Blair described the intelligence evidence, the same evidence that the JIC itself described as 'sporadic and patchy', as 'extensive, detailed and authoritative'. Fib. He stated Saddam could strike Britain 'within 45 minutes'. Another fib. And so on.

I'm delighted that supporters of the war in Iraq are so wired to the moon they still find themselves defending the indefensible (Kamm's desperate plea for someone in government to join him in the bunker is delicious). At the very least, the utter and complete failure in Iraq has spared British troops sacrificing their lives on the next neocon wheeze. Hell mend those who sent British people to their deaths.

Blair didn't lie. Bush probably did. If he didn't, it was because someone lied to him (perhaps because he wanted to be lied to, preferring a lie that gave him the pretext he sought). In any case, the pretext for the war -- WMD, remember? -- was a lie. Not a mistake but a lie. This is known today.

That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do, one way or the other, with the question of whether or not it was a worthwhile thing to depose Saddam.

"at the very least, the utter and complete failure in Iraq has spared British troops sacrificing their lives on the next neocon wheeze"

Many of the arguments the opponents of the war in Iraq employed were also used by the Isolationists in the United States in the 1930s and 1940s. They argued, inter alia, that:

1) The United States should not involve herself in a war being fought for Jewish interests.

2) It was not in the economic or political interests of the United States to go to the aid of the UK. The destruction of the British Empire was something, they argued, that would not only benefit many millons around the world, it would greatly enrich the United States (and so did FDR come to that).

3) That a network of Jewish spies had infiltrated the White House and were using their influence to drag the United States into the war. (The truth was that a network of British spies under the direct orders of the British government had infiltrated American political life at the very highest level and were feeding false information to the American government. In many ways Churchill was the biggest political con artist in history.).

Naturally, as a Jew, I am delighted that the United States entered the war (on the other hand, like the UK, she did absolutely nothing to prevent the Holocaust, and by war's end, most Jews who were going to be murdered had been). However, I think it was a very bad move on America's part to come in on Britain's side even after Pearl Harbour. She should have refused to supply arms to Britain and done a deal with Hitler to divvy up the assets of the Empire. And really, for most people around the world, exchanging the Nazis for the Brits wouldn't have been such a bad deal. The Nazis may have murdered Jews at the drop of a hat, but actually they treated many aboriginal peoples with far more respect than the Brits.

I know there will be a lot of Brits who will get their knickers in a knot over this. But really, I don't understand why they should consider themselves more important than Kurds or Marsh Arabs.

I was against the war in Iraq. Iran was always the real danger as far as I was concerned. A war against both seemed absurd and impossible. Now it looks as if Iran will obtain nuclear weapons in short order. I am convinced she will use them - probably not directly but instead via a terrorist group. No doubt the stoppers will still be demonstrating even as the a mushroom cloud rises about their heads.

"And really, for most people around the world, exchanging the Nazis for the Brits wouldn't have been such a bad deal."

Obviously, it should read: "exchanging the Brits for the Nazis."

"Many of the arguments the opponents of the war in Iraq employed were also used by the Isolationists in the United States in the 1930s and 1940s."

I'm not interested in American foreign policy or how many British people Americans and/or Jews want to send to their deaths this week, thanks all the same. I use the term 'Jews' only because you have done so, I should add.

"like the UK, she did absolutely nothing to prevent the Holocaust,"

Why should we have done? It wasn't our problem.

Joshua - Id agree that many arguments between the two times do have similarities. Also that Iran has been the elephant in the room - although the current Iraq war was unfinished business from 1990. Although the same people protestng against military action will always protest its their default mode..

Your knowledge of history however appears somewhat shakier - unless you are suggesting that US policy from approx. 1939 should have been a pact with Hitler -not entering the war against Hitler was a bit hard after Pearl Harbour as he declared war on the US not vice versa. As to you rather amusing assertion that aboriginal peoples would have been better off under the Nazi's - the treatment of "non ayrian" people in the conquered eastern territories was very bad. This allied with Hitlers comments on how he beleived Indians should/would be treated under Nazi rather than British rule would seem to indicate ths is more wishful thinking on your part than a likely outcome. I would recommend Niall Ferguson's War of the World for much of this.