Not so absurd as you may think Kevin:

"that he (Saddam Hussein)is at the head of a small and relatively weak country anticipating an attack from an overwhelmingly more powerful opponent"

That he is the head of a small and relatively weak country is largely down to him (Saddam Hussein) embarking on two wars - both acts of agression to support an expansionist programme. True? Hmmmmmmmm?

This Iraqi "Churchill", Kevin has two objectives - he has stated both clearly and often in the past - retention of power in the region and the destruction of the state of Israel.

His "...small and relatively weak country..." Militarily could wipe the floor with any of his neighbours - so your relatively weak depends greatly on who you are comparing Iraq to.

Talking of Churchill - during the early 1930's - the wilderness years - Churchill continually warned everyone about the danger posed by Nazi Germany. He was accused of being a madman and a war-monger, he too was continually asked for proof to substantiate his claims. He warned of German re-armament which was in direct controvention of the Treaty of Verseilles, the league of Nations was prepared to do nothing - the world ended up paying one hell of a price.

I can see parallels Kevin - even if you can't - or worse still - even if you deliberately chose to ignore them.

One parallel I do not see Kevin is "The idea of the USA or the UK as the gallant undewrdog in the situation, 1940s Battle of Britain style." What I do see, and hear, is the warning voice.

In plain speak Kevin explain to me what brought about the volte-face within the Iraqi Government that caused them to invite the UN weapons inspection teams to return.

Their original invitation stated the words unconditional access - Correct?

Latest we have is that unconditional as far as Saddam Hussein means is that:

1. Inspectors can only inspect military sites;

2. No surprise inspections will be permitted.

Now then Kevin, both you and I are in agreement that the weapons inspectors should return and that they should be allowed to do their job.

Hypothetically, as one of those inspectors, would you sign up to a report stating categorically, that Iraq possesses no WMD or capability having completed your inspection under the conditions laid down above - I'm damn certain I would not.

Again in plain speak Kevin, can you please tell me how will it be possible to ensure that the inspectors get to do the job they are supposed to go in there and do? In answering please remember what happened between 1991 and 1998.