I have been following the debates of the impending war against Iraq o­n malaysiakini and other websites. Allow me to offer my two cents.

First of all, we need to ask the question: "What is the purpose of invading Iraq?". This question sounds innocent enough and the pro-war camp will find that the answers are patently clear. Let us examine the reasons for invasion given by the war proponents in a rough chronological order:

1) Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction (WMD): nuclear, biological, chemical.

2) Saddam is about to develop nuclear weapons and can easily arm terrorists.

3) Saddam has not fully complied with the UN resolution.

4) Saddam is a brutal dictator and has killed millions of innocent people.

5) To oust Saddam, liberate Iraqi people, instill democracy in Iraq. This will serve as seed that will eventually spread across other Arab countries.

Points 1 to 4 are facts. Their validity can easily be verified. Point 5 has to do with the intention of the invaders/liberators. o­nly time will tell which o­ne pans out. Points 4 and 5 have nothing to do with disarmament.

Weapons inspectors despite armed with US and UK's "intelligence" are not able to produce the smoking gun that Iraq has or is actively developing nuclear weapons. They are sent o­n o­ne wild goose chase after another.

Furthermore, It is confirmed that North Korea possesses nuclear weapons and is posturing to produce more, why not invade North Korea?

I do concede that it is up to Saddam to come forth with his stockpile of weapons. He has done so by submitting a 12,000-page weapons-declaration to the UN, which US promptly hijacked.

If fighting terrorists is their main concern, all of the Sept 11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, why isn't any action being taken against those countries?

CIA suggests the pact between Iraq and al-Qaeda didn't materialise. Even al-Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden has denounced Saddam. In any case, war with Iraq will o­nly inflame more hatred against US and precipitate more terrorist activities, not diminish it.

Although the previous weapons inspectors have reportedly destroyed 95 percent of Saddam's WMD, he is still believed to be in possession of some stockpile. There are still some WMD unaccounted for. This fact seems to be not in dispute.

If liberating the Iraqi people is their main concern, why incite them to revolt o­nly at the last minute to retract support, not o­nce but twice? Turkey has also massacred its Kurdish population, why not establish a no-fly-zone in Turkey?

Not to diminish the sufferings of Iraqi people under Saddam's rule, but before the Gulf War, Iraq was the most advanced and progressive secular nation in the Middle East. Before the Gulf War, the Iraqi people had no freedom. Today they still have no freedom, but o­n top of that, they lost what they had before the war: health care, education, vibrant economy, full stomach. What good did the sanctions do them?

If the war proponents really have the Iraqi people's well-being in mind, why would they put them through hell because of the actions of o­ne man who was coddled by the very same people who want his head. Collateral damages are no more acceptable than the thousands of innocent lives lost o­n Sept 11.

If spreading democratic ideals in Middle Eastern countries is their main concern, Iran is making a good start, no thanks to US, and Turkey seems to be doing just fine. Two of US biggest allies in the Middle East are monarchies: Saudi Arabia and Jordan. It was hoped that Kuwait would adopt a democratic institution after liberation, that hasn't happened. Why not start with them first?

If overthrowing Saddam and installing a "democratic" regime is the real reason, then whether Saddam disarms or not is immaterial. What incentive would he have to disarm if he is going to be disposed anyway. He would be better off saving his weapons for the imminent attack by US and co.

This goes back to my original question: "What is the real reason of invading Iraq?". As events unfold, we have lost sight of the initial reason that started this snow ball.

We ought to define a goal first, then devise an appropriate course of action, but as it appears, the war proponents have already made up their minds o­n going to war and are o­nly making up justifications as they go along. They seem to prefer to shoot first, ask questions later.

The UN resolution is not o­nly there to prevent Saddam from unleashing his arsenal of weapons, but it is also there to ensure the Iraqi people are not unduly bombed by an overzealous self-appointed global police.

We hear the rhetoric: "disarm or else", but we have o­nly heard what happens "or else", nothing is mentioned if Saddam disarms. What guarantee does Saddam have if he complies fully with theresolution, that his country will not be attacked, sanctions will be lifted and the no-fly-zones will be lifted?

If the goal is disarmament, we need to have a clear goal as to what constitutes full compliance?

Canada proposed a sensible list of weapons and a deadline for their destruction. Why does the US scoff at such a plan? War proponents like to point to the fact that Saddam has flouted UN resolution for the past 12 years, my question is, what has fundamentally changed to warrant the sudden urgency to attack Iraq? What's wrong with waiting a little longer?

According to military strategists, Iraq has o­nly half of the fighting capability it had before the Gulf War. And o­nly half of those remaining weapons are functional. Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to its neighbours.

I don't think Saddam is very forthcoming in accounting for the weapons he claimed to have destroyed, but then again, he is not the o­ne threatening his neighbours with imminent attack. Besides, US has pulled out of a whole slew of international agreements since President Bush came to power. It is hypocritical of them to wag a sanctimonious finger at Saddam.

When o­ne after another, the justifications to go to war can't hold water, a more sophisticated reason is advanced so much so that the latest reasons have nothing whatsoever to do with disarmament.

The fact that the reasons, or shall I say excuses, for invading Iraq keeps evolving should make us suspicious of the real motive behind the sabre rattling. I don't profess to know the real motives behind President Bush's and Prime Minister Tony Blair's eagerness to go to war, but I do know none of the reasons they mentioned are real.

Sherlock Holmes has a famous motto, o­nce we eliminated all other possibilities, whatever remains, no matter how improbable (or cynical), must be the truth. The cynical truth is that no o­ne in the history of mankind ever instigated a war believing they are wrong. In fact, they always believed they are fullfilling their destinies or heralding a new era.

The cynical truth is that nobody has instigated a war if they did not believe that it promised multiplied returns. The cynical truth is that war is expensive business. And like any other business, the bottom line is profit.

In the last Gulf War, US actually turned a net profit, due to the fact that an international coalition shouldered the bulk of the expenses and increased demands o­n its high-tech weapons. This time around, there wouldn't be as broad a coalition as before, in fact many countries have to be bribed into supporting the cause.

Expenditures are running into the billions even before the war begins, and it's increasing by the day. The longer the inspection drags, the greater the expenses of a prolonged military buildup and greater the loss for their investment in the event the war does not materialise. Back home, President Bush is cutting taxes and the economy is in a lull, where o­n earth is he planning to raise the funds to finance the war?

It is not the first time US has resorted to fabricating truths to jump-start an invasion, from the Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam, to Iraqi troops massing o­n Saudi Arabia's border and the incubatorbaby story.

We have seen Secretary of State Colin Powell sully his good name by rehashing old information and plagiarising a 12-year-old PhD thesis to justify the war. Weapons they discovered turned out to be scrap heap within the northen no-fly zone, beyond Saddam's sphere of control. If that is the best intelligence (if it can be called that) they can muster, the war is a sham.

Once upon a time, a US president declared there is nothing to be feared except fear itself. Today we see a president peddling fear far and wide to fuel the hysteria that half a globe away, some two-bit despot who is constantly under a microscope is a menace to mankind.

We constantly hear the rhetoric that are coated in self-righteousness, terrorists and politicians alike constantly invoke the image of God to justify their stand, as if their actions are sanctioned by God, but judging by their warped logic: war is peace; death and destruction is liberation; going against the will of the masses is leadership; thrashing a hapless opponent is self-defence; curtailing liberty is protecting it, it is more likely the devil is the o­ne pulling all the strings.

Winston Churchill o­nce said that UN was not created to bring us to heaven, but to save us from hell. As we rush inexorably towards that infernal flame like a runaway train, it is time to prove that he wasn't too optimistic in his assessment.

Gandhi also said, a "no" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a "yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble. To this unjustified war, I have to add my voice to the chorus of the anti-war movement.