For Iraqis there has been no democracy and very little food. Now we are intent on disarming Iraq 'by force'. This will cause the destruction of the country and provoke the use of what may remain of WMD in final retaliation to an attack. - (Dr) David J Whittaker, Richmond, North Yorks.

IF THE US goes to war many innocent children and mothers will be killed.

The whole economy of the world may be wrecked and it is dubious that anything will be resolved.

Why then would the credibility of the United Nations be ruined by a French veto of any new resolution on Iraq? Can the United Nations only be credible if it does the bidding of the Bush administration? The US has made it clear that it will go to war regardless of what the UN decides. A French veto would show the UN can be something other than the foreign policy instrument of the US. - James Fitzpatrick, Gateshead.

ALMOST every country in this sad old world has realised that war is no solution to our problems.

Tony Blair seems to see himself as the keeper of the world's conscience. It is high time he got the message: democracy is government by the sovereign will of the people - not an evil conspiracy by two politicians who have lost their senses. - Hugh Pender, Darlington.

JOHN Reid, chairman of the Labour Party, has dug up another reason to justify war (Echo, Feb 16): "We must free the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein."

Does he not remember what happened in 1991? Thousands of Iraqi men, women, children and babies were either killed or maimed and Hussein untouched; no freedom from tyranny for them.

Millions of people around the world on February 15 have given Mr Blair and Mr Bush Jnr their answer. No war against the people of Iraq. - Rev John Stephenson, Sunderland.