The movement against an American attack o­n Iraq made an impressive showing last weekend when it drew out millions into streets around the world in protest. But it remains basically an anti-American movement, not an anti-war movement.

Many of their arguments justifying their stand harp around the same issues, and often don't stand up to scrutiny. The letter Missed the point of anti-war movement by Disappointed contains many of these points, which I will try to address.

"It (the protests) is not to support Saddam the Butcher of Baghdad, but to prevent innocent Iraqi lives from being killed by the American military juggernaut."

In response to the above statement by Disappointed, I would like to ask:

Where is the concern for the Iraqi lives that have been snuffed out by Saddam's oppression apparatus for all these years? What is the guarantee that Iraqi lives won't continue to be snuffed out by Saddam himself? Why would anyone take offence to the removal of someone whom even Disappointed refers to as "the Butcher of Baghdad"?

There are, and always have been, brutal wars being fought all over the world almost all the time. Where is the concern for those lives? Is it that lives lost in wars that don't have American involvement are somehow less valuable? Is it that lives lost by internal oppression by governments are less valuable?

Disappointed also asserted that: "For more than 10 years, Iraq has been successfully contained. Therefore most people all over the world are questioning the sudden US aggression towards Iraq."

Successfully contained? We wouldn't know that unless we are sure Saddam no longer has the means to threaten others. If anything, I think the world has waited too long to bring him to task.

Or would Disappointed like to wait until he unleashes a catastrophe o­n thousand of people before agreeing that something has to be done?

Would he do it? He has already done it to his own people, so why wouldn't he do it to others?

Disappointed further claims in his article that: "...just don't forget, in the good old days, during the Iraq-Iran war, the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with his buddy, the then likeable Saddam Hussein. The US didn't seem too concerned about Iraq employing chemical warfare then."

That is tantamount to saying that someone shouldn't act against a criminal now just because he had given a job to the same person before that person became a criminal. Is Disappointed o­n equal terms with everyone he knows from throughout his life?

In the "good old days" before Saddam showed his expansionist tendencies with the occupation of Kuwait, he was a moderating influence when set off against the Iranians, who had traumatized the US by kidnapping and holding its citizens as hostages, and had threatened to unleash their brand of militancy throughout the Middle East and the world.

If Ahmad kidnaps Disappointed's family members and holds them hostage, wouldn't Disappointed support Ahmad's enemies?

Disappointed then asks: "One would also ask why the US is not meting out similar threat of war to other equally infamous, if not worse, regimes, like North Korea. And we haven't even mentioned any of the allies of the US (unless we consider an ex-ally like Iraq)."

What makes Disappointed think that the US will not take o­n North Korea? Does everything have to be done in parallel - Iraq vis-a-vis North Korea? Maybe if people from the Korean peninsula drove planes into American buildings, then the matter might take o­n greater urgency.

The fact is, Al-Qaeda is Arab-dominated. What's to stop Saddam from quietly passing off some canisters of super-deadly gas or germs to his brother Arabs for use in an American city?

Remember also that the current Iraq situation took about a year to come to this point. The North Korean "crisis" began just a few months ago.

Anyway, I don't understand the logic of Disappointed and others like him/her. Does the anti-war movement believe that a US attack o­n Iraq is justified if there is also an attack o­n North Korea?

Finally, Disappointed make the argument that: "There are possibly three reasons for the current US behaviour: the need for sufficient cheap oil to ensure its future industrial viability and economic dominance, the need of
America's very powerful Jewish lobby to ensure the security of Israel, and the need of US President George W Bush to account in some way to the American people for the 9/11 tragedy."

Opponents keep talking about this war being about oil. The fact is, America already controls the world's oil taps by virtue of being its biggest market. It doesn't need to occupy Iraq for that.

In fact, if it is Iraqi oil that America covets, then it would work to lift sanctions so that the oil can flow freely again. And oil prices are going up because of uncertainty over Iraq. Seems to me that's not the way to secure
cheap oil.

As for the "very powerful Jewish lobby" - give me a break. The same old song about this huge "Jewish conspiracy" that's supposedly running all our lives is now way beyond tiresome.

Disappointed is right o­n the money about Bush's need to account to the American people for 9/11. In fact, that's his duty and obligation! He would be neglecting that duty if he did not do something about dictators who are in position to possibly create a more devastating repeat of 9/11!

The "anti-war" movement refuses to look at the simple solution that would (and should) avert war:

There is no dispute that Iraq, as recently as 1998, had huge stocks of anthrax, botulism and VX gas (and it's the UN which says that, not the US. It is also something that is acknowledged by Iraq.)

What happened to those stocks?

All Iraq needs to do is to answer that question accurately, and the US would have no reason to attack.

Perhaps the "anti-war" movement could get millions of protesters out in the streets around the world appealing to Saddam to provide that answer?