WITH regard to Malcolm Pittock's letter of Saturday, March 29.

He is quite correct that the Nuremburg trials declared that "the planning, initiation and waging of wars of aggression are a crime", that a "plea of obedience to orders was not a valid defence when a crime was committed" and that Saddam Hussein is guilty of both. Therefore he should be bought to trial. Is this not what the war is about, deposing Saddam Hussein and bringing him to trial?

This is, however, not what Mr Pittock is writing about. He is saying that America and Great Britain are waging a war of aggression.

The refusal of the UN to act in Iraq, which is guilty under the Nuremburg trials, legitimises the action of the coalition forces to bring a criminal regime to trial.

With regard to the case of Herr Jagerstatter. As Mr Pittock states, he was an Austrian, not a German, and as such he refused to fight for his enemy. Such niceties are not available to the Iraqi men whose families are tortured or murdered to "encourage" them to fight for Saddam.

Those who oppose this war are most certainly not the friends of the troops and their families. The treason the opponents of the war advocate brings solace and encouragement to Saddam and his thugs.

The only way to end this war and to bring home the troops is for the people of Great Britain to unite and fight the enemies of our country, and not to encourage treason.

On a final note. The UN does not have an agreement as to what constitutes an act of aggression.

Peter Greenhalgh

Belmont Road

Astley Bridge