There are generally two categories of people who condemn the war in Afghanistan, namely:

1) Those condemning the attacks because of insufficient evidence; and

2) Those who are just against the concept of war.

I can understand the concerns of the first group as the United States has not fully disclosed information regarding its evidence indicting Osama bin Laden in the Sept 11 attack. They have however, been able to convince many other countries like the UK, Germany, France, Russia, China and many of the Arab states that it was indeed Osama.

Then again, the conspiracy theorists could also say that most of these countries would have their own ulterior motives for supporting this stance. Russia and China for instance have their own rebel insurgents to deal with, whom they regard as terrorists as well.

But we must take into consideration that many Arab states are in support of the US effort to defeat terrorism. It is true, however, that they do not like the idea of America attacking Afghanistan, but they see very little alternative. But all in all, I do feel that the US, if it wanted global support for this effort, should provide to the world its evidence implicating Osama.

I can also understand the second group of people, who are pacifists and are against the concept of war. I dare say that if everyone in the world were to think like them, it would be much better place.

But the majority don't, and the world isn't a perfect place. The pacifists must understand that the US has to defend itself, it has to take action in order to protect its people. If Malaysia were to be attacked I would hope my government take steps to defend us.

"But war does not solve anything" they say. Yes, and no. As a short-term solution it does have its benefits, but never as a long-term solution.

Should the British and the French not have gone to war against Nazi Germany in World War II? Should China have just allowed Japan to overrun its country?

The answer is obviously no. Sometimes war is necessary, in order to safeguard one's security.

Let me put it this way: If someone were to come into your home with a stick and start beating your child, would you sit idly? Would you not try to protect your child, thereby resulting in more violence? But if you defend your child, thus creating more violence, wouldn't that be 'wrong'? Shouldn't you just sit down and calmly try to talk to the intruder to get him to stop?

Rubbish. I would take any weapon I had and if I had to, kill the intruder to protect my child. That does not make me a violent or bad person.

We should never take things to their extreme and though pacifists should be respected and honoured, there comes a time when we must draw the line.