When I read John Parry's column, I had hoped for some new perspective on the Iraq crisis but, alas, Mr Parry is content to parrot whatever line he is fed by the Government's spin doctors.

I looked in vain for some acknowledgement of the crucial role played by the UK and the US in installing and sustaining Saddam Hussein over the years. Again, no - the crusading Mr Parry was to disappoint me once more.

There is no dispute that Saddam Hussein is a murderous tyrant but what makes him different from all the murderous tyrants the US has supported over the years in Latin America, Africa and Asia?

How different is he from the man he was when the US installed him as Iraqi leader, after helping him depose his democratically elected predecessor who had the temerity to nationalise his country's oil resources so he could put them to work for the good of his people - something American big business could never allow?

In Iran, the US preferred the authoritarian Shah and helped him depose another progressive democrat, again to secure oil profits.

When these two countries went to war in the Eighties, US corporations enjoyed another bonanza by selling arms to both sides.

Mr Parry expresses shock that Saddam used poison gas as a weapon in that war but presumably this is what the UK and US assumed he would do when they sold him the ingredients in the first place.

The majority of people recognise that a war on Iraq will simply increase the suffering of the Iraqi people and risk a huge escalation of conflict in the Middle East.

They are rightly sceptical of George Bush's motives in trying to lead us by the nose into such a conflict.

What a pity Mr Parry's own journalistic scepticism has deserted him at such a crucial time.

-Andy Richards, Woodhouse Road, Hove