Letter writer disputes arguments on war and regime change, plus a 1972 picture throwback
Challenging war claims, correcting news pictures, and reacting to water cremation – your views.
You can enjoy other pictures from the past and more with our weekly FREE Nostalgia Newsletter - with scores of archive pictures and exclusive features on the history of Shropshire and Mid Wales - all sent to your inbox every week. Sign up here.
No law justifies America’s war
While I rarely agree with Martin Bristow, I have generally found his letters reasonably argued. I can't extent the same courtesy to his letter published on March 7.
I am completely at a loss to see what "moral relativism" he discerns in the international law on war. War may only be declared (1) in response to an attack or (2) in pursuance of a resolution by the United Nations. It prohibits "pre-emptive" strikes and wars for regime change.
The notion that the attack on Iran has anything to do with improving the lot of women is risible. It is taking place with the complicity of Islamist regimes considerably harsher in their imposition of hijab, notably Saudi Arabia. It is taking place on the orders of an American president whose propensity for - ahem! - feline seizure doesn't inspire confidence that he has celebrated International Women's Day.
The argument that the attack has anything to do with Islamism also founders on the fact that bombs are also raining down on Lebanon, the only Arabic-speaking country with a Christian president.
