I am writing in response to John Parry's column (The Argus, April 11) as I feel I must take issue with his remark "who can seriously doubt it was the proper decision to go to war against Saddam Hussein?"

While I am glad to see Hussein's dictatorship and all its associated cruelty come to an end, I am not convinced declaring war on Iraq was the proper way to go about achieving this aim.

Many eminent legal authorities believe the invasion contravenes international law and the fighting has certainly resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

The pictures of young Iraqi children with arms and legs blown off by Coalition bombing should make all but the most hardened observer question the wisdom of this action.

As well as the deaths and injuries in the Iraqi army, the Coalition forces have also suffered a significant number of casualties and the fighting isn't over yet.

We were originally told the purpose of the war was to prevent the deployment of weapons of mass destruction. These may exist but none has been found.

The rationale then seemed to change and the purpose of the invasion became the "liberation" of the Iraqi people.

While they are now free of Saddam, they can hardly be described as liberated.

To suggest anti-war protesters no longer have a case is a gross misrepresentation.

There are examples from the past of dictators being deposed without recourse to war and I, for one, continue to believe the war against Iraq was completely unjustified.

-C. Childs, Brighton