I AM writing to contradict the assertions made about anti-war protesters.

The Citizen photo of people around the 'Peace Yurt' shows, among others, teachers, social workers, nurses, childcare workers and post-graduates to my knowledge.

Far from being insensitive to suffering, most of these people are also involved in voluntary work and campaigning on a number of social justice issues which highlight suffering all over the world.

I doubt that anyone there was unaware of the Halabja incident, or the Iran-Iraq War, and they also know Saddam was aided by ourselves and the US in these matters:

As President Ronald Reagan's special envoy for the Middle East, Rumsfeld made the first visit by a US official of his seniority to Baghdad in 1983 to meet Saddam Hussein and Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.

The visit came at a time when Iraq was facing Iranian 'human wave' assaults and, in response, Iraq had started to use chemical weapons on the battlefield. This was known in Washington but there is no indication that Rumsfeld raised US concerns.

The Americans, despite official 'neutrality', provided Iraq with intelligence about Iranian troop movements, knowing full well were willing to continue using chemical weapons. There was also the small matter of an oil-pipeline being built.

Peace campaigners are not ignorant of suffering. The opposite is true. They are aware that violence will continue to be used to further state and economic interests if concerned citizens do not attempt to rein in their leaders.

To adapt a more coarse slogan, waging war for peace and to alleviate suffering is seen by peace activists as equivalent to fornicating for virginity.

Noel F Cass, Lancaster University.