1.        "Had the USA not acted as it did on March 20th 2003 in dealing with Iraq, when and how would you have liked to have found out about Libya's totally secret nuclear weapons?"

Gervase's Answer:
Sooner. Yet another example of defective intelligence. The sort that got us into the war the first place.

Comment:
Libya renounced its WMD programmes and weapons. Up until this point it was only thought that Libya was pursuing WMD programmes centred on chemical and biological weapons. When Libya declared all it's WMD programmes the world learned of a nuclear weapons programme that was very far advanced.

So without the invasion of Iraq the first anybody might have found out about this is would have been when something went bang.

Gervase what do you think would have prompted the Libyans to tip their hand "sooner" as you put it??

How did defective intelligence get us into the war in the first place Gervase?? UNMOVIC didn't have to find WMD in Iraq it only had to clear the findings and obtain explanations for the discrepancies contained in the earlier UNSCOM Report in a verifiable manner and establish that Iraq had indeed disarmed. Everybody believed the Saddam still had WMD in 2003 because he, by his own admission, worked damn hard to create the impression that Iraq still possessed these weapons.

2.        "Do you think that chances of secret development of nuclear weapons on the basis of sale to the "highest bidder" have been enhanced or reduced by the exposure of the activities of Dr.A.Q.Khan? Has what has happened, i.e. exposure and shutting down of this network been of any significant benefit to mankind?"

Gervase's Answer:
See above. And to claim that this is the reason for the invasion is like saying we put a man on the moon to invent the non-stick frying pan, you clot.

Comment:
Oh no Gervase not the reason for the invasion – all this came about as a direct result of the invasion. We would never have known a thing otherwise. In the course of checking out how the Libyans had advanced so far in total secrecy the network of Dr.A.Q.Khan was uncovered and rolled up along with a trail of contacts and front companies, links were established between Pakistan, North Korea, Libya, Iran, Iraq and Syria. So without the invasion of Iraq and the resulting abandonment of the Libyan WMD programmes this secret and illegal network engaged in proliferation of nuclear weapons would not have been discovered. With the network shut down the chances of secret proliferation of nuclear weapons has been greatly reduced. Good thing or a bad thing Gervase??

3.        "When and how would you have liked to have found out about Iran's totally secret nuclear weapons?"

Gervase's Answer:
Have we found out?

Comment:
Gervase even the Iranians now know that they are fooling no-one any longer with their "peaceful" nuclear energy programme, after all if your programme is intended for peaceful purposes you do not need the design drawings for a nuclear weapon do you. And once it has been discovered that you have those designs it doesn't take you two years to hand them over to the IAEA when they ask for them.

Without the US invasion of Iraq we would never have found out about the hitherto secret Iranian uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and a heavy water facility at Arak. Although signatories of the nuclear NPT, Iran had not declared these sites to the IAEA as they were obliged to do. Why do you think that was Gervase?? You appear to be an extremely trusting individual I'm sure you can come up with a plausible explanation for that.

4.        "Who do you think would have won the second Iran/Iraq War, and in what way would that outcome be beneficial for the region and the world"

Gervase's Answer:
So, Saddam would have attacked Iran? Don't make me bark. Iran would have attacked Iraq? Ditto?

Comment:
Now we are talking about Saddam Hussein here Gervase, the man who in 1980 attacked Iran because his UN Ambassador had told him that Iran wished to negotiate a settlement of the ongoing dispute related to the Shat-al-Arab waterway.

Early in 2002, Germany, Russia, China and France were testing the waters with a view to getting the UN sanctions against Iraq lifted. No great problem if they had stayed, the "oil-for-food" scandal showed that few were sticking to them.

Now while "Peanut" Carter had stripped the US of any human intel in the region in 1979, Saddam's Iraq still had plenty of contacts, so it would be around the summer of 2002 that Saddam would have been informed of Natanz and Arak. Now then Gervase if you think for one milli-second that Saddam Hussein would just sit back and let Iran develop a nuclear weapon it is you that is barking.

Rearmament and resurrection of the Iraqi Armed Forces?? No problem, Saddam's former business partners would have been only too delighted, after all Gervase what happened to the price of oil after 9/11 and during 2002, what do you think would have happened to the price once it became known that Iraq was rearming?? I'll give you a hint Gervase it would not have gone down.

So by the end of 2003 at the latest Iraq would have been good to go, we could now be into the fourth or fifth year of the Second Iran/Iraq War by now Gervase. If the price per barrel had risen while Iraq was preparing for war just think what would have happened to the price with a full scale war in progress and with Iran controlling the Straits of Hormuz. $147 per barrel would have cheap at twice the price. But none of that happened because GWB didn't let Saddam, Iraq or the UN off the hook. And guess what Gervase throughout the entire period from the build up for the invasion to today, oil production from the Gulf was not only unaffected, the production totals actually increased.

5.        "The first Iran/Iraq War resulted in 1.5 million dead, how stupid, brutal, thoughtlessly callous, inhumane and short-sighted a betrayal of mankind do you think it would have been to allow such a conflict to occur?"

Gervase's Answer:
See above. Do you honestly imagine that either Iraq or Iran would have been so stupid, etc?

Comment:
Yeah Gervase see above. But one question I forgot to ask about that. What leads you to believe that Saddam would have sat back and let Iran develop a nuclear weapon? What leads you to believe that Saddam would sit back and let Iran develop any form of nuclear capability at all?

6.        "With regard to peace in the middle-east do you believe chances of finding a lasting solution are increased or reduced by the removal of a state sponsor of terrorism?"

Gervase's Answer:
Decreased, thanks to a resurgence in Islamic groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, buoyed up by a general Islamic resurgence in the region fostered by the invasion. It's cool to be anti-Western.

Comment:
Well let's see Gervase did you compare number of suicide attacks inside Israel before and after the US invasion of Iraq?? I did, guess what Gervase, the number of attacks went down, they decreased and since the invasion with regard to Israel/West Bank relations they have been fairly peaceful, all the result of Saddam's regime no longer sponsoring attacks by Palestinians inside Israel from the West Bank. Good old George eh Gervase??

Hamas and Hezbollah are resurgent are they Gervase?? Well Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria got the shock of their lives in 2006 and haven't done a damn thing since then, quiet as church mice. Hamas in Gaza, resurgent?? Well not really, they've proved themselves to be a bit of a joke haven't they to be quite honest and since the last stramash in December and January even they are beginning to cotton on, and more importantly so is the electorate of Gaza – Hamas is leading them nowhere and they know it.

Far from being resurgent Gervase the whole thing is sort of running out of steam. They'll be even quieter still when the new Israeli Government takes over in Office.

7.        "With regard to peace in the middle-east do you believe that Lebanon stands a better chance of achieving peace and stability as an independent sovereign state without the presence of Syrian Forces of occupation, or was the Lebanon better off as a Syrian colony?"

Gervase's Answer:
And the relevance of this to the invasion of Iraq is, er, what precisely?

Comment:
No relevance Gervase, relationship as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Syrian forces had been occupying Lebanon for what 27 years Gervase. Hariri get assinated and the UN Security Council passes a Resolution calling on Syria to co-operate with the UN Inquiry and withdraw from Lebanon. Now this had been requested before but like another Ba'athist regime in the area UN Resolutions were not really things you bothered about. That is until Ba'athist Iraq tried playing ducks and drakes with one in 2003 and ended up getting invaded with the ensuing result that the Ba'athist reign in iraq ended rather abruptly. So with the best part of 150,000 US troops living next door, when Syria is dealt a UN Resolution stating that it has to get out of Lebanon, you tell me Gervase, what did Bashir Assad decide to do?? That's correct Gervase he got his troops the hell out of Lebanon.

Oh while we are on about Syria, didn't they lose something up by the Turkish border. Oh yes that's right, the Syrians lost this building and the North Koreans lost some technicians if memory serves me correctly.