As I understand it,the position of the British Government, even now, is that there will be no British involvement in any attack on Iraq unless there is compelling evidence that it is failing to cooperate with the inspectors, and is concealing stocks of weapons of mass destruction.

Unless and until evidence to that effect has been obtained any attack on Iraq would be a breach of the most solemn undertakings. The only body with authority to determine that is the case would be the United Nations Security Council, acting in accordance with the findings of the arms inspectors, once they have said that they have either completed their task, or have declared that the Iraqi authorities have prevented them from completing their task.

On top of which there is every reason to believe that the consequences of such an attack on the whole region, and in fact the whole world, are likely to be catastrophic. But that is a separate argument.

As for that story of yours Gareth - my understanding is that, if the evidence that the ambulance was being used in this way was convincing enough, no breach of the Geneva Convention would have been involved. But a hunch without evidence would not have been sufficient - more especially if the advice of the equivalent of the arms inspectors had been that in their view the ambulance was not being used in that way.