I find it hard to believe that anyone can say that the United States has entered into war with Iraq solely for its own benefit ("U.S. has always entered war for its own benefit," April 1 letter). The United States has two benevolent objectives for this war: protection and liberation. By disarming Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States is not only protecting themselves from possible future attacks, but also neighboring countries as well as the rest of the world. This goal can only be achieved by disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Interestingly enough, these are the same banned weapons Saddam has denied having all along, while at this moment coalition forces are beginning to uncover his stockpile.

Next is the most unselfish goal, liberation. By removing Saddam and his regime, we liberate a country that has faced years of oppression. Oppressive actions that include the use of chemical weapons against the Iraqi people, or Iraqis being tortured, raped or often killed if they were found to be in opposition of the regime. Even now in times of battle this regime remains ruthless, using women and children as a human shield, supporting "death squads" and suicide bombers, and shooting citizens who try to escape.

The author cites "international arm-twisting" as an American policy; this is just not so. It's this same "arm-twisting" that keeps the French and Russians from supporting our efforts. In short, the French neglect to support us for fear of jeopardizing their lucrative oil deal with Iraq. The Russians neglect to support because they would lose the revenue they are generating from the sale of arms to the Iraqi regime.

I have no problem looking anyone in the face and declaring that I am in support of the war because it will help protect America as well as the world, end a ruthless regime and liberate an oppressed nation.