I refer to Oon Yeoh's Transitions

o­n Tuesday, Feb 18, 2003. I believe he has missed the entire point of the anti-war movement.

It is not to support Saddam the Butcher of Baghdad, but to prevent innocent Iraqi lives from being killed by the American military juggernaut. In war, the majority of the victims have been and will continue to be innocent civilians.

Whether Saddam Hussein is 'gloating' over the anti-war movement or whether such anti-war action would be permitted in Iraq is completely irrelevant. Regardless of this tyrant, if the peace movement can save o­nE Iraqi child or woman or man by persuading the main participants from attacking Iraq, it would have achieved a noble act.

For more than 10 years, Iraq has been successfully contained. Therefore most people all over the world are questioning the sudden US aggression towards Iraq.

And just don't forget, in the 'good old days', during the Iraq-Iran war, the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with his buddy, the then likeable Saddam Hussein. The US didn't seem too concerned about Iraq employing chemical warfare then.

And o­ne would also ask why the US is not meting out similar threat of war to other equally infamous, if not worse, regimes, like North Korea. And we haven't even mentioned any of the allies of the US (unless we consider an ex-ally like Iraq).

There are possibly three reasons for the current US behaviour: the need for sufficient cheap oil to ensure its future industrial viability and economic dominance, the need of America's very powerful Jewish lobby to ensure the security of Israel, and the need of US President George W Bush to account in some way to the American people for the 9/11 tragedy.

Attacking Iraq (including attributing an al-Qaeda connection) fits the entire bill. But should we condone the possible killing of o­ne Iraqi (except for Saddam Hussein) to satisfy these requirements of the Bush Administration?