You are not supporting Keith, Teribus. Still some validity, you say - Keith doesn't think that. You don't think that recent work totally dismisses all work done previously. Keith does. But it does blow holes, you say, in "some" dearly held myths... Keith thinks that all the history of dead historians is all myth because all living historians dismiss it, and he believes them. Honestly, mate, you diminish yourself by clinging to Keith as an ally. Everyone here except for you and Keith can see that you and he are miles apart in terms of scholarship, thoroughness and consistency. He's a non-starter in all three respects. The other aspect of these debates here that is unhelpful is the conflation of the argument for the cause and justification of the war and the argument regarding the competence of the leadership. I'm not going to agree with you about the latter but I'm listening to what you say on the former. Unfortunately, you come across as being biased, aggressive and evangelical, putting the baby in severe danger of going down the plug with the water. Outcomes, dear chap, outcomes...