MOST of your correspondents seem influenced by war films. Criticising American support for Saddam Hussein during Iraq's seven-year war with Iran, they forget that prior to the Second World War Britain supported Finland against a Russian invasion yet, a few years later, Russia was an ally in the war against Germany.

Since 1945, America and her allies have had a "policy of containment" against aggressors. Germany was divided into two separate states to contain the Warsaw Pact. Korea was divided into two countries to contain the overwhelming strength of the Chinese Communist Army.

The same policy could be applied to Iraq. It could be invaded from north and south, seizing the northern city of Mosul and the southern port of Basra. The country would be divided with a democratic government in eastern Iraq located in Basra. This would leave Saddam Hussein presiding over a landlocked western Iraq with its capital Baghdad.

Those wishing to leave Saddam's oppressive regime would have a country in which to seek refuge. Such an invasion would not destabilise the Middle East because Iraq would not be invaded for conquest but to introduce freedom and choice to a suffering people. - Thomas Conlon, Spennymoor.

ALAN Benn (HAS, Sept 16) makes too much of the comparison between Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler.

The world stood by as Hitler invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia and did not take action till he went into Poland. Earlier intervention would have been justified, but there would have been little support for it before he had invaded anyone, simply on the basis that he might.

In contrast, Saddam has attacked his neighbours twice. When he attacked Iran, he was not merely appeased, he was actively supported and armed by Britain and the US. It is a little hypocritical to condemn him now.

When he invaded Kuwait he was not appeased, he was evicted. He is a brutal and murderous dictator, but he is not a fool and he now knows that any further expansionism would be met with overwhelming force.

One could also compare Hitler's persecution of the Jews with Saddam's horrifying treatment of the Kurds, but then our Nato ally Turkey is also guilty in this respect. - Pete Winstanley, Durham.

ALL wars have been fought back to front. The little people have died in their millions because of the stupidity or sheer criminality of their leaders.

I suggest that all future wars be fought from the top downward. Let us say, for instance, that the ten leaders of any two countries in dispute should be obliged to confer in a neutral country for one month. If, at the end of that month, no agreement has been reached, then all participating should be shot and be replaced by a similar group until agreement has been reached.

This method would prove which leaders are prepared to die for their country. No doubt your readers could come up with refinements to this process. - W Collinson, Durham City.

I WOULD prefer to see Tony Blair and George Bush use their might against the drug-producing countries of the world, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Colombia etc.

Why do they not go after the drug barons who make billions of pounds out of other people's misery and death? There is not a country in the world which is not affected by this and it appears to be worsening by the day.

Virtually all crime, large and small, is drug related and children are involved at all levels. This problem should have priority worldwide. - Joan McTigue, Middlesbrough.

WE in the West are also guilty of terrorism attacks in the form of air strikes. These have included the use of daisycutter bombs which devastate areas of five square miles and are second only to nuclear weapons in their capacity for mass destruction.

I was dismayed by Tony Blair's Sedgefield speech of September 3 in which his sabre-rattling belied his previous moderation.

As for Peter Mullen's remark that it is our Christian duty to destroy evil men before they destroy us (Echo, Sept 10), that glosses over our murders of thousands by collateral damage.

St Paul wrote: "'Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord', and Jesus said: 'Love your enemies'." Mr Mullen ended a 1983 article about nuclear weapons with the same text. - Frank McManus, Todmorden.

MANY countries beside Iraq possess weapons of mass destruction, including Pakistan, recently on the brink of using them, Israel and the US - a country that has refused access to UN inspectors.

Saddam is in a less powerful position to attack the West than he was in 1991 and with such an act being a one-way ticket to suicide, has no intention of doing so. Therefore an attack on Iraq cannot be supported.

Saddam is undoubtedly an evil man. In common with many others, including US presidents, he has caused the deaths of many people. This alone, however, does not justify a pre-emptive strike. - Jack Stevens, Durham City.

NEVER have I read as much rubbish as Hugh Pender's letter (HAS, Sept 16). Forget about what happened in the Middle Ages and see what is at stake for our future generations if this dictator is not stopped.

I cannot see how Mr Pender justifies his anti-Anglo Saxon and anti-Christian stance. He carries the torch for people who are bent on destroying nations that have given so much that he can sit in the comfort of his home and write such bilge. - Raymond Reed, Eppleby, Richmond.

WHAT rubbish, Mr Pender. The Crusades were an attempt to regain the Holy places in a very small part of the Muslim world.

Perhaps Mr Pender should consider the plight of the Spanish who were invaded by Muslims in the 8th Century and subjugated for 800 years.

Many evil things have happened in past centuries. - Name and address supplied, Darlington.