MR WHITELEGG'S letter out-lining 10 reasons to shun war (Citizen, February 6) is both inaccurate and naive. It needs to be challenged.

UN inspectors are empowered by international law - namely security council resolutions - which make it illegal for Iraq to possess weapons of mass destruction. In his recent report, Dr Blix was explicit in questioning the whereabouts of huge quantities of anthrax and VX nerve agent that Iraq is known to have made, and stated that Iraq was not fully co-operating with inspections when required to do so under the resolutions.

It is widely accepted that there is no link between Iraq and September 11 and it has never been given as a reason for military action. The situation in Saudi Arabia is concerning but cannot be challenged by the West while Saddam Hussein remains in power.

Civilian casualties are a factor in any war but they are not the primary target in a morally justified military action. The people of Iraq want to be free of tyranny and regime change would be a welcome side-effect of this disarmament process.

Diplomacy can only be successful in this situation if backed by a credible threat of military action.

As a representative of a single issue Party it would make sense for Mr Whitelegg to be against a war in Iraq because of the often cited reason of securing oil supplies. However, his argument fails to acknowledge the complex global situation that this government is grappling with to promote our security.

Gareth Millar, Lancaster.