Were Saddam's crimes worse?

I accept I may be out of step a little with mainstream thinking, but I for one felt that there was something not quite right about the removal, trial and execution of Saddam Hussein.

The man was delivered into the vengeful hands of his enemies by an invader who had no right to be there.

The fact that he was a despot responsible for the deaths of thousands of people is not in dispute. However, rightly or wrongly, he saw these as his enemies - which in fact they were - and he dealt with them as he saw fit - much the same way as some our own rulers did, here and in Europe, during the 17th and 18th Centuries, which is were much of Iraq is, mentally and culturally.

Britain and other Western nations were appalled at Saddam's use of chemical shells against Kurdish fighters and villagers. But who gave him these weapons in order that he could do so? Who answers for that?

We cried out in horror at those attacks and condemned them as uniquely disgusting, yet in the space of a few seconds in August 1945 tens of thousands of Japanese civilians were incinerated where they stood. A few days later another city was subjected to the same thing and 30,000 died - many of them just vapourised in the blast and heat! Oddly, these were not deemed to be war crimes! So who decides the distinction - the victors?

Are we to assume from this that it is acceptable to roast people to death but not to gas them? Or does it depend on whether those doing so have sufficient reason? If not, who will judge them should they be victorious and all powerful?

No doubt the reply will be: "There was a war going on!" But did not Saddam also see himself at war?

The Foreign Secretary, Margaret Becket, tells us that the man has answered for his actions and has been "held to account". Perhaps so, but what of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Who answers for that?

P Bryce, Shenstone Avenue, Stourbridge.