Adcin ( Good leadership, not democracy, to stop war ) and Anonymous Academic ( Keep mind open on Bali bombers ) use similar stratagems in voicing their thoughts and pushing their arguments.

It doesn't matter whether it was strong democratic processes or 'strong and wise' leadership — whatever that means — that ensures that reason ultimately prevails in the modern state.

What I abhor is the use of crooked thinking to promote ideas. For example, Adcin asks whether the present US government does not have hawks like General Lyman Lemnitzer and that President George W Bush is a strong and wise leader?

Let's examine the issues.

War is horrible.

It ensues for a variety of reasons but one thing is certain — the aim of military strategy is to leave no doubt in your opponent's mind that you have the will and capability to visit death and devastation upon him, to annihilate him if necessary. It is a fallacy therefore to expect military leaders to think of 'civilised' solutions. That is why the civilians are in charge of the military.

At this juncture, it may be profitable to both Adcin and Anonymous Academic to reflect on which present-day governments are headed by military or quasi-military men and which of these are considered to be secular states.

The point is that it matters not whether Lemnitzers exist today. They may or may not be there. But it is patently ridiculous to talk about a 'valid point that there is a loose nut in US administration' when Bali-type bombings happen in your back yard.

(These folks are all of them extremist nuts. Their aim is first, to create anarchy with maximum civilian deaths then, imposition of a Taliban-type state of religious zealotry. The probability, massively, is in favour of the latter group being responsible.)

Surely you are in denial of the serious problem, refusing to admit that the problem may lie with the deadly folks who link religion with their extreme views.

Next point. Yes, George W Bush received a whisker-thin majority as president. You may not like his actions but he has indeed been able to gather substantial domestic support for his 'war against terrorism' from both Republicans and Democrats.

Both the Senate and Congress have passed resolutions conditionally authorising his future conduct of the campaign. Thus far, he has showed signs of being a strong president.

Has he acted wisely? We'll probably have to wait many years after his presidency is over for that verdict to be in.

It is hard to search for the truth in a society which debases and manipulates it. But let's try and take it one day at a time.