George Bush's real reason for wanting to attack Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, as the chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter has repeatedly pointed out.

Having failed to control Israel, Bush decided to save face by trumping up charges and using the standard US foreign policy of demonising and then attacking a country - on this occasion an oil country, Iraq.

Look at the US track record: A chemical and napalm attack, far greater than anything Saddam could dream up, on Vietnam.

Then all the other Pacific rim countries were brutally invaded so a "regime change" - in other words, a puppet government - could be installed.

Grenada, Haiti, Panama, Nicaragua, for example, and a failed attempt at Cuba, for which Castro and his people have been politically and economically attacked ever since.

An attack on Iraq would simply be yet another illegal war by a brutal nation that does not seem to learn from the past.

Saddam Hussein is threatening no one, unlike Israel, which is not only in breach of dozens of UN resolutions but in breach of international law by persisting in terrorising and illegally occupying Palestinian territory.

An attack on Iraq will bring further quite legal reprisals. Have Bush and Blair no brains?

-Harold Parkin, Stonehill, Horam, Heathfield