THE three correspondents who replied to me in the Bolton Evening News on Tuesday, March 25, do not appear to realise that two important principles of International Law were established at Nuremburg.

The first was that "the planning, initiation and waging of wars of aggression" was a crime, and the second that a plea of obedience to orders was not a valid defence when a crime was committed .

That the attack on Iraq is a war of aggression should be obvious. Under the UN charter there are only two possible justifications for war: that it is specifically authorised by the UN Security Council or it is undertaken in self defence. Neither of these justifications apply: the Security Council has not authorised the war, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that Iraq is threatening to attack the US or the UK. It therefore follows that British and American armed forces cannot plead obedience to orders.

This is a very serious issue, which is being obscured by the unseemly outburst of flag-wagging humbug which is being encouraged by the government. I am glad to say that International Law is being taken seriously by those Israeli Army Reservists who are refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories on the grounds that they are illegally occupied by Israel.

And what do my critics think of the case of Franz Jagerstatter, the Austrian farmer, who refused to be conscripted into the Wehrmacht on the grounds that Hitler was fighting an unjust (ie. an illegal) war. Wasn't he right ?

Those of us who oppose this war are also the best friends of the troops and of their families. We want them to be brought home at once. They would then not only be no longer parties to a crime, but would also be removed out of harm's way.

Malcolm Pittock

St James Avenue

Breightmet

Bolton