Well I wouldn't exactly say that article was representative of the Guarian editorial line. But it just shows that it does print things which are contrary to its main stance.

My main trouble, Gareth, with your point is that the argument about getting rid of a vile dictator was not the main reason put to the populace in persuading us it was a good idea. It if was, and we had an honest and open debate about whther this in a valid reason for going to war and nobody changed their mind about why it was happening, mid sentence - then I might be a bit more understanding of those pushing for the war. But it wasn't, and a whole load of people were persuaded to go along with something on a false pretexts.

And in any case, it is hard to believe that it really all was about ridding Iraq of a dictator. If it was, why on earth did we start with Iraq. There are plenty of other countries with equally bad human rights abuses going on right now. Why aren't the very same people making huge representations to the UN about attacking Burma, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, China - over tibet, Russia - over Chechnya? No the argument you are now giving is only being championed now because its the only thing they have left.

Getting rid of Saddam may have been a desirable side effect, but I don't think we should back wars made on false pretexts, just because they may possibly have a desirable outcome in one sphere. There are wider consequences of war - especially wars with underhand motives.