Clergy clash with former military commanders in their call to avoid war

Ministers must do more if they are to convince a sceptical public of the need for military action against Saddam Hussein, peers said yesterday.

But the House of Lords was divided as senior churchmen led warnings that the case for war had not been made, while former senior military commanders warned that President Saddam's power must not be allowed to increase.

Lord King of Bridgwater, Defence Secretary during the Gulf War, said: "For presentational purposes a new strong resolution of the United Nations giving the authority to call for the enforcement if necessary of the UN weapons inspection – disarmament of weapons of mass destruction – is the right course to take."

Lord Hurd of Westwell, a former foreign secretary, urged the Government to gain "general support for a war", describing President Saddam as "destructive, deceitful and dangerous". Lord Hannay of Chiswick, ambassador to the UN during the Gulf War, told peers: "Only by threatening the use of force if [President Saddam] continues to defy the will of the international community and only by being prepared to back that threat by action do we stand the slightest chance of achieving a peaceful outcome."

Lord Janner of Braunstone, past president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, compared Iraq's offer to admit weapons inspectors to Hitler's broken promises in Munich in 1938. He said: "We should still look with care upon anything that may appear to be 'peace in our time', when it isn't, and which may give time to a ruthless dictator which he doesn't deserve."

The former Chief of the Defence Staff General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank warned: "If successful action is not taken by the United Nations, the threat Saddam Hussein poses, will continue to increase. It is a serious threat now and the longer action is avoided, the greater it will become and regional and international security put at risk and that includes the security of our own citizens."

But Lord Carrington, a former Foreign Secretary, warned against the American policy of "regime change". He said: "[The Zimbabwe President Robert] Mugabe immediately comes to mind. He is no threat to our security, but he is inflicting upon his fellow citizens cruelty and discrimination and hardship. So far as I know, nobody has suggested a compulsory change of his regime by force or otherwise. Would not such an act, on the part of the United States, set a precedent which it would be very difficult to accept in other cases?"

Lord Strathclyde, the Conservative leader in the Lords, said: "This is a grave and dangerous time. But, if we prevaricate, the danger will only grow. Now is the time for international resolution to be nurtured and sustained."

Baroness Williams of Crosby, the Liberal Democrat leader in the upper house, said: "What is clear is that we have today one final opportunity to avert military force. We should do our very best to pursue this possibility, to back the inspectors, and to try, if we possibly can, to avert a war which inevitably will kill thousands of innocent people in Iraq and also outside it."

The Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Rev Richard Harries, spoke out against military action, warning it might provoke President Saddam into using chemical and biological weapons. "Although Saddam Hussein remains a threat and will continue to remain a threat, the evidence that would necessitate using military action, overriding all other considerations, is not in my judgement yet met."

Baroness Uddin, a Labour Muslim peer, declared: "Based on somewhat old evidence and without the full sanction of UN backing and an inspectors' report, I say: No intervention in Iraq in my name."

Lord Winston also opposed a pre-emptive strike, saying Mr Blair's dossier was "not a convincing reason to strike".