The war on Iraq

It is with regret that my letter (May 9) has been so badly interpreted by Michael Farrugia (May 16).

I need not repeat what I wrote in my letter, but it would seem that it irked Mr Farrugia and, possibly, another contributor in the same issue. My letter was in reply to the "Opinion" contribution by the well-versed Joe Mercieca the previous Friday.

Whether with this war the end justifies the means I would and will not assert, simply because only time will eventually tell as history unfolds.

Mr Farrugia claimed that he is a firm believer in facts and, likewise, I firmly believe as a fact that the worldwide protesters were not supporting Saddam Hussein as questioned by Mr Mercieca in his contribution. That was my whole point which, it seems, Mr Farrugia missed.

As with France's "willingness to put the liberty of an entire people at stake because of political ambitions or cowardice" and in Mr Farrugia's hope that France will "some day pay the price for the indifference", it would seem that once again the main objective of this war was to rid Iraq of biological weapons of mass destruction and France (not France alone) thought that this war needed UN sanctioning.

However, President George W. Bush and Tony Blair thought otherwise and wanted to "go at it alone", fearing that the UN Security Council decision would be vetoed.

I do hope that this is another fact which Mr Farrugia is aware of and I sincerely hope that, rather than jumping to conclusions, Mr Farrugia respects France's decision, as otherwise one can interpret this war with "political ambitions" by those same countries that waged it.