Saddam may have been repressive, but to the best of my knowledge, he was one of the more liberal Middle Eastern leaders. I have heard people try to connect Islamic terrorism with Saddam, but this is just nonsense, he had no links with them. In many ways he was the glue that held that country together, for better or worse. His removal allowed for extremists to pour in. So I feel the claim that it was to stop terrorism has a weak justification.

I think Gwahir, despite what little I know, makes a very valid point regarding the welfare of the Iraqi people - this was at very best, a verbal afterthought to try and give the war some credence.

You really cannot avoid the oil question - just how much did this motivate the decision? We do know that much, if not all of Iraq's oil supplies have been bought up by foreign business. However I am sadly lacking in any facts regarding the oil situation prior to the war, so really do not know how much thought and attention should be given to this.

I know that the UK is to hold a semi public inquiry into the war and the reasons for going, which may or may not shed some light on the situation. I doubt many of the big questions will be given a satisfactory answer, at least not for a long time.