MR T Glover's letter (March 10) posed two questions to those who oppose any military attack on Iraq.

1. The first was explicit. How would we stop Saddam Hussein killing his own people?

2. The second was implied. If refraining from military action results in millions of Iraqis being killed by Saddam Hussein, could we condone it?

Answers:

1. We do not know how we can stop the undoubted brutality of Saddam Hussein towards those Iraqis who oppose him. But we are aware that we (UK/US etc) have provided him with the weapons and technology with which he has committed these atrocities. Incidentally, we did write to our MPs at the time of the Halabja massacre (1988) -- did Mr Glover? And, if you remember, after Halabja we (the UK), continued to grant Iraq military contracts. The truth is we, via our past policies, are a part of the problem and should not insist on portraying ourselves as the solution.

2. Rather than saving life, military action of the type proposed "shock and awe" (saturated bombing) is liable to cause massive civilian casualties, totally destroy Iraq's infrastructure, destabilise the Middle East and sow the seeds of future terrorist activities.

Finally, we are convinced that the way forward in the present situation is to allow the Weapons Inspectors to continue their work. This does not represent inaction. Then, once the Inspectors have reported, and IF weapons of mass destruction are unveiled, could they not be destroyed?

W Keith Dewhurst

Wigan Road

Barry Mills

Silverdale Road, Bolton

(Both of Bolton Quakers Peace Group)