THE rights and wrongs of the Iraq war seemed to be summed up as freedom versus safety.

On the one hand, it can quite reasonably be argued that any country has the right to govern itself without any kind of intervention.

The people of a country either directly or indirectly have decided the type of government since history began.

Britain, let's remember, has been variously a feudal oligarchy, a popularist monarchy and a parliamentary democracy.

Changes were made by the people of Britain by revolution or general consent. Surely this right should be afforded to every other nation?

However, in the past, as recently indeed as the 20th century, conflict was inherently democratic. In general, technology was not the deciding factor, weight of numbers on the battlefield was the key to success.

If those numbers were made up of conscripts and others not fully committed to the cause for which they fought, then this also had a bearing on the outcome.

The winner was generally the side with the most people fighting for something then genuinely believed in.

Conflict is not democratic anymore.

A handful of ill inclined individuals with limited resource can now cause massively disproportionate damage.

The World Trade Centre destruction in 2001 apparently cost al Qaida barely $200,000, peanuts compared to the billions of dollars' worth of damage caused and the thousands murdered.

We need new rules for our modern world, applying the guidelines of the mid-20th century to modern conflict do not work.

PAUL RONE-CLARKE,

Worcester.