Letter: Iraqi crisis
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Before we work ourselves into a war mindset over the undoubted dangers presented by Iraq, it might be advisable to consider some wider aspects of the situation.
First, both the United Kingdom and the United States are signatories to the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. The Protocols expressly forbid the bombardment of installations containing hazardous substances. Second, it would seem unwise to risk sending a cascade of nerve gases or anthrax spores into the environment with massive attacks of high explosive.
Such mass-killing weapons as chemical and biological agents should be got rid of, and Unscom has evidently done much. But it has always been the case, and always will be so, that the consequences of warlike acts are incalculable. Bombing Iraq again would not be clever; there are much better alternatives.
FREDERICK STARKEY
Mold, Clwyd
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments