No problem, Bobert - I just hope Gareth didn't hurt himself jumping on a bandwagon that wasn't there.

Teribus said above: You, and others on this forum, may have felt that it was worth taking that chance[with Iraq]. Fortunately the leaders and governments of our respective countries viewed the situation differently.

I must say his method of assessing risk looks somewhat arbitrary and irrational. Everything he quotes from the Carnegie Endowment conference is as things are now, or at least as they were yesterday. So is the world one jot safer because Saddam is out of the equation? For all that Teribus says, the fact is that when Iraq was invaded it posed no credible threat to anyone. That's not as Saddam would have wanted it, obviously, but that's what he'd been reduced to by the earlier war, the inspections and sanctions regimes and the no-fly zones.

Meanwhile Pakistan barely raps the knuckles of a national hero who spreads nuclear-weapons knowledge like confetti. But that's all right, because Pakistan is a safe, stable, dependable ally (as well as having been rescued from democracy by a military coup).

As for what to do with Saddam, that the problem exists at all is entirely down to the arrogance of successive US admins which have held out against the ICC.