Thank you for the article about John Garwood and his belief that the war was justified (SNJ 17/03/04). Debate is to be welcomed and I hope I can address the points he raises. Saddam was certainly evil, but the war was not about human rights, as Bush and Blair's courtship of Uzbekistan and others proves. Yes, we know Saddam had chemical weapons as the U.S. sold them to him, but as the UN weapons inspectors made clear these were destroyed. Colin Powell and others stated more than two years before the war that Saddam was no threat. Blair ordered an unprovoked invasion on a totally false pretext; the lies and deceptions manufactured in London and Washington caused the deaths of over 20,000 Iraqis and nearly 600 coalition soldiers. More are still dying. The war has cost billions and still costs Britain £5m each day. Uprisings are on the increase, including by groups that were anti-Saddam. This is perhaps not surprising with the U.S. selling off Iraqi assets and proposing a "puppet democracy." Mr Garwood rightly mentions women's hardships under Saddam. However Iraqi women's groups are claiming an escalation of violence against women since the occupation; rape, abduction, "honour" killings and domestic violence have became daily occurrences. War should only be the last step, only to be taken when all other options have been exhausted. Too many people have died, been injured and traumatized needlessly, when there were alternatives. It is a profound irony that Blair has helped to defuse the Ulster crisis and reduced terrorism by the very means he has abandoned in Iraq. Had a peaceful resolution been attempted, Iraq might be a friendly and largely peaceful nation finding its own way to democracy, and the prevailing sentiment within the Muslim world might be sympathy for the U.S, rather than anger and resentment.

Carol Kambites, Gloucestershire Green Party.