Kay Weir makes a good point that there is a good chance that the latest apparent chemical attack in Syria was staged to induce Western intervention. However, the rest of her letter appears misleading (letters, April 14).
A case in point: the Nato-led intervention in Libya was the correct, and moral, response to facts on the ground. On the eve of the intervention, the head of the nascent Libyan National Transitional Council, stated that ‘‘... if pro-Gaddafi forces reached Benghazi, then they would kill half a million people ... we will have a catastrophe in Libya’’, and Gaddafi himself stated on state media: ‘‘There will be no mercy. Our troops will be coming to Benghazi tonight.’’ Two days later regime forces entered the suburbs of Benghazi, shelling it with mortars and artillery, but on the same day Nato air attacks started.
While the Libya intervention may well be the exception that proves the rule, it cannot be lumped in with other US or Natoled interventions: it was clearly a humanitarian intervention, irrespective of other interventions before or after it, or of what the consequences would be of removing Gaddafi.