I read that the police - having originally warned against it - allowed the demonstration in front of the US embassy to continue. (Police tolerate anti-war demo outside US embassy)

If the demonstration was to be allowed, then surely a police permit should have been given for it.

Surely this does not augur for our stand as being cognizant of the rule of law. I am extremely surprised at the stand taken by the authorities o­n this.

In contrast, Singapore arrested those who demonstrated due to no permit being obtained.

Are the authorities saying that as long as you do not picket or demonstrate against the government then it will not be stopped? I think the law should be applied equally.

Although I fully support the anti-war movement, let us not forget that Saddam is a despot, a dictator and a murderer who deserves to be hounded out of office and brought to justice for crimes against humanity.

I am also bemused by our PM's call for NGOs to demonstrate and show their opinion as the US government does not seem to be heeding calls to stop the war.

Again, does this mean that if the government does not follow public opinion, then o­ne should demonstrate?

Isn't this very different from our government's stand that changes should be made through the electoral box?

Don't get me wrong; I am against the war but not because I support Saddam. I think this war is about US President George W Bush diverting the attention from domestic problems, as the country's economy is doing badly.

What better way to pump in money than defence spending? This indirectly allows government money to be used to boost spending. That is what this war is all about.

Israel has never honoured any UN resolution. I don't see any multi-national force attacking it. Why then the double standards here?

Let us be a bit more honest and fair.

I am of the opinion that the anti-war movement must make that distinction. Otherwise we are condoning crimes against humanity.