I am amused and at the same time irritated that the Australian ambassador should have the audacity to expect us to believe his justification of the terrorist attack o­n Iraq and the absence of action against Israel.

Perhaps he would care to explain why 300,000 people and an arsenal of military hardware o­n a scale never before seen are needed just to disarm Iraq? Or how that could deter Pyongyang from going ahead with its nuclear programme?

I have always felt that, if Iraq has to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, then so too must Israel, North Korea, and even Russia and China.

However, it appears that the US is to be exempted because, being a country founded o­n democracy and human rights, it must have the military might to decide who should be excused and what should be crushed (in the process): sovereignty, property, lives and limbs.

Thus, we have the Israelis who are given multiple entry visas by the US to roll their tanks into Palestine territory and massacre those who are too weak to flee. Arafat, meanwhile, is accused of having done nothing to restrain the Palestinians from crying when burying their dead, riddled with US bullets, triggered by Israeli fingers.

Since we're o­n the subject, the ambassador may want try to figure out why Muslims, who sacrificed their lives to protect the rights of their families, are called terrorists by the Americans.

What is the real motive for the US in massacring Iraqis?

I can cite at least six reasons that analysts around the globe assign to US paranoia. To his fellow American citizens and his poodles in UK and Australia, US President George W Bush has offered changing reasons for the need to invade Iraq, but o­nly need o­ne reason to convince his willing allies: the mighty dollar that comes with US aid.

Now that the US and Britain have found an official line that they are comfortable with to convince the world - the disarmament of Iraq - exactly what is the weapon of mass destruction (WMD) really?

It's called oil. What Bush considers as Iraq's WMD, is that black gold the US fears Iraq will use to sell in Euro dollars instead of US dollars. As a matter of fact, Iraq already did so back in 2000.

Bush must have shivered when he imagined what might have happened if weapons inspectors had been allowed to complete their job in Iraq. They would eventually have certified that Iraq does not possess the chemicals, warheads, missiles, launchers and the like, that we understand to be WMD. UN sanctions would be lifted, and Iraq would be free o­nce again to sell its oil.

But what if Iraq chose the Euro as currency instead of the US dollar? And if Iran, then Libya, and other countries were to follow suit? The value of the US dollar would plunge deeper than J Lo's neckline. The pound sterling would be choked to death by the mighty Euro and end up trailing the US dollar.

No matter what the UN weapons inspectors claim, the US will insist that Iraq is hiding its WMD because these cannot be found. The o­nly way the US can protect its economy, is to issue that ultimatum to the Iraqi women and children: either Saddam leaves peacefully, or the US and its willing terrorists will forcefully colonise Iraq and set up a government that can guarantee Iraq oil will be traded in US dollars until the wells run dry.

The attack by these terrorists are calculated to cause o­nly collateral damage, as all military targets have already been rendered useless by the US and the British under the pretext of protecting the No Fly Zone over the last 12 years.

I am ashamed, really, that a country of 200 million people and founded o­n democracy and human rights is helpless against o­ne man, democratically determined by the majority of judges to be the elected president.

As this man plays God, the poodles around him bark all the reasons they can think of to justify their act of terrorism against the women and children of Iraq.