Letters: Distrusting Blair

No, we really do distrust Blair - and here is why

Sir: John Rentoul writes that people who say they do not trust Tony Blair because of the Iraq war really mean that they disagreed strongly with him (Opinion, 2 January). That is not necessarily the case.

Tony Blair made out the argument for war on Iraq on the basis of the threat posed by WMD. He had seen all the intelligence reports and, if we had seen the same, he was sure that we would agree with him about it. People who accepted these assurances feel that their trust was betrayed.

He could have said then what he has said since, that in his judgement the world would be a better and safer place if we could get rid of Saddam Hussein. That might have been more honest of him but had the disadvantage that it would not have received the support of the House of Commons.

GORDON ELLIOT

BURFORD, OXFORDSHIRE

Sir: John Rentoul just doesn't get it, does he? But then, love is blind. Blair came into office proclaiming himself "a pretty straight kind of guy". He sold the Iraq war on the grounds that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that could be activated within 45 minutes. This turned out to be a fabrication. If Blair was prepared to resort to mendacity to go to war, then he is not to be trusted on anything. Not least, his claim to be "a pretty straight kind of guy".

MICHAEL ROSENTHAL

BANBURY, OXFORDSHIRE

Sir: John Rentoul says "distrust" of Blair because of the Iraq war was really only a matter "disagreement". Blair could not have distorted the question better himself. Disagreement is to do with judgement, while trust is about truthfulness. Confusing the two is an old trick of the untrustworthy.

RICHARD MONTEITH

LINSLADE, BEDFORDSHIRE

Sir: Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, clearly had a degree of doubt when he said that he was "prepared to believe those who made the decisions [to go to war] made them in good faith." Tony Blair made those decisions because, he claimed, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction which he could use in 45 minutes.

No responsible leader would consider taking our troops into war under such circumstances before putting into place some preparation to deal with possibly thousands of dead and injured that would result from these WMD being used. I would suggest that for Dr Williams to be convinced that Tony Blair took decisions in good faith, he need only contact Downing Street and ask Mr Blair, before going to war, what instructions were given, to protect our troops and the public from WMD and to hospitals who could be swamped with thousands of casualties if WMD were used?

I hope Dr Williams has better luck in getting an answer than I have.

BRIAN MAY

SHIRLEY, WEST MIDLANDS

Now recruit US to the climate cause

Sir: Sir David King's optimistic assessment of progress that could be achieved in the year ahead in tackling climate change ("At last, I'm hopeful about climate change", 1 January) avoided any mention of the elephant in the sitting room - the obstructiveness of the United States government over mitigation measures.

According to figures just published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), greenhouse gas emissions by the US reached a record 7,147 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2005. This is 0.6 per cent higher than the previous year, and 2.9 per cent higher than when George W Bush became President. The EIA's projections show that emissions of carbon dioxide from energy use in the US are expected to increase by more than a third between 2005 and 2030.

The inexorable rise in emissions from the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases is consistent with the Bush administration's current policy of just reducing the rate at which emissions increase with national economic growth, and only carrying out absolute reductions "as the science justifies".

It would be good to see a commitment from Sir David and the ministers he advises to increase the pressure on the Bush administration over its continued resistance to cutting emissions. While the UK Government has had some success in working around the US government on climate change over the past few years, should it not seize the opportunity presented by the change in political hue in the Congress and apply compelling pressure on President Bush to become part of the solution instead of part of the problem?

BOB WARD

LONDON E3

Sir: The latest populist campaign against aviation is founded upon misconceptions. Aviation is the producer of a small fraction of pollution in the UK, and research has found that per passenger, a journey of 400 miles by air of a fully laden aircraft produces considerably less CO2 emissions than a single car would on 400 miles of road. UK planes only contributed about 0.1 per cent of global emissions last year, and it is wrong to imagine that banning flying tomorrow would halt the damage caused by emissions.

The Air League supports the Royal Aeronautical Society's "Greener by Design" initiatives which aim to reduce carbon emissions, noise and other pollution at source, as a result of new designs of engines and aircraft. The Government should be supporting, politically and fiscally, research into lowering aircraft emissions and pollution, and for Britain to lead the world in so doing.

The Government's White Paper supports expansion of our airports after more than three years of extensive research and consultation. Heathrow is the largest employer and generator of economic benefits in west London, with the UK's airports being principal engines for economic growth in each of our regions.

Now is the time to give strong support to the UK's enviable prowess in aviation and aerospace, to expand our airports to meet demand and at the same time to seek innovative measures to meet environmental challenges. It is not the time to undermine hard-won achievements for short-term political gain.

CHRISTOPHER FOYLE

CHAIRMAN, THE AIR LEAGUE, LONDON SW1

Saddam execution violates Islam

Sir: While the barbaric tyranny of Iraq's former dictator must be condemned, the rushed judicial killing of Saddam Hussein on Idd al-Adha, the holiest day in the Islamic calendar, is a grave and revolting provocation. The bitter consequences of this vindictive act will resonate long throughout the Muslim world and beyond.

With this hastily sectarian-driven and US-sanctioned execution (which took place at the climax of the annual hajj pilgrimage to Makkah when God's redemptive compassion is glorified), the pro-American rulers in occupied Iraq have not only highlighted their foreign servitude, but more importantly, they have also violated the explicit injunctions of the Holy Qur'an. During the sacred month of the hajj, all elective fighting and the shedding of blood is expressly prohibited (2:217; 5:2; 9:36).

The al-Maliki regime's un-Islamic conduct and implementation of "Iraqi justice" has been tarnished further by making Saddam endure final schismatic taunts from his vengeful killers, who also saw fit to hang him in mid-sentence while reciting the Muslim testimony of faith.

Since Saddam was sentenced to death for his crimes against humanity and executed on the most holy day in Islam, can we now expect the crusading Bush and Blair to be found guilty of war crimes for waging an illegal pre-emptive conflict which has so far cost the lives of over 600,000 innocent Iraqis? Will these two Christian warmongers also be subjected to capital punishment and will they too be scheduled to meet their Maker on Christmas Day and Good Friday respectively?

DR T HARGEY

CHAIRMAN, MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL CENTRE OF OXFORD

Sir, The reintroduction of capital punishment by proxy can now be added to Mr Blair's legacy. As a human rights lawyer, his wife must be very proud.

IAN PARTRIDGE

BRADFORD

Football can be a force for good

Sir: I must take issue with Robert Fisk's (Comment, 30 December) when he equates the beautiful game with violence. I, too, have the book he has been reading over Christmas, How Soccer Explains the World, by Franklin Foer. He talks of Arkan, the Serbian leader, leading "well-armed footballers". There is no mention in the relevant chapter of Foer's book of players themselves being involved in the violence perpetrated by Arkan and his "Tigers".

While one has to concede that football is often exploited by those with violent nationalistic or racist agendas, I can assure him, as a follower of a not overly successful English football club for the past 36 years, that football (like religion) can be a force for good as well as evil.

It can engender loyalty, stoicism and community spirit and allows connections to be struck up between people of diverse backgrounds and cultures.

In his enumeration of the ways football divides people and how it gets "muddied" by armies, Fisk neglects perhaps the most famous refutation of his own thesis: the occasion when British and German soldiers came together at Christmas time on the Western Front to bury their differences and celebrate their common humanity in a game of football.

Through history, societies have played games, and the types of games we play, or more importantly, the way we play and follow them, reflect the times and the society we live in, rather than the other way around.

PETER TAJASQUE

LONDON, SW19

Iraq in turmoil, and a gong for Scarlett

Sir: With utter disbelief I greeted the news that John Scarlett had been knighted in the New Year Honours list.

At a time when British servicemen and women risk life and limb in Iraq, and the turmoil results in a miserable existence for the ordinary Iraqi citizen, it appears to be acceptable to honour an individual who had "overall charge and responsibility" for a flawed document that justified war in Iraq.

To honour the author of this document seems particularly insensitive at this time.

REBECCA JONES

FERRYHILL, CO DURHAM

Sir: I see that, once again I have been overlooked in the New Year Honours list. This is after over 30 years of monitoring, speaking on and writing about the murdering quacks of the medico-pharma mafia, the planet-killers of the petro-industrial complex, the spivs, half-wits and quarter-wits who have managed to slither their way into the various parliaments and the ignorant, lying, cowardly, corrupt, incompetent, derelict-of-duty, impossible-to-insult, Establishment-lackey trash-hacks trying to pass themselves off as national media journalists. Where am I going wrong?

PAT RATTIGAN

CHESTERFIELD, DERBYSHIRE

Hunger for meat kills ecosystems

Sir: I deplore the insinuation in the "reformed vegetarian" article (Extra, 27 December) that avoidance of meat is based upon naivety and lack of knowledge of nature "in the raw". Some of the world's best ecological scientists are vegetarian. It is a pitiful logic that argues that a person who does not like animal death and suffering should arbitrarily create more of it.

Those who erroneously believe meat is a matter of personal ethics should educate themselves about the environmental costs of their dietary choice. They should see for themselves the ecosystems that have suffered catastrophic collapses in the human quest for meat.

The North American prairie, once comparable to the Serengeti, is now little more than a giant factory of cattle farms and grain (70 per cent of which is grown to feed livestock); the Amazon rainforest, removed both to graze cattle and to grow food crops for European livestock; any of the world's seas, where far more whales and dolphins perish tangled in fishing nets than are ever likely to be harpooned by Japan.

If it takes 20 dumb animals to make one fur coat, it takes the death of whole ecosystems to produce meat. I for one do not think the rewards are worth that price.

ADELE BRAND

CATERHAM, SURREY

Fighting words

Sir: John Walsh's New Year resolution is to thump anyone who misuses the word "antics" (Tales of the City, 2 January). Mine is to apply similar treatment to those who overuse "obviously", beginning with Mr Walsh. Perhaps he could be made available?

RICHARD MORRIS

SUTTON COLDFIELD, WEST MIDLANDS

Seeking information

Sir: Following your article "What freedom of information?" (28 December) I have prepared a request seeking disclosure of how many freedom of information requests - both in numbers and as a total percentage - have been referred to the Central Clearing House, and what percentage of these have subsequently been refused an answer. No doubt, that will earn an exemption.

CHRIS LAMB

MIDSOMER NORTON, SOMERSET

Fish in danger

Sir: You report that the Mekong catfish may be brought back from the brink of extinction ("Lives in the balance", 28 December) after some Thai fishermen ceasing to net it in June. Unfortunately, in July the Vietnamese company Agifish declared its intention to commercialise a biodiesel made from the fish's oil. Are you sure this catfish is a "winner" in the extinction stakes?

DR ANDREW BOSWELL

LARGE SCALE BIOFUELS ACTION GROUP , NORWICH

Organic toothpaste

Sir: Strange though it may seem, when I recommend a toothpaste to my patients I tend not to give a great deal of consideration to the views of the Soil Association ("The 50 best green resolutions", 30 December). Perhaps that's just as well because anybody who misguidedly uses an organic paste containing no fluoride will be missing out on the single greatest contribution to improved dental health of the last fifty years.

STEVE DODDING B.D.S.

PETERBOROUGH

Wrong tune?

Sir: I'm sure the Kia car company will be grateful to Colin Smith (letter, 1 January) for his enlightenment on their use of Latin. Now will someone please tell Harrods that the music by Handel accompanying their advert for the "one and only sale" this year, and several previous years, is a setting for words that translate as "Lonely and weeping, sadly I wander / Still vainly sighing for liberty."

JANE BURLINSON

LONDON SE22