IT SEEMS to me that comments like those made by your correspondents Noel F Cass and N Bliss, in their support for protests against the war in Iraq, are flawed.

It cannot be denied that both the USA and UK supported Saddam Hussein's regime when it suited them to, including at times when chemical weapons were in use.

There is, likewise, little point in denying that the USA and UK support other governments that repress, torture and kill their own people. But it is the relevance of this issue to the war that troubles me.

While support for Saddam Hussein was wrong, and support for other repressive governments of the world is wrong, this does not mean that the decision to oust Saddam Hussein was wrong as well.

Does the fact that the USA or UK supported Saddam Hussein at one time mean his removal will not benefit the Iraqi people? Does the fact that the USA and UK continue to support regimes that hurt their own people mean that Iraq will not be better without a murderous dictator ruling over them?

Former policy, or policy as regards other repressive states, has no relevance to whether this war was right or wrong.

The real question seems to be has the suffering and 'chaos' that has accompanied war in Iraq outweighed the suffering that would have continued, presumably for many, many years, if Saddam Hussein had been left in control?

A claim that war is wrong has implicit in it that the status quo is better. Those who have protested against war must believe that leaving a murderous dictator in power is a better option than military action.

Perhaps we should ask the Iraqi people, when a more final situation emerges, whether the costs of war have outweighed what Saddam Hussein would have done to them, and would still be doing to them, if military action had not been taken.

Andrew Dinsdale, Lancaster University.