Reading John Teo's letter I find it shameless of him to accuse Chandra Muzaffar of the very things he himself has been guilty of.

An organisation like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) with Newt Gingrich and Richard Perle among its 'scholars and fellows' is hardly an unbiased referral. Au contraire, these are the very right-wing people who have also proposed the Project for the New American Century, a master plan for US world domination.

Some other members of the Project are Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Elliot Abrams (with very strong links to the Likud Party of Israel), Eliot Cohen, and a host of ultra right-wing personalities, many of whom have dominated the Bush administration.

The Project sets the strategic case for American global leadership. What does that mean within the context of its various policies and statements if not to assert US dominance over the world?

These are the very people, with many serving in the Bush administration, who had urged war with Iraq and its occupation, and who have also targeted Iran, another oil-rich nation.

As for the videotape of Saddam's atrocities , we need not require that to know what a butcher he had been. In using this as a casus belli for war with Iraq, principally due to its abject failure in its unfounded scare about Iraq's WMD and the blatant lie about Saddam's link with al-Qaeda, the hypocrisy of the US administration becomes strikingly apparent.

more tyrannical regimes - those regimes that have no oil in their countries, those who are already supplying oil to the US, and those who were/are her allies.

In fact the US is known to have actively supported such oppressive regimes. Don't ever forget that Saddam Hussein was one of them until he fell out of favour. Today, the US supports very repressive authorities such as the Northern Alliance of Afghanistan, tolerating the warlords' drug activities and unmentionable brutalities.

But we still need to remember that some members of the AEI are (or were) also members or supporters of the Project, as well as members of the Bush administration. As to their credibility - who had shamelessly fabricated the story that Iraq tried to buy uranium material in Niger, if not the Bush administration?

A CIA operative who produced findings to dismiss this lie had her identity wickedly exposed through deliberate leaks to the press. Yes, these people still continue to aver that there was an al-Qaeda-Saddam link, despite the 9/11 Commission findings.

These are the very people who would cherry pick, if not 'create', items to shore up a case for their illegal war with, and occupation of, Iraq.

On Jan 26,1998, the Project wrote to President Bill Clinton '... that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil, will all be put at hazard'.

'We urge you to ... implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power ... we believe the US has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.'

Clinton laughed them off but unfortunately Bush embraced it as his policy. In that statement, the Project members, who subsequently dominated the Bush administration, had portended the US deliberate war with Iraq, a war that was unprovoked, without justification and totally illegal in ignoring the UN Security Council's (UNSC) will, indicated by its refusal to issue a supportive resolution.

And who said it wasn't about oil and Israel? More ominously, they continued:

'In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.'

This constitutes a damning piece of irrefutable evidence of the thinking of the people who would subsequently form the Bush administration. We can see the genesis of Bush's defiance of world opinion and the bypassing of Security Council authority to invade Iraq. They had been determined to invade Iraq come what may.

Why?

The occupation of Iraq facilitates the improved positioning of US military assets in that region. It enhances US domination of the oil and gas rich region (including Kazakhstan), improves its protection of Israel, and alleviates the internal political problem faced by the Saudi monarchy by moving the US military bases there to Iraq instead.

The Project stated what Chandra has feared.

'We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles ... a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.'

What could be clearer as to the US aim, now that many of these strategists have dominated the Bush administration?

Teo then took us back to World War II, to remind us of our due gratitude to the US for its intervention in Europe and its defeat of Japan. May I remind Teo that when Nazi Germany overran Europe in 1939, the US sat in isolated comfort across the Atlantic and did nothing for two whole years.

It was only when the Japanese attacked her at Pearl Harbour that the US found itself forced into the war. We need to be clear that the US engaged the Japanese and Nazi Germany, not because of any noble altruistic reason but rather for pure self-preservation and national interest.

The US government (as different from the US people) always have and always will act only for its own national interest.

Unfortunately Teo has wrongly accused Chandra Muzzafar for being paranoid about the US, when he has actually been obsequiously blind to US intentions.