WAR ON IRAQ: THOSE wanting America and Britain to attack Iraq without the authority of the UN should remember that under international law any country which is under attack has the legal right to defend itself.

Thus Iraq is legally entitled to defend itself. However, once Iraq's conventional weaponry has become exhausted, it is not inconceivable that Saddam may resort to using any chemical, biological or nuclear weaponry at his disposal.

Equally, if America and Britain attack without the authority of the UN, not only will such an attack be illegal under international law but both America and Britain would legally be the aggressors and as such could face prosecution for war crimes.

However, thanks to the efforts of Tony Blair, America has immunity from prosecution, which it will not only invoke, but, given the Machiavellian nature of American politics, it is not inconceivable that America will use this to its advantage so as to restore its position worldwide, leaving Britain to suffer the consequences. But surely that is the purpose of a patsy? - HE Smith, Spennymoor.

THE likely attack on Iraq is just that - not a war with an enemy at least able to defend itself.

Best estimates put the number of Iraqi men, woman and children killed in the last 12 years at over one million. Are cluster bombs, daisy cutter bombs, fuel air explosives not all designed specifically to kill people? Are they not weapons of mass destruction?

Tony Blair's blood sacrifice will mostly be paid by Iraqi civilians, with far more reason to fear and hate Saddam Hussein than Western rulers.

Surveys show that the majority of British people oppose what Bush/Blair want to do. There is thus a very deep constitutional crisis which will haunt this country for many years. When 'our' government launches a war for peace and democracy it usually manages to convince a majority at the time. - Richard Laver, Darlington.

THE arch-hypocrite of the free world, George Bush, now warns the Iraqi soldiers that if they fight in defence of their country and people when America decides to invade they will be treated as war criminals if they survive (perhaps even sent to Cuba and locked in cages).

America's misfortune in having a President who comes across as a modern-day Rambo and worse still, supported by Tony Blair and almost all of the Westminster MPs, becomes apparent with the passing of each day.

Can the United Nations weapons inspectors and the Security Council restrain this American 'born again' Christian who speaks and acts like a warlord? We wait with baited breath for George's next pronouncement, unable to comprehend that the 21st century could well turn out to be even bloodier than the 20th. - Rev John Stephenson, East Herrington.

HARRY Mead (Echo, Jan 22) makes no sense, unless he is prepared to come up with something more constructive.

Harry wishes us to believe that Iraq and its despot regime has nothing to do with the terror that is threatening us and that there is the possibility of hundreds of al Qaida terrorists in this country which suggests the war in Afghanistan was a failure.

The fact there are hundreds of al Qaida terrorists in this country has more to do with our disgraceful immigration laws and the Government and those who preach the gospel on human rights, who are making this country a laughing stock and a dangerous place to live in. - John Young, Crook.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

WE, the pensioners of this county, demand a referendum on capital punishment now, so we can decide how the punishment is dished out and not the judges.

We are fed up of being ignored on this subject by our MPs for far too long. They are so much wrapped up in their own interests they have forgotten who put them there.

I would also like to remind them that we are the backbone voters of this country. We fought in two world wars for freedom and democracy, not to be taken over by foreigners.

We also demand that all judges should be vetted and given an IQ test to see if they are up to the job.

Also the people should have a vote when selecting judges and not our Prime Minister. - E Little, Hartlepool.

LATE PAYMENT

I WAS concerned by the suggestion made by Gordon Brown (Echo, Jan 9) that legislation was introduced to 'wipe out' late payment.

This is not the case. In 1998 the Government introduced the legislation to assist businesses with late payment problems. It was not designed to single-handedly resolve the UK's late payment problems, but to be an additional credit collection aide, alongside other credit control procedures.

The Credit Management Research Centre (CMRC) surveyed 1,000 businesses across the UK last year and their findings revealed that 38 per cent of the businesses questioned had chosen to make their customers aware of their rights under the late payment legislation in their terms and conditions. This paints a more positive picture of the take-up of the legislation than your article suggested.

Businesses need not fear upsetting their customers if they communicate their intention to charge interest and debt recovery costs in the event of late payment from the outset of their business relationship with the customer. This allows the legislation to act as a deterrent and, in conjunction with effective credit management practices, help prevent the occurrence of late payment in the first place. - Caroline Livesey, BPPG Secretariat, c/o Polhill Communications, London.