THE situation we are in with Iraq is not black and white as some letter writers suggest.

If anyone can say they know what should be done they must have more understanding than I of the situation.

The weapons inspectors would not have been allowed to operate in Iraq and Saddam Hussein would not have shown the little co-operation he has unless he thought he would have been attacked with strong military might.

I have wondered if the peace rallies increased the chances of war because they gave hope to Saddam Hussein.

I do not think the people organising or supporting them are wrong, they are entitled to their opinion just as I am, and I don't want war any more than they do, but I cannot in all honesty join them.

The question to be answered now is why similar pressure was not imposed after the freeing of Kuwait and the weapons inspectors were unable to do their work because of opposition from Saddam.

They left Iraq then and neither America, Britain nor the United Nations seemed worried.

What has changed now?

I hope it is not George Bush finishing his father's business. I do not believe Tony Blair would take us into a conflict just for that.

I believe there is information available we are not being told, (that poses another question about freedom of information).

Still, if this is the case, any military action must be under the cover of the UN and not by any individual, or group of nations.

Harry H. Punter, Corncroft, Strensall, York.

...I SHOULD like to know what measures are being taken to protect the public from nuclear and biological weapons.

In view of the clear statement by Prime Minister Tony Blair that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction, is there to be an evacuation of urban centres? Will bio-hazard suits be issued? Where is our nearest shelter?

If Mr Blair does not, in fact, believe that any such threat exists and was just making propaganda to justify an attack, it is irresponsible to say the least. If he does believe there is a real threat of an attack, is he not being totally negligent and reckless?

Robert Taylor, Albemarle Road, York.

...WOULD a million or more people march on Westminster to protect the right of an aunt and uncle to murder a niece trusted into their custody?

If not, why should a million or more march to protect the sovereign right of a mass murderer to kill hundreds of thousands of the human beings subjected to his tyrannical power over them?

Among the family of man is it this national sovereignty factor which protects one murderer and not the other?

There is something badly wrong with a United Nations rule book which permits such an absurd situation.

Ted Batty, York Road, Barlby.

Updated: 10:18 Wednesday, March 19, 2003