My opposition to this war was not "driven more by hatred of Bush and Blair than any concern for peace, or the rights and justices of the Iraqi people", and nor is that true of anyone I know. And I do not believe that we are untypical.

I suppose saying we were "driven more by hatred of Bush and Blair than any concern for peace, or the rights and justices of the Iraqi people" makes a change from saying that we were "useful idiots" (a charge which can be laid against anyone who is taken in by the lies of people they would wish to admire, and if the cap fits...)

And Troll the difference between now and when the inspections were being carried out, is that there is a crucial bit of fresh evidence. We know that Iraqis invaded and Saddam's reguime destroyed, and there was not a single example of any of these Weapons of Mass Destruction being used. That cannot easily be dismissed.

The reason we were given for this war being necessary was to get rif of these weapons, not to get rid if Saddam's regime - we were told that if that happened, it would be a lucky by-product.

In Polly Toynbee's words in today's Guardian which I quoted earlier in this thread: ""If the Iraqis got freedom and if they end up pleased with it, that was only accidental collateral good, alongside the collateral damage."

Yes, it's good that Saddam isn't there any more. But that isn't the only thing that this war has achieved, and some of the results already are not at all pleasant.

However one thing it has not achieved so far is the one thing it ostensibly set out to achieve.