I recently wrote in to malaysiakini about how not all Americans see war as necessarily a good thing.

My letter was then challenged by Tong Kong (Anti-war movement needs more relevant arguments), who requested an elaboration about the American political system, and of course, the whole Iraq controversy.

I'm not about to decline this opportunity to further the truth and my cause, so let's begin. I'll start with the Iraq situation, since that was what the original letter was about.

The main problem is evidence. I have seen US Secretary of State Colin Powell's evidence, and I have honestly yet to be convinced. Not o­ne of those pictures was more than a grainy black and white photo, and they reminded me of the 'photos' of Nessie, the Loch Ness Lake Monster.

For all we know, those photos could be from previous inspections, such as the 1998 o­nes.

Considering that most US satellite imaging is done in colour these days, the use of an old, very grainy, black and white photo is an odd choice.

Also, we don't know if those 'components' actually even work. A foreign website recently had a Photoshop contest with Powell's evidence, and a great many people had fun placing 'Doesn't work' messages in many of the text boxes.

Second, where are these weapons of mass destruction (WMD)? If I recall correctly, chief weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix hasn't found any. Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, has stated publicly that Iraq does not have a nuclear programme, as they lack any of the components necessary to do so.

Mr Tong holds as o­ne of his three key principles that Iraq has WMDs, and also maintains programmes to do so. o­nce again, Mr Blix has found no evidence leading to this conclusion o­n a chemical or biological levels, and Mr ElBaradei still holds to his statements.

So unless Mr Tong is in possession of evidence even greater than that which is possessed by the UN Security Council, there is no basis here.

Next, we proceed to Mr Tong's statements that Iraq's present leadership has shown a willingness to attack other countries. This is true, to an extent. Iraq has been a prime factor in the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War. However, it is worthwhile to note a few things.

First off, during the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq had the backing of the United States.

Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defence, has even shaken Saddam Hussein's hand. The US government has sold the Iraqis military supplies, or at least did so before the Gulf War.

With Iraq having been given the materials to wage war by the US, and having publicly had their backing in a previous war, it was not outrageous for Saddam to think that he would still have US backing to take out a small nation and add to his little empire, which at the time was an US ally. Of course, Saddam himself is the main focus here.

Saddam, despite the nickname given to him by many US citizens (So-damn Insane, if you didn't know), is not at all crazy.

He knows that his life is in danger. He himself came to power in a coup, and he recognises that threat, and deals appropriately with his generals.

Any observation from the outside tells us that Saddam has learned a great deal since the Gulf War. He has not invaded any country since then, and has generally tried to avoid making international news headlines.

Why would he suddenly change his tactics and begin attacking other nations when he knows the US is at his throat?

Answer: He would not.

Proceeding along, we come to Saddam's willingness to use WMDs. Even Mr Tong admits that Saddam has so far o­nly used WMDs o­n his own population to deal with rebellions. Why is that?

To answer simply, it is because he knows that the usage of a WMD o­n another country is suicide, plain and simple. He will not use WMDs because he knows the world is watching, and waiting for an excuse to oust him.

The fourth point, that the above three points grant an excuse to attack Iraq, has fallen part with my stated reasoning, at least so far as I see.

If there is an honest reason that Saddam should be removed from power that falls within international Law, then we certainly should oust him.

Mr Tong makes a statement that if he were Powell, he would rather be called an idiot than a sell-out. This is a cultural difference more than anything else.

In American politics, o­ne keeps office by keeping o­ne's boss happy. You stay in line, or you're fired. That simple.

Mr Bush recently removed his secretary of the economy shortly after he told the potential cost of the war, which is in the trillions. Quite a gaffe, o­ne that he will not be able to repeat.

I'm certain that if you look through American political history, you'll find a number of similar cases.

To put it simply, if you live here, you live to please the boss. I'm quite certain that any American in power would do it. I'd wager that a great many people would pretend to agree with their boss' politics to get a raise or to keep their jobs.

Mr Tong also stated that I was more anti-Bush than anti-war. I concede to a degree. To put it simply, I am not against war itself. I am against war at the present time, when there is, as I see it, insufficient evidence to launch an attack that will kill so many.

The Pentagon ordered 77,000 body bags for this war. 77,000 dead. Not a good number. But if there was honest justification for war, then, well, the army exists to make sacrifices for its country. However, I do not see enough evidence for war.

Thus, it is instead President Bush who is sending approximately 77,000 men and women to their deaths. No matter what I say about Bush, I love my country. I am not willing for 77,000 of my people to die in a war that should not be fought. This is a waste, and will deal more damage to an already weakened economy.

Finally I wish to respond to Mr Tong's statement as to America's politics being divided into three segments (Democratic idealists, Republican idealists, and Moderates).

He stated that 67 percent seems to be a good number from this equal division, and this is true, but o­nly if you don't know enough about America's political system. As stated before, Americans tend to blindly follow leaders, and they don't generally read their newspapers fully, much less read international news reports.

Read that again. Blindly follow leaders. That's the real key.

After the 9/11 attacks, the entire nation flocked to Bush. This was a good thing. We needed strong leadership, and if there's o­ne thing Bush does well, it is to provide an unwavering moral light for our nation.

However, his light can be misled at times, such as now.

Bush's support is currently at its lowest point since the attacks, and it continues to fall ever so slightly. The portion of the population that supports Bush is the same portion that supports war, and rightly so. Now combine those last two.

Support for Bush is the same as support for war, and Bush's support/popularity is falling, and is at its lowest point since 9/11.

Americans are religious, moral people for the most part, and 9/11 brought us to Bush. I am proud to say that I supported the man fully at the time, because it was right to support the o­ne man who could heal our nation after our first terrorist attack. I continued to support him up until he began to push war o­n Iraq.

We in America think of ourselves as a democracy, even though it is a republic. Now, the idea of a democracy is that everyone has a say in what goes o­n. If we Americans want to continue to call ourselves a democracy, or even a republic, we have to accept not o­nly the opinions of our people, but of the world at large.

A recent BBC o­nline poll found that two-thirds of the world does not support a war. It seems to me that if we are to truly remain a democracy, we must accept the opinion of the two-third majority (in American politics, this number is highly significant, as in Congress it can overturn even the decision of the current president) and not go to war.