I FIND it sad that people can so readily believe Saddam Hussein will disarm if given more time. The tyrant will never give up his weapons without the credible threat of force and it is nonsense to suggest that Bush and Blair have the desire to re-draw the map of the region.

The 15 voting nations of the UN, including France, were unanimous that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he should disarm immediately or face serious consequences. Did anybody not understand what was meant by the words 'immediately' or 'serious consequences?'

Are we to believe France and other appeasers signed a UN resolution not knowing what it meant? The UK and US are doing nothing more than enforcing UN Resolution 1441, something that France was signatory to.

How long would it be before Saddam kicked the weapons inspectors out if America and Britain withdrew their forces and refused to get involved? Who else would enforce UN resolutions? Europe, without Britain? No chance.

No sane person wants war, and the anti-war protesters have the right to voice their opinions and beliefs, but how many are actually anti-America rather than anti-war? Many of the protesters marched against the first Gulf war and against involvement in Afghanistan and Kosovo. If they had got their wish, Saddam would still be in Kuwait, the Taliban in Afghanistan and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

It would be easy for Tony Blair to sit back and let America do the fighting. Thank God we have a leader who is strong enough not to desert his friends. He leads our country because of his beliefs and not his political career or economic investment.

When this campaign is over, the monster Saddam and his weapons will have gone. The UK and US can then reflect on who are our real friends and those who are not. In the meantime, many of our young men and women are risking their lives, not for oil, but upholding the law of the UN.

J ALCOCK (Mr), Cherry Close, Blackburn.