Hear All Sides

I could not help but reflect on the possible fate of Iraqi schoolchildren when American and British bombs rain down on their schools.

If this is what our Christian politicians want then may their God forgive them. - Hugh Pender, Darlington.

I WONDER why people like T Miller (HAS, Feb 10) always claim that their opinion represents that of the nation.

The majority of people that I know are either unsure about or are against Mr Blair's Iraqi adventure. This is especially so among former servicemen who have seen war. Many are totally opposed to war and refer to Mr Bush as President Custer and Mr Blair as his poodle. Neither of these two men have served.

As W Collinson suggests (HAS, Feb 10), why not send Euan Blair? After all, front line service was good enough for Edward VIII and George VI in the First World War, Randolph Churchill in the Second World War and Prince Andrew in the Falklands. - Raymond Kelly, Chester-le-Street.

I AM a 72-year-old ex-miner and I don't like getting involved with politics. I believe we voted them in, so they should be left to get on with it.

But I sometimes wonder where the leaders of the world hide their brains.

Would Iraq allow in weapons inspectors if it really still had illegal weapons?

I have just finished reading a book written by a BBC correspondent called The Land of Film Stars, about Jordan. It says that 45 per cent of Jordanians are Palestinian (enemy of Israel) and 20 per cent Iraqi. Only 35 per cent are native Jordanians.

Jordan has no oil and relies on tourism and help from neighbouring countries like Iran and Iraq.

So I'll give you one guess where Iraq's smoking gun is. - F Wallis, Barnard Castle.

AFTER Iraq's defeat in the Gulf War and 12 years of sanctions, several reports have shown how weak the infrastructure in the country is. It is impossible to obtain spare parts for vehicles and electrical equipment, among other things.

In the event of war, sewage treatment plants would soon be out of action and millions would be left without proper drinking water.

A leaked UN report estimates that if a war was launched against Iraq, 500,000 people would need medical treatment, there would be 86,000 civilian deaths and three million would need therapeutic feeding and be made homeless. The report can be found on www.casi.org.uk.

UNICEF believes that up to 500,000 children have died because of lack of appropriate medicines due to UN sanctions. Can we justify killing the children of Iraq? - E Whittaker, Richmond.

THE criticism of Tony Blair and the snide remark about his religious beliefs by Canon Tom Wright, the next Bishop of Durham, I found contemptible (Echo, Feb 12).

If Canon Wright is the best the church can produce, then the ecclesiastical system is failing the people of Durham.

Both he and the anti-war brigade should remember the 1930s and the castigation of Winston Churchill who warned of the danger of Hitler.

Today Mr Blair is suffering a similar fate. Churchill was right and I believe Blair is also.

Saddam is a threat to world peace and if he does not comply with the resolutions of the United Nations, force should be used.

If Saddam is allowed to procrastinate further, a third world war is inevitable.

The people of this country should wake up before it is too late. - Fred Smith, Birtley.

"WE must wait to avoid war", according to your comment (Echo, Feb 13). This has been said since the early 1990s and will one day bear fruit - but not the harvest that the leader writer believes.

Saddam is playing games with us and to suggest that the UN is our saviour is a game we will pay for.

France makes a fortune out of the Iraqi regime and doesn't want to upset its good fortune. The Russians would lose the value of their oil if they allowed the Iraqis to put more oil on to the markets.

As for the Germans, their defence has been at the expense of the Americans, and it has cost this country dearly over the last 55 years.

In a few years, the West will be cleaning up after a dirty bomb and pacifism will be once again in the dust. - John Young, Crook.

TONY Blair's attempt to make a moral case for war is far from convincing. His hypocrisy is shown in the fact that he has personally signed arms deals with dictators every bit as violent as Saddam (such as Suharto in Indonesia while he was committing genocide in East Timor).

It's further shown in the fact that he and US presidents have willingly accepted large-scale civilian casualties in their bombings of Iraq, Somalia and Aghanistan, not to mention a well-documented deliberate policy of bombing civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia in 1999.

There are plenty of innocent civilians who have been on the receiving end of Blair's bomb-happy policies and regard him and his US allies as the greatest terrorists.

The UN Charter expressly forbids war other than in self-defence. It doesn't allow pre-emptive strikes, or war to disarm someone, or war to remove a national leader.

International law is there to make the world a safer place. It's a scandal that Blair thinks he can re-write it to serve his own policies. - Nic Best, North-East Green Party, Morpeth.

I LAST felt this concerned at the time of the Cuban Missile crisis in 1962. It is an awareness of the terrible consequences if the wrong action is taken. On that occasion we could have had a nuclear war. On this occasion we could be setting off a chain of events which could gather their own momentum. This is what happened in the lead up to the First World War. - Geoffrey Bulmer, Billingham.