TEN years on from the disastrous, not to say illegal and deeply immoral, invasion of Iraq there is still a minority who will defend it (Letters, March 19).

In particular, I note Peter A Russell's letter takes on an almost humorous quality – in the darkest sense – when he talks about the need to "disarm" the regime and the "farce of weapon inspections" when we well know that there was nothing to disarm. Furthermore, talk of humanitarian justification rings hollow when one considers the hundreds of thousands of people – mostly civilians – killed and three million displaced as a result of the invasion.

For Mr Russell and all those who still cling to supposedly humanitarian justifications for the invasion, I have a simple question. Why Iraq? The regime was horrible there is no doubt about it, but it was hardly the only regime like that. Why was it chosen if not for the fact that it was an enemy of the United States and there were strategic reasons for regime change? This is easily tested. A friend and ally of Britain and America, Saudi Arabia, is an absolute monarchy that brutally suppresses dissent and treats half of its population – women – with such discrimination that it makes the former apartheid regime in South Africa look benign. Yet one rarely hears condemnation of it from supporters of the Iraq war, much less calls for regime change.

I am not calling for the invasion of Saudi Arabia or any other regime like it, but the hypocrisy of claiming the former Iraqi dictatorship was so awful that it had to be removed while befriending other dictatorships that are as bad or worse must be called to attention.

Iain Paterson,

2F Killermont View,

Glasgow.

DOUG Maughan and Peter A Russell rehearse all the old arguments in support of the Iraq war, citing the reason as an urgent need to get rid of Iraq's evil dictator Saddam Hussein because he had massacred the Kurds and was inflicting great pain and misery on his own people (Letters, March 19).

Much of what they say is undoubtedly true, but may I gently remind both that regime change was not the reason given to the British Parliament and people for invading Iraq. Regime change is illegal without the specific authority of the United Nations, which was never given in this case. It is a matter of record that Prime Minister Tony Blair confirmed this as not being his justification for taking the UK to war in support of the US invasion of Iraq.

Instead he quoted "extensive, accurate and reliable" intelligence that Saddam had biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) capable of attacking British forces within target range. We now know that that "reliable" information came from one, single, unconfirmed source about which our intelligence experts were very suspicious, but their misgivings and warnings were brushed aside. Instead the "dodgy dossier" was produced, much redrafted and amended by Downing Street's head of communications Alastair Campbell, and the Attorney General and the chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee were apparently bullied into agreeing with its exaggerated and misleading claims.

From Monday's BBC Panorama we also now know that there were two much more reliable sources inside the Iraqi government reporting that Saddam no longer had any WMDs. This intelligence was ignored and suppressed by both the US and British intelligence departments, presumably because it was not what their political masters wished to hear.

The illegal killing and persecution of some groups of Iraqi citizens by Saddam Hussein was criminal, but as nothing compared to the death and devastation caused by the US "shock and awe" air strikes, which killed many thousands of completely innocent civilians and destroyed much of the country's infrastructure, including water and power supplies and other basic services. That is what brought years of ongoing misery to the ordinary people of Iraq. Astonishingly no-one in either the American or British governments seems to have given any advance thought to the long-term effects of this destruction, nor of the political vacuum they were creating.

I believe that George W Bush and Tony Blair are war criminals and should by now be standing trial at the International Court of Justice. Instead both are now living lives of affluence and luxury, while many thousands of ordinary Iraqi men, women and children are still bearing the daily cost and trying to rebuild their shattered country.

Iain A D Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

TONY Blair is directly responsible for the killing of more than 100,000 people and the maiming of tens of thousands more in the Iraq war yet he still contends that he has no regrets and maintains he made the right decision. As citizens we are subject to the laws of the UK and can be punished for transgressions. Likewise, where a leader embarks on a foreign adventure he should be subject to international law. Having broken international law, Tony Blair should be stripped of all public office and held to account for his actions

Peter Speight,

1 Howe Street,

Edinburgh.