Teribus - whether you knew what the 45 minute claim referred to is irrelevant, because didn't Blair and Hoon claim they didn't and when the press published stories based on what turned out to be false premises, nobody in the government or security forces saw fit to correct the notion. Surely that couldn't be because it was deliberately ambiguously worded so that the press would blow it up and scare people into supporting the war?

Bruce, mass graves have nothing to do with it. The legal case for going to war was not based on Saddams atrocities. Atrocities like that occur around the world and we sit and do nothing about them. Why suddenly decide that these atrocities should lead to war in Iraq, but not in Burma, China, Indonesia, Zimbabwe and many other countries. Why do our countries in some cases even support the very regimes that commit these appalling crimes. Because it was only relevant to the governments when they realised they could use it to gain some extra support for the war. If they were actually reall going to war to protect people from further appalling atrocities why there and then? Why not attack Iraq immediately after the atrocities were discovered (many years ago)? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Also, if something is unknown, you have a duty to assess the liklihood of each scenario, if either one is going to lead to death. Not just assume one is true because it would lead to more loss of life if true.

You might have been asking for my point of view, but in your arguments, you displayed a breathtaking ignorance of issues of major importance. Thats why I told you to go and do some research.