action gSIR: It is bad enough to live under a government which is preparing to bomb a Third World country illegally, without having such a disgraceful operation given the codename of my home town. That you, Sir, should be insensitive to the likely views of some Boltonians, despite Brian Iddon's and David Crausby's objections to the codename, is very depressing.

Any Anglo American decision to bomb Iraq is not likely to receive the backing of the Security Council and, therefore, would constitute an illegal act of aggression. But, besides questions of legality, issues of equity are involved. If, apart from the proposed bombing, Iraq is to be bludgeoned by sanctions into poverty, so that its children are dying from malnutrition as well as cancer (for which radio therapy is not allowed), why have Israel, and Indonesia, whose illegal occupations have been the subject of Security Council resolutions, been let off the hook? The answer: the Security Council is manipulated by the United States which may yet manipulate it into compliance with its proposed bombing campaign.

If Iraq has nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, then it only has weapons which this country has or has had. And, of course, we still have nuclear weapons. There is no argument against Iraqui nuclear weapons that is not also an argument against American or British nuclear weapons.

Racism too is involved. If the inhabitants of Iraq were white, then what is being contemplated would be politically impossible.

Malcolm Pittock

Bolton CND

St James's Avenue

Breightmet

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.