There are several flaws in Paul Ouimette's recent letter regarding the Iraqi situation. I would like to point out some of the most obvious.

He suggested that the weapons inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998 because of the impasse between the UN and Iraq. In fact, the pull-out was ordered by Richard Butler, someone who has openly admitted that he was spying for the US, o­n the direction of the US envoy and Kofi Annan. This is very easily verifiable. This website is a good start.

The reason for the pull-out is largely believed to be because of Clinton's desire to bomb Iraq, perhaps to distract from his domestic situation at the time. Whatever the case, perhaps Saddam's reluctance to support the inspectors can partly be understood given that the US were abusing the inspections to spy o­n the country.

Time will give us some clue o­n how true the US allegations are regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. But o­ne would assume that if they did have these weapons, and had easy access to them, they would have used them in the war.

Indeed, the US kept speaking of lines o­n the map where Iraq would use these weapons. They seem to have given up o­ne this idea with the fall of Baghdad. In any case, since the Iraqi people did not use these weapons, it is clear that they were not easily available. Perhaps they have been hidden so well that even the Iraqi people couldn't get to them?

Whatever the case, the fact remains that if they could not use them, then there is no way that anyone can claim they were a clear and present danger. Compare this to the US, which have easy access to weapons of mass destruction, and is the o­nly country to ever use them. And this was against two civilian targets after they had already nearly won the war.

The US did set out some specific goals when they launched this war. They wanted the oil infrastructure intact so they could exploit it as quickly as possible. And they also realised that they had to reduce civilian casualties as much as possible, or at least appear to be doing so - not because they cared about the people themselves per se, but because they knew if they didn't this would cause numerous problems.

Make no mistake - the US was not really willing to sacrifice the lives of its soldiers to reduce civilian casualties. If they were, they would never have carried out bombing nor would they allow their soldiers to shoot at civilians. Of course, some will say it is o­nly fair for the US to balance their soldiers' lives against civilians. Perhaps, but o­ne must ask whether the balance they reached is fair and whether they have any rights to kill civilians for the oil, or rather money, they so desperately want. In any case, it's clear that the US didn't prioritise civilian lives above all else, as some would suggest.

I do agree that this is not a war against Islam. It is a war of greed for power and money. o­ne thing is clear. The war is now won, and the US and UK will be sharing in the spoils.