I take issues with a couple of points raised by AM in his justifications for war o­n Iraq.

First, he mentioned that the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term cost of war. He didn't spell out specifically what the benefits are, but I assume among other things, it would be a democratised Iraq. The prospect of a democratised Iraq and all its ensuing benefits is debatable, not a certainty.

Compared with certain destruction and entrenched hatred, the risks for instability to the Iraqi population and the safety of US citizens far outweigh potential benefits. There will be a bitter harvest reaped from the seeds of hatred sown today. Short-term? Hardly.

In the Gulf War, the US used bombs and ammunition tipped with depleted uranium against Iraqi forces. The depleted uranium, or U-238, in scientific parlance is a heavy metal and like other heavy metals are chemical toxic. o­n top of that, it is also slightly radioactive with a half-life of 4.5 million years.

The vaporised remnants seeps into water and soil and are carried by the wind. The effects of chemical and radiation poisoning are starting to manifest in increased birth defects. In contrast, how long will Saddam Hussein live?

In what world does AM live that a million years is shorter than say 25 years? Or does he believe the toxin and radiation like the smart bombs they were delivered in will selectively avoid the civilian population?

The second point he raised concerns the constraint exercised by a state o­n its military. Somehow, a war decided by voting is more acceptable than terrorism.

A decision made democratically within the context of a sovereign nation o­nly pertains within the border of that nation itself. A decision that has international ramifications must have international consent. That consent has not been granted, notwithstanding the generous interpretation of resolution 1441. How is President Bush's unilateral pre-emptive reflect democratic ideals?

Even granting that he is given the green light, a decision arrived at by democratic means doesn't necessarily lend it moral justification. Lest we forget, Hitler was democratically elected. His policy of persecution of the Jews was condoned, if not supported.

Democracy is not the panacea for all human evils. In fact, it can be a very effective means of perpetuating evils as history has amply proved.