I read Lindsey German's article Ten Years On: Endless War? (M Star February 9) with interest, but there are some additional points that should be highlighted in the interest of establishing clarity over the question of Iraq.
While people are debating the 10th anniversary since the Iraq invasion, it is often forgotten that British military action against the country started over 20 years ago, when Iraq first invaded Kuwait.
After the first Gulf war ended, Britain continued its military actions against Iraq, through the establishment of a no-fly zone and sanctions.
During the 1990s, Britain also repeatedly bombed Iraq on the pretext of preventing Saddam Hussein from stockpiling weapons, while the sanctions were imposed to allegedly prevent him from being able to gain access to the materials necessary to construct such weapons.
That is despite the fact that Iraq had been disarmed by 1997, numerous UN officials resigning in protest at the country's treatment and the embargo causing the deaths of around 6,000 children a month.
The Labour Party was oblivious to such facts when it came to make the final decision to invade.
Having ignored the advice of then MI5 director-general Eliza Manningham-Buller, the British government repeatedly changed its rationale for its cause.
Starting with the failed attempt to connect Hussein with al-Qaeda in wake of September 11 2001, the government chose to embrace the weapons of mass destruction argument, which was put to them by the Iraqi exile "Curveball," who still resides in Germany and has repeatedly boasted of his "pride" at having lied to trigger the invasion.
While there may be people wanting to debate the numbers on any particular anti-war demonstration, the scale pales in to insignificance in comparison to the consequences of Tony Blair's policies.
As Britain has since learned, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.