Inside the lovely church at Ottery St Mary, in Devon, there is a plaque commemorating a British soldier killed in the Second British-Afghan war in 1879. I was reminded of this by your report (Afghanistan war to cost every household in the UK £2,000, 30 May). The United States has been desperate to involve others in its imperial projects, and the concept of "coalition" was all-too-often a fig-leaf in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most toe-curlingly embarrassing footage pre-Iraq war was that of Tony Blair trying to imitate George Bush's swagger. In Europe, Blair's only real supporters were those highly principled leaders Silvio Berlusconi and José María Aznar.
So British blood and British capital have been wasted in making matters worse in Iraq and Afghanistan, something admitted by many of those involved, military and civilian. It is wrong to always attribute bad motives to those in power, but even if the motives are humanitarian, history should be consulted as to the likely outcomes of military intervention, direct or by proxy. Now we are talking about intervention in Syria, but most would agree that this is exactly why we have a UN – it should not be up to the EU, let alone just Britain and France.
Joseph Cocker
Leominster, Herefordshire
• By offhandedly referring to "Gallic vetoes" in her review of the BBC's Iraq war documentary (G2, 30 May), Lucy Mangan gives credence to the dishonest narrative Tony Blair peddled about the discussions at the UN security council in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.
So while Blair stated on 18 March 2003 that "the French position is that France will vote no, whatever the circumstances", in actual fact French President Jacques Chirac had said: "My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, ie to disarm Iraq." Chirac went on to say that France would support military action if the UN weapons inspectors told the security council that Iraq wasn't cooperating: "It will be for the security council and it alone to decide the right thing to do. But in that case, of course, regrettably, the war would become inevitable. It isn't today."
Ian Sinclair
Author, The March That Shook Blair
• John Pilger rightly points to the terrible legacies left in Iraq, some associated with the bombing by the UK and the US in the Gulf war and again in 2003, with depleted uranium (DU) weapons (We've moved on from the war. But Iraqis don't have that choice, 27 May). We have on file letter after letter from the British government denying there have been any problems with use of these radiological and toxic weapons. At the UN in the autumn, the UK was one of only four countries to vote against a resolution advocating a precautionary approach to the use of DU weapons and a call for post-conflict management.There was an overwhelming majority in support of the resolution: 155 states in support, 27 abstainers and the infamous four against: the UK, the US, France and Israel.
DU weapons have to be test-fired, and for years, the UK has been carrying this out in Scotland, from the Dundrennan range into the Solway Firth. Thanks to the work of campaigners, the Ministry of Defence has now announced that it has shelved plans for the testing necessary to extend the life of the UK's current DU round. But it is time that the government went further and acknowledged the dangers of DU weapons both here in and wherever they were used in the world, most significantly in Iraq.
Rae Street
Campaign Against Depleted Uranium
• Hans Blix challenges Britain to consider whether it is paying £100bn for a Trident upgrade to "protect UK independence or UK pride" (Report, 27 May). It's probably a third reason: to justify Britain's permanent seat on the UN security council. No nuclear deterrent: no real reason for the UK to occupy it. Now, that could be a useful referendum question: nuclear subs and a veto in a meeting, or £100bn devoted to wiping out the austerity squeeze?
Andy Day
Beverley, East Yorkshire
• At last, there is a glimmer of understanding about how to get things done (Sleaze returns to damage Tories as MP quits in lobbying scandal, 1 June). If we were to contribute £1 per head to a "lobbying fund", we could pay every MP and lord £1,000 to support our cause and to prevent reckless intervention in Syria. This is clearly the way forward for democratic policy-making.
Susan Tomes
London