McGrath of Harlow 30 Mar 04 - 04:09 PM

"So now Resolution 1441 wasn't much cop because it had been amended so that it didn't actually authorise war - but it still did authorise war anyway."

Now, now Kevin, don't put words in my mouth. What I did say was that in the amended version of 1441, Saddam saw an opportunity, he could exploit differences of opinion within the UN Security Council's permanent members as to what "serious consequences" meant. As far as France and Russia were concerned "serious consequences" meant, no further action to be taken, China was prepared to go along with whatever France and Russia decided, the USA and UK were very clear as to what they considered "serious consequences" meant - the removal of Saddam Hussein and Ba'athist regime.

By the bye, Kevin, regarding military operations involving British troops. Apart from D-Day, I've never known an instance yet where British forces have been anything other than woefully under-equipped - It is an almost permanent feature, that British politicians in general seem to think desireable, and that senior officers of our armed forces seem to accept as the price that has to be paid in order for them to pick up their knighthoods prior to retirement.

Classic example: Dennis Healey - scrapping of our aircraft carriers - Falklands. If Britain had had one strike carrier in commission, the Argentinians would never even have thought of occupying the Falklands and South Georgia as they did in 1982.