Doesn't really answer me, Ake, I'm sorry. Saddam had been surviving sanctions for several years already. He didn't give a damn about "his" people dying. It was to his benefit. Good press for the efforts of his friendly bleeding-heart liberals in trying to get the sanctions lifted.

By your reckoning, & on your evidence, I would say that Saddam had at least 5 years, & probably 10 or more. In fact, I think that given the status quo, it would only have been once Saddam died (or retired), that the regime might have fallen. As long as Saddam was in charge it was fixed & immovable.

I would agree that our motives for going to war should have been clear, & that they weren't. I've already said that. But Thomas says "At least 11, 056 civilians killed in Iraq by the war", & wonders about the justification. Would you both have been happier if we hadn't invaded? Because, if we hadn't, a lot more Iraqi's can be reasonably expected to have died in that time, if Saddam had kept his average up!

I think the war has done much more than butcher a few thousand Iraqi's. I think it's also saved a a great many more. I think it's given some kind of hope to a nation. I don't think it's signalled fight or die for Islam. It has, certainly, provided a focus for the fanatics, increased their activity & swelled their numbers.

On the other hand, I am also of the opinion that there is more reason now to hope that it may have also woken the American government (not Bush & his cronies, but the whole governmental structure) to the fact that their long pursued policies in the Middle East are probably not "in their best interests". There may yet be a sea-change in American foreign policy. We can but hope.

Apparently, the was an article in the Daily Telegraph this week which pointed out that Beirut is now a tourist destination. Twenty-five years ago, it was a war-torn no-go area. Surprising how things can change, isn't it!