THERE is much opposition to the current tactics against Iraq because well-informed, intelligent, compassionate people are being patronised by Blair/Bush.

People who know for example that in the handover from the Clinton to the Bush administration, intelligence gathered by Richard Clark, chair of Counter-Terrorism Security Group was ignored, which could have possibly prevented the twin tower disaster, at least identified and contained al-Qaeda terrorists in camps in Afghanistan.

That the Bush administration is ignoring the science in favour of a fundamental religious dogma, or that it is coming up to the mid-term elections and the Jews could bring Bush down, and by 2010-14 the US will be consuming at least 28 billion barrels of oil per day.

Taking control of Iraq will take away threats of missile attack on Israel, plus provide full control over immense oil reserves needed to support the wasteful and the short-term attitude of the US administration. Which causes mass migration and the UK's immigration problems because of the plunder of our planet resources. Where the many wars are being fought for the mineral rights, not to free the poor starving and displaced, fuelled and encouraged by the likes of the US administration.

Saddam Hussein is not the only source of weapons of mass destruction; the world is awash with such materials, Russia being one good market. Apart from US, UK, Korea, Israel and India, Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and is a haven for terrorist, the pro-western government under constant pressure from Muslim fanatics who could have control of such weapons! So Bush is as big if not bigger threat to our planet than Saddam.

DAVID THOMAS,

Hisomley,

Westbury