ABUSE is no substitute for argument and is usually resorted to by those without any.

John Morris's and Peter Inch's tactics are therefore transparent. But to denigrate the views of three distinguished American academics without having (apparently) read a word of them can only be attributed to embattled ignorance.

Not only is Professor Chomsky a world class scholar in his own field, but his trenchant critiques of American policy draw packed audiences, not merely at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he is based, but throughout the US. His is not a lone voice (thank goodness).

Ms Schlemer is altogether more reasonable. I would point out to her, however, that if possessing weapons of mass destruction justified an attack, then we would all have to go to war against the UK, the US, France, China, India, Pakistan, and, of course, Israel. Indeed an attack on any of these countries would be more justified than an attack on Iraq, as we actually know that they have weapons of mass destruction.

If Iraq should not have weapons of mass destruction, neither should any other country. If the US or the UK can have them, so can any country. The same standard, whatever it may be, must be applied to all.

I am opposed to Iraq having weapons of mass destruction because I am opposed to my own country having them. That is a completely consistent position .

I am glad that Ms Schlemer is going to look out the three scholars I mentioned. What I think she might gain from them is an understanding that her adopted country's policies are too frequently based on double standards. The contours of all serious problems change once one realises that there must be one rule for all of us.

Malcolm Pittock

St James Avenue

Breightmet

Bolton