In 1946 the judges at Nuremberg who tried the Nazi leaders for war crimes left no doubt about what they regarded as the gravest crimes against humanity. The most serious was unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state that offered no threat to one's homeland. Then there was the murder of civilians, for which responsibility rested with the "highest authority". Blair is about to commit both these crimes, for which he is being denied even the flimsiest United Nations cover now that the weapons inspectors have found, as one put it, "zilch". Like those in the dock at Nuremberg, he has no democratic cover. -- John Pilger

The logic is brilliant. To save the Iraqi people from a murderous dictator (who we put there in the first place) we must first kill them with sanctions and then with bombs. To stamp out terrorism we must attack countries and kill innocent people, which will produce more terrorists. And to protect our civil liberties and freedoms we must, of course, take them away. -- SchNEWS

As public opinion hardens against the war, Tony Blair is getting ever more desperate.

A document was placed on the Downing Street website justifying the case for war. It turned out to be the regurgitated thesis of a Californian PhD student, right down to the spelling and grammatical errors, extracts from Jane's Intelligence reports were also added for good measure. The document has since been removed from the Downing Street website, but maybe is still in the Google cache.

An Iraqi missile in test firing has reached 180km and a bit, not the restricted 150km. Neither here nor there. This vital piece of 'evidence' for war was released a couple of days before the report to the UN Security Council. This information was provided by the Iraqis in their voluminous dossier to the UN last year. If it is judged a violation, and assuming the locations are known, the missiles can be destroyed. Weapons inspections work.

Colin Powell in his recent report to the UN showed an Iraqi missile launch site. A site that has not been used for years.

We are told there are links with Al-Qeida, even though none have yet been shown and are highly unlikely due to the secular nature of the Baghdad regime. 'Proof' was provided, a distant link living in the Kurdish controlled areas of northern Iraq. According to Colin Powell and Tony Blair, this radical Muslim enclave was the site of weapons of mass destruction. Inspections by journalists a few days later found a deserted TV/radio studio and deserted buildings, the occupants having fled for fear of a US/UK bombing raid.

On both sides of the Atlantic the intelligence and security services are leaking like a sieve, disowning any of the war propaganda being promulgated by our corrupt warmongering politicians.

Yes, there are proven Al-Qeida links. These links are with CIA, MI6, Pakistani ISA and the Saudi royal family.

Maybe Saddam Hussein has a few weapons of mass destruction, but he is not currently threatening anyone. The only time he has threatened (and used), was with the tacit approval of the West and armed to the teeth by the West. With his back against the wall and with nothing to lose, Saddam will be tempted to unleash whatever he has remaining in his dwindling arsenal.

The only rogue states threatening other countries are the US and UK.

From where did Saddam Hussein get his weapons, who were the suppliers? Why, last December, did the US government immediately seize the 12,000 pages of Iraq's weapons declaration, saying they contained 'sensitive information' which needed 'a little editing', this was after all a report to the UN Security Council not the US? Sensitive to who? The original Iraqi submission listed 150 American, British and other foreign companies that supplied Iraq with its nuclear, chemical and missile technology, many of them in illegal transactions. In 2000, Peter Hain, then a Foreign Office Minister, blocked a parliamentary request to publish the full list of law-breaking British companies. Why?

Yes, Saddam Hussein has been involved in providing support for Middle East terror groups, as has Syria and Iran. These groups are seen locally as liberators from Israeli occupation and oppression.

The biggest exporter of terror, especially during the Reagan/Bush years, has been the US.

Yes, Saddam Hussein has a bloody awful human rights record, but so has Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

US/UK are poised to rain down on Baghdad more cruse missiles in the first 48 hours than during the entire period of the last Gulf War.

The perverse logic of Bush/Blair is that you bomb Baghdad, with tens of thousands of people killed, into a pro-western democracy.

Formerly secular Iraq, has seen in the last few years, more mosques being constructed than any other Middle East country. Sanctions, with the people on subsistence levels, with the only source of income the oil for food programme, has consolidated the power of the Ba'ath Party. The only other source of help is radical Islam.

The last Gulf War did not see massive uprising across the Middle East because repressive regimes put down any sign of trouble with an iron fist. Reaction was also tempered by the fact a fellow Arab country had been invaded.

This time it is different. We are likely to see the entire Middle East in flames. Turkey, where the parliament has voted for war, has in excess of 90% public opinion against war. The Jordanian parliament has not met for several months, street protests are brutally put down. Kuwait is now little more than a US/UK military outpost, indigenous people are being kicked out of northern Kuwait.

Turkey has invoked the Nato mutual defence pact. But why is Turkey under threat, because Turkey is threatening Iraq.

Bush/Blair in their collective stupidity will ignite the Middle East, and in all probability start World War III, a Muslim jihad against the infidel in the West, terrorism will become the norm. It may even be what they want, the Orwellian endless war, good for arms sales, good for repression back home.

As if on cue, Osama bin Laden has called for a war against the West if Iraq is attacked.

Blair has shown himself to be nothing but a liar. Blair, Geoff Hoon (Defence Secretary) and Jack Straw (Foreign Secretary) are war criminals.

Blair likes to compare himself with Churchill, when in fact the opposite is true of the lying sanctimonious prig. Churchill granted parliament a vote to go to war with North Korea. There is a comparison with WWII, where a heavily militarised/industrialised country attacked a weaker defenceless country for its resources. The US/UK military alliance have taken on the role of Nazi Germany. We are being led to war by a man in the White House who stole the election and a man in Downing Street whose government gained the lowest percentage of the popular vote. The latest opinion polls put the support for war in the UK at 9%

Under the UN Charter to attack another country one either has to have been attacked or under risk of imminent attack necetating a pre-emptive strike. Neither applies to Iraq. A second UN Resolution means nothing as those voting yes will have been bullied and bribed to vote yes. Sanctions are already being threatened against Germany and France for not toeing the US/UK line.

Which country is next? Muslim pariah state Iran is developing ballistic missiles with the help of North Korea and China, has a programme for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Iran is far more of a threat than Iraq.

Action is needed to stabilise and demilitarise the entire Middle East, not just Iran, Iraq and Syria, but also Saudi Arabia, Cyprus and Israel. The Turks have to pull out of occupied northern Cyprus and establish a Kurdish state in the south east of Turkey.

Negotiations should begin with Saddam for a post-Saddam Iraq - he won't be around for ever - a democratic Iraq, possibly Iraq split in to three countries, with northern Iraq part of the settlement with Turkey for a Kurdish state. The Royal family has to toppled in Saudi Arabia, the Emir kicked out of Kuwait.

Iraq is an artificial creation of the British, created out of three Ottoman provinces following the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the carve up of the Middle East by Britain and France in the 1920s. Iraq was governed by a relatively benign monarchy, until toppled by a military coup, followed by a series of ever more repressive military coupes, until finally the CIA installed the Ba'ath Party and Saddam Hussein.

War is not the way to either stabilise the Middle East or rid the region of weapons of mass destruction or terrorism, it will have the exact opposite effect. It will push an already unstable region over the edge, act as a recruiting drive for Muslim terrorists. The last Gulf War left Saddam's weapons relatively unscathed, it was the inspection and monitoring regime that eliminated most of the weapons of mass destruction.

We must do our bit. The massive demonstrations send a clear political message but it is not enough. Stop the War coalition has to take direct action that hits where it hurts.

Boycott USA is a start - Starbucks, McDonald's, Monsatan, and especially Exxon. The next big day of action should be, not a mass demo as 15 February, rather a shut down of Exxon worldwide. Every locality has a local demo, but instead of in the town square, it is on the forecourt of every Exxon filling station and outside every Exxon oil refinery and oil terminal.