Al-Quaeda would not have been evicted from Afghanistan without troops and bombs. It's that simple. The Taliban were given the option to give up Bin Laden, and they refused. In my opinion, the United States had no choice and acted correctly.

I agree the US does not have the right to attack other countries, no matter how barbaric they are to their own people, but in this case we were the victims. For that matter, I believe the US has the right to go after Bin Ladin in Pakistan, although I also recognize there are many practical reasons why this cannot be done.

All of these legalities must be tempered with common sense. No country should feel free to invade another simply because it's enemies are seeking shelter there, especially if that country is incapable of preventing it. But to deliberately take advantage of another nation's borders as a sanctuary and if that nation is complicit, is an act of war, and the host nation is an accomplice. If diplomacy cannot solve the problem, then other solutions must be undertaken. No nation can survive if it allows itelf to be attacked at will by others while it has the means to respond. Israel does this and I feel it is justified. Britain sank an Argentinian cruiser in international waters during the Falklands war, an analogous situation, and it was justified.

The situation in Iraq appeared at the time to be the similar. It was believed that Iraq was on the verge of attacking the US and its allies with weapons of mass destruction, and that it was providing shelter and training on a massive scale to Al-Quaeda operatives. This turned out not to be the case, so the invasion was not justified. But since Hussein refused to allow inspectors to verify the truth, the US had no choice and acted correctly. If I had been in Mr Bush's shoes, I would have done the same thing he did. I assume, of course, that the American administration sincerely believed at the time that its information was credible. I'm not so sure of that any more.

Subsequent events are another matter altogether.