David.Cutts, I am in absolute agreement that Blair is a war criminal and that he should be punished. The question is how? I doubt that a sufficient number of the electorate are as concerned as you and I.

Clerkenwellman, Geoffrey Bindman's article summarised the position nicely. Does it indeed ? You go on to say that 1441 was based on 'the same material and speculation' as the dodge dossier. In truth, the evidence at the time, as well as later, was that no WMD were to be found. Wrong. If memory serves me when the Inspectors left in 1997 Saddam still retained WMD. The materials were still outstanding, or are you saying these never existed and the Inspectors were wrong ? If the material was there in 1991, still outstanding in 1997 one must assume they still existed in 2001. Where is your evidence that it did not exist in 2001 ? Saddam was required to show evidence that the materials had been destroyed. While I hate Blair with a passion, far more than you do, if he had assumed - as you are saying he should have done - that Saddam did not have any WMD in 2001 he would have been flying in the face of clear evidence that was held which stated Saddam did have such materials and in all probability still retained them. He would have been negligent in the extreme. The JIC told Blair that evidence of Saddams WMD programme was 'sporadic and patchy', but they did not say he had no WMD. Blair, as we now know, turned that phrase into 'detailed and authorative', which it was not. He oversold his case. Bindman is basically accusing Blair of overthrowing a Sovereign Government. One assumes he thus acknowledges that Saddam was, and thus remains, the Sovereign of Iraq. So one assumes, following Bindman's logic and his legal line, that he is campaigning for Saddam to be restored as Sovereign of Iraq. Isn't that the long and the short of it ? If he is not sying this then why not ? This is his own logic after all. I do not believe Saddam was the legitimate Sovereign of Iraq, and thus it was not crime to overthrow him. Indeed it could be argued it was a legal duty. Just a different perspective for you to chew on.

This point still has to be answered: from whom did Saddam get his WMD?

Ttrryosborn, ["brolly2 1 Not enough peole agree with you about Blair? Could it be the majority know you're flat out wrong?"] In plain and simple language that even you should be able to understand, not that you show much evidence of being able to do this on even a simple level, the answer to your question is NO. It seems to me that you think you can bait me on this point over the election result, which you clearly don't grasp. So I will (wasting time) explain it to you. Blair has upset the Middle Classes in the UK over the war and the election result showed this. Large numbers of them deserted New Labour for the Liberal Democrats that were against the war. For the working class as a whole it was not the big issue,and it was with the assistance of these that Blair was able to be re-elected. Although you may not have noticed it, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats won sixty-four per cent of the votes cast.In actual fact New Labour had less than one in four of the electorate (over all) vote for them.In fact in terms of the full electorate, about 22.3 per cent voted for them. In the UK, the electoral system is profoundly unfair and undemocratic and will be reformed within the next twenty years or so. It is also a fact that New Labour had less votes cast for them in England, as distinct from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, than the Conservatives. Message was edited by: brolly3

Ttrryosborn, I really don't care if Saddam is tried or not. It is always a question of 'victor's justice' anyway. It probably matters to a lot of Iraqis but I don't know what it will achieve for the rest of the world.There are so many war criminals out there.What's one more or less. In any case it will be a show trial whichever way it is conducted. For Saddam's trial to make sense to so many non - Iraqis, hundreds of others would have to be brought to justice, to borrow Bush's favourite phrase and this isn't going to happen. Almost everyone knows the score and so Saddam's trial would be a mockery for most people, except perhaps for the neocons and probably for them too, privately. Message was edited by: brolly3

Ttrryosborn, [“Those who lost loved ones to that butcher care.”] What’s wrong with your eyesight; didn’t you notice that I said: “It probably matters to a lot of Iraqis”. I will repeat what I said, in capital letters, in case your eyesight really is as bad as it appears. “IT PROBABLY MATTERS TO A LOT OF IRAQIS”. Next time get yourself a magnifying glass and you won't make a fool of yourself.

Ttrryosborn, ["You are right. My mistake. I took the words "probably matters" to mean you didn't care. You're just blase. A thousand pardons".] I'm feeling magnanimous, so your forgiven. I'm also jaded and at the moment have no appetite for the cut and thrust of OD, so I am keeping a low profile.