Akenaton, there is no "War" in Iraq, there is a duly elected Government and a duly mandated UN Force in Iraq both of whom are currently combating an insurgency, but there is no "War" civil or otherwise being fought in Iraq other than the ongoing war on terror. Terminology regarding the Senate hearings can be accredited to those participating in those hearings do not attribute them to me.

Dianavan asks how we're doing, let's see by the end of January 2007 more than 50 % of the 18 regions that make up Iraq will be under sole control of the Iraqi Authorities including all police and security matters, which in comparison to Greece at the end of the Second World War means that Iraq is slightly ahead of schedule, by about a year. Probably by March next year Iraq's second largest city will be handed over to full Iraq Authority control. My best guess is that in the South the British will have withdrawn apart from training and support duties by summer 2007.

autolycus - 06 Dec 06 - 03:27 PM
Oh, and just as a reminder, it was the West that

a)armed Saddam in the first place and

b)gave him the money to buy the beastly arms.

Neither a) or b) as stated above is correct - Anybody want to dispute that? Between 1973 and 1990 Iraq was the armament industries best market. Now according to the figures published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Iraq's main suppliers of weapons during this period (i.e. point a) above - those who armed Saddam in the first place) were as follows in descending order of importance:

- Russia supplied 68.9% of all arms (From 1973 to 1977 Russia was their sole supplier)
- France supplied 12.7% of all arms
- China supplied 11.7% of all arms
- "Others" supplied 4.8% of all arms
- Egypt supplied 1.3% of all arms
- USA supplied 0.5% of all arms

As for Ivor's other contention b) above - Sorry Ivor, Iraq's weapons were purchased with oil deals made by Saddam that ripped-off the Iraqi people and did great damage to Iraq's oil reservoirs. Any here remember who were the most vocal in the debating halls of the international community in support of Saddam in 1990 and again in 2003 - any doubts take a look at the vested interests depicted above - that will provide you with an answer.

The mutterings of Bobert and Ard Mhacha aren't even worth addressing, but it is noted that defence of the 600,000 dead Iraqi figures seems to have diminished in the light of fact and reason. If you are going to quote figures to back up an arguement at least get the damn thing right. Impossible for both Bobert and Ard I know, but they do inject a bit of humour into proceedings.