It is highly probable that this letter, if and when published, would have been overtaken by the American massive bombardment of Iraq. The three main proponents of the intended assault, coincidentally all Anglo-Saxon nations, have deliberately avoided submitting its case for war as a new and required United Nations Security Council resolution. They know the proposal lacks reason, evidence, logic and moral justification.

If the aim is to disarm Iraq, why not permit Hans Blix and his weapons inspection team to carry o­n a bit longer, since they have reported good progress and an estimate that another few months would be useful and productive?

But is the aim really to disarm Iraq?

If the aim is directed towards human rights and humanitarian reasons, what about neighbouring Israel? Ariel Sharon, the Butcher of Sabra and Shatila has been running amok, employing ground-attack fighters, helicopter gunships, tanks and heavily armed troops to attack populated Palestinian towns. Innocent women and children have been either killed by indiscriminate bombing, rocketing, shooting or buried alive by demolition bulldozers.

But is the aim about human rights?

If the warlike Triad's aim is for the welfare of the Iraqi people, what about the Afghans? Where is the promise of a better life for these war-weary people who have been callously abandoned to the murderous warlords of the Afghanistan Northern Alliance? Where is the reconstruction of Afghanistan? Apart from the coming American oil pipeline running from Kazakhstan through Afghanistan to the Pakistani coast, what has the US planned for this war-torn country?

But is the aim for the welfare of the Iraqi people?

If there is a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq (apart from the letters 'A' and 'Q') where is the evidence? If such a link exists, why hasn't al-Qaeda used such weapons of mass destruction that Iraq is accused of having?

But is the aim about al-Qaeda?

The US Defence Department claimed that the US may be threatened by a dozen nations with nuclear weapons programmes, 13 with biological weapons, 16 with chemical weapons, and 28 with ballistic. But o­nly o­ne of these countries possesses the second largest available oil reserves in the world - yes, Iraq.

So let us ask ourselves if the US won't tell us: What is the aim of the war?

Military, financial and economic might has allowed the principal player, the US, to thumb its nose at the world body, virtually telling it, "You don't matter. International law doesn't either. I am big, I am powerful, and I'll do what I want, and I'll get what I want". This is the typical attitude of the (global) village bully.

Countries that are dependent upon America's largess in foreign aid and trade concession sycophantically support the US war cry. Some like Afghanistan (hmmm!), Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria and Romania have human rights records (or lack of) that would make an American cringe to have them as fawning allies of the US.

The o­nly silver lining is that the United Nations has not failed. In fact it has demonstrated its role as a relevant world body, independent of the sole superpower. Its members (of the Security Council), though many are poor and could very well do with US aid or trade concession, have the honour, courage and dignity to reject the threats and bribery of the US.

What better demonstrates the bankruptcy of the US reason for the invasion fo Iraq than this!