Dear Sir, When reading the reaction to those who wrote into the MDB following the peace march, where very young children were in attendance, whilst personally not liking to see children used or exploited in any way, one cannot help think about their contemporaries in Iraq who will probably face a monumental bombardment by the USA within the next 8 weeks or so. We will then be seeing tiny tots, amongst others, being removed from the rubble. Maybe this is the point they are trying to make. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein and Co should be removed from office, but one wonders if it has to be at the cost of hundreds/thousands of innocent civilians under the rain of bombs. After all, Iraq has no real air power, and what it has is no match for the weaponry of the West. Remember last time? At the outbreak of war with the Allies, they flew all their aircraft to Iran for “safe keeping”! Then their army was noticeable by its complete collapse, most being more willing to surrender than fight. So, with the two areas to the North and South of Iraq populated by people who have already shown their total opposition to Hussein, why not a two-pronged land invasion with air cover for “open” spaces, taking out tanks, etc? There is no need in this case to use an elephant to crush an ant. And to save civilian life and keep something of the structure of the country intact will surely make it that much easier to rebuild the country afterwards, and with a more grateful population still alive.

Yours Sincerely, Graham Phillips