In response to the post not even credited to a guest: very pertinent commentary re Turkey. Turkey has the second largest army in NATO. It and Iran are two of the nations most looking to gain from a vacuum in Iraq. (One of the reasons that Iraq was not defeated by the coalition last time.)

As it happens, both Turkey and Iran are striving to keep muslim fundamentalism out of government. In Turkey, parliamentary democracy is propped up by the Army; in Iran, elected parliamentarians (with about 75 per cent popular support) are working towards a liberal democracy, but massively hampered by a council of ayatollahs who retain influence through a flawed constitution put in place in the heady days after the Shah was ousted.

Doug, I can't prove anything more than you can. On everything about Iraq's military capabilities I'm quoting Scott Ritter (UNSCOM) and the international atomic energy authority. Who is it (and be honest about this) that you are choosing to believe?

But what have WMDs got to do with anyting? Musharraf and Sharon, among others, openly proclaim their WMDs. Musharraf recently tested his, in defiance of world opinion, including American. Musharraf and Sharon are friends of America; Saddam, with a military capability close to zero, is enemy #1. Are you sure this is making sense, Doug?

I really see no need or excuse for war with Iraq. What is needed is political engagement, initially through intermediaries. A slow process, maybe, but in the meantime Saddam poses no threat to America. (If he is any threat to his neighbours, why are they all so hostile to an American invasion?)

Have we learnt nothing from the 20th century???