While the world anxiously waits to see if Saddam Hussein will be intimidated by the threat of attack from the Western bully-boys, the real question we should ask ourselves is not whether Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction but why should it not be entitled to possess them for defensive purposes?

Bush and Blair's rhetoric about the preservation of freedom and pursuit of peace does not augur well. The background of the US is a gung-ho, pioneering mentality and it still harbours the Ku Klux Klan, the Mafia and abuse of its native minority. Its client state Israel, which also possesses weapons of mass destruction, was itself built on terrorism.

If Saddam Hussein is not accepted by the Iraqi people, it is for them to remove him. He has been their leader for 25 years. Western media recently claimed Iraq could launch a chemical attack on us in 45 minutes. Why has this not happened? Because Iraq does not possess the means of delivery and has no intention to do so -perhaps until now.

The sabre-rattling US is the only country to have used weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, it so loves democracy it seeks to create a nuclear shield, designed to insulate it from attack while it systematically picks off its ideological opponents for fear of retaliation. The UK's "special relationship" with the US should have ended during its terrorist war of independence, in which it was aided by France and Spain.

-Donald Creighton, Stone Cross, Pevensey