I FEEL I must respond to G Alexander's letter, (EA March 25), which attributes me with a vivid imagination.

If only that were so! It seems he has missed the message I tried to convey; for that I apologise.

My letter followed Andy Newman's letter (EA March 15). In it I tried to take the reader back to the time before the Iraq war. It listed the known facts available to people in the UK at that time and asked them to think, if the responsibility was theirs, what would they have done.

The objective was to show that, without hindsight, the road to war was not as clear as people would now like to think. I think that most people would agree that there was, and still is, a clear threat to the population of the UK from people of violence.

In my letter I said, "I do sympathise with his anti-war argument, I think most people are anti-war." But life is never that simple.

For example, take the reaction to the violence of 9/11. Did the USA have enough information to stop the 9/11 attacks?

Many people say that they did. Following on, and using my "vivid imagination," let me ask, if before 9/11, someone in the US had put two and two together and told the world that "Twenty guys are planning to fly two full jumbo jets into the twin towers on that date," what do you think the world's response would have been? What do you think the terrorists would have done? It is not my vivid imagination you need to watch, it is the imagination of the people of violence.

It is my belief anyone's opinion, on any subject, is a human right. But there are plenty people eager to take them away.

Therefore, your rights to discuss any topic must be defended.

The nations who are anti-war need to make every effort to have dialogue with the men of violence. That doesn't mean we have to surrender to their threats, it means we must talk.

M Spry

Nythe, Swindon