Please feel free to correct the following where incorrect in detail.

1. The WMD that this was all about were those detailed in the UNSCOM Report to the United Nations Security Council in January 1999. UNSCOM had documented evidence that the materials, stocks of weaponised agents, munitions and missiles to deliver those agents, existed. The report also said that UNSCOM could not state with any degree of certainty that Iraq's WMD programme had been shut down.

2. UN Security Council Resolution 1441, sent UNMOVIC and IAEA inspection teams back into Iraq to determine the status relating to the items specified in the UNSCOM Report and to obtain verifiable evidence relating to the status of Iraq's WMD programmes and capability.

3. Resolution 1441 required full pro-active co-operation from Iraq. This was not evident and was a consistent criticism of the Iraqi regime in every report tabled by Dr. Hans Blix to the UNSC.

4. The Iraqi Authorities consistently claimed that all their WMD stocks had been destroyed, but could offer UNMOVIC no means by which this could be verified. During the inspection period, small numbers of items, that the Iraqi's had claimed that they had destroyed were discovered - this threw doubt on the statements by the Iraqi's regarding the remainder of the outstanding items.

None of the above relates to anything that could be seen as being driven by either the US or UK - all the above lies within the province of UN controlled and directed activity - all the above remains relevant to-date, it still must be established exactly what happened to the items mentioned in the UNSCOM Report of January 1999.

Most of what is being discussed now relating to WMD is centred around evaluation of intelligence (where it is always more prudent to weight the evaluation towards worst-case) - any such evaluation regarding WMD must take into account not only the weapons themselves but also the research and development programmes behind such weapons.

Liz the Squeak:

"I noticed a colleague back at work 8 months before he was due....

He's in the Territorial Army - part time soldiers - and is a weapons expert, chemical, biological and nuclear. When he was called up in February he was told he'd be away for a year. He got back last month.

Says it all really."

Doesn't say anything at all LtS - Your colleague would have been required for as long military operations were ongoing in Iraq in an immediate support role. For longer term support relating to chemical, biological and nuclear incidents, the coalition could rely on support from former Warsaw Pact members whose experience in dealing with Soviet ordinance would be a great deal more "current" and efficient.

TIA - I recently asked the question what members thought would happen in the DR Congo - you can see how well the UN handles the issue - probably as effectively as they coped in Rwanda - far too little, far too late.

Bobert - The Congo is potentially one of the richest countries in the world, gold, diamonds, oil.... Control of which has been what has lain behind the ongoing factional fighting (supported spasmodically by the armies from neighbouring countries). The NeoCons that you and TIA mention are not interested in gold, diamonds, oil????