I refer to the Malaysiakini article Let's throw shoes at others besides Bush

I found the writer callous in defending the US invasion of Iraq while belittling the brave act of defiance by a lone Iraqi reporter. In fact, there is speculation that he is being abused during his detention by the Iraqi authorities.

His brother has claimed that the reporter is being tortured and that his arm has been broken while his employer has claimed that the reporter has been seriously injured. So I find the writer’s letter jesting about the issue to be in bad taste. It is no longer a laughing matter when a person is tortured during detention.

Also, the writer is engaging in deceitful propaganda by blaming the deaths of Iraqis on Saddam Husein. In fact, it was the United Nations sanctions which was responsible for the deaths of more than 1 million Iraqis, as Iraq was not allowed to import badly needed antibiotics and vaccines because they had dual use (both medicinal and military use).

Most of the deceased were children below the age of five, in what was said to be the worse genocide since the one in Rwanda. Why did the international community punish the babies and children in Iraq for the sins of Saddam?

The writer even underplays the sufferings of the Iraqi people due to the US invasion by understating the death toll. In fact, it is estimated that as many as 1.2 million people have perished as a result of the invasion.

In fact, a UK university-based study using scientific statistical methods (known as the Lancet Study) estimated that up to the year 2006 alone there were more than 650,000 deaths as a result of the US invasion of Iraq.

The writer also attempts to shift the blame for dead Iraqis onto the freedom fighters seeking an end to the occupation. In fact, the US bombing of Iraq has actually killed more civilians than militants.

Also, it is quite common for the US military to pass the blame for its killing of civilians by mis-reporting it as the work of al-Qaeda terrorists. In fact, the US military still insists the bombing of Iraq markets as the work of terrorists despite eyewitness accounts who saw missiles rain on them from the skies.

The writer's claim that Iraq's oil revenue is being used for development in Iraq is laughable. More so his attempts to paint a rosy picture of Iraq. The truth is that many towns in Iraq consider themselves fortunate if they have even as little as two hours of electricity a day.

Finally, we get to the crux of the matter. Why did the US invade Iraq in the first place? Was it because Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction? Was it because Saddam had ties with of al-Qaeda? Or was it simply for the oil?

It is a fact that the company Halliburton, of which US vice-president has a share, was awarded without competition the contract for Iraq's reconstruction.

Shocking still is the fact that it is Halliburton and not the Iraqi government which decides how Iraq's oil wealth is to be distributed.

So, the bottom line is that the war is only about stealing Iraq's oil wealth.