C S Loh, in his letter 'Afghan conflict - stop the hypocrisy' (Oct 24) argues that non-Americans have no right to judge American action in Afghanistan, yet in the very sentence before this statement he says that "the UShas every right to retaliate".

Isn't that the same as saying that the bombing of Afghanistan is acceptable, appropriate or right, that is, passing judgement on the action?

Why should people who disagree with the bombings be the only ones that should be reprimanded for "passing judgement", while supporters - Americans and non-Americans - are allowed to say anything they like without restraint?

Just because one is the aggrieved party does not mean that one's subsequent retaliatory actions are necessarily just.

Loh is just one of the many non-Westerners who have fallen for George W Bush's absolutist characterisation of this conflict as one "between good and evil".

But the (supposedly) good are also the ones whose insistence that sanctions on Iraq be maintained and has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.

Some may argue that it is Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's refusal to play by the rules that are keeping those sanctions in place, but that does not mean that the sanctions are not directly responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people.

Does putting economic pressure on Saddam in the hope (yes, hope) that he falls justify the real (not probable, but actual and verifiable) deaths of children in Iraq?

Should not the dead and dying Iraqi children, having suffered under continuing economic sanctions, also have every right to retaliate against the US?

Yes, let us stop the hypocrisy, but stop it on both sides, as the bombing of Afghanistan is not about good vs evil, right vs wrong, justice vs injustice.

It's about having the might and the means, and using those means to wreak vengeance upon those perceived as having done one wrong, and stopping them from doing it again.

And you can use this explanation for the actions of both Osama bin Laden and the US.