I am risking a lot posting to a thread like this. However, it is getting very painful sitting on this fence all the time.

In the past, I have not had too much time for some (not all; I was rather a fan of Michael Foot) peace campaigners; in the British context, I remember some of the voices sneering in 1991 that nobody would support Kuwait if its main export was cabbages, were that same ones who castigated Maggie for spilling so much British and Argentinian blood over some worthless islands full of retarded sheep-farmers. In much the same fashion, there were those who first wailed that NATO was doing nothing about the genocide in Bosnia, and then pilloried NATO for aggression when the bombers and troops went in.

And yes, I have to agree with some peoples' views. Saddam Hussein is a nasty piece of work. However, we knew that some twenty-plus years ago, when he took power, but did nothing; we knew it shortly after that, when he attacked Iran, but supported him, at least as the lesser of two perceived evils; we knew it twelve years ago, when he invaded Kuwait, but left him in power and free to stamp on his internal opponents (though to be fair, much of the Western Allied coalition had to adopt the Arab coalition's goals for the Gulf War).

What has changed since then ?

I do not for a second believe any of the "briefings" or so-called intelligence by British government figures, that Saddam poses any fresh threat, to the West, to Israel or to his Arab neighbours. Many of the demands on the Iraqi government for weapons inspection etc. are framed in terms which boil down to, "When did you stop beating your wife ?"; there is no answer which will not provoke fresh demands or threats.

Threatening Iraq because there has been an unsolicited message from Osama bin Laden urging him to crush US imperialism (while at the same time calling him a godless betrayer of Islam), is like prosecuting me for indecency because my PC receives spam advertisments for Viagra.

So; there has been no major increase in the threat posed by Iraq, or in its internal policies in the last decade, and therefore no obvious causus belli. The conclusion must be that the changes which make war more probable have occurred in Washington and Whitehall (and much of British policy has been to follow where the US leads for many years, regardless of which party has been in power). I wouldn't like to ascribe any obvious motive to George W. or to Tony, but neither do I credit those motives which they have stated in public.

So; I cannot support Tony and his cabinet on this one (with one reservation however; if shooting starts, and British forces personnel are involved, I won't ever advocate any course of action which may endanger them, or criticise their conduct once they have become involved as a result of the government's policy).