£550 million for Iraq.

if the loss of hundreds, possibly thousands of lives, and the killing and maiming of children is not a crunch issue, then what in God's name is!

What I was really trying to say was that anyone trying to sort out the ills of the world is likely to end up with a whole lot of occupied territory and be hated by everyone else. I'd be more of an albion fan if their captain would play a more honest game. He got the opposing striker ( a nasty piece of work himself) sent off for showing his studs when video evidence reveals he was wearing carpet slippers.

I think it's sad that the govt are willing to spend that amount of money on a war, but uni fees keep increasing, there's a lack of teachers, nurses, fireman and in Housing they keep cutting funds, build no new affordable homes and they are cutting funding for after school activities. Doesn't bode well

Are you referring to the Iraqi victims of Hussein or the inevitable casualties sustained in liberating the rest of them?

Good point, well made, Skeeter, although I think your sums are a little out. I reckon you'd get ONE new hospital, all kitted out with the latest equipment and ready to fly by the year 2010 for that sum, not several. Still, good point.

If the £550million was the only cost you could probably rationalise that expenditure to liberate a nation from tyranny. Only it isn't is it? Yesterday there was a memorial for the British dead in Iraq; fit and healthy men who shouldn't be in their graves by now. At the same time we're told that records haven't actually been kept of the Iraqi civilians killed since the start of the war but it is thought that around fifty seven thousand have been terminally liberated so far. Makes you proud to be British.

we cannot be held responsible for the former, but we can and should be for the latter...

I wouldn't pay that much for Iraq, I don't think it's much of a bargain. The auctioneer is obviously being over-optimistic, but I'd be prepared to offer £500.

Again I disagree. We CAN as a world community be held responsible for the actions of the despots that we allow to exist in our midst. Just because we don't have to suffer the murderous consequences of their existance doesn't excuse us from removing them from terrorising those that do. This is one of the crucial aspects of a shrinking world; we ARE all responsible, simply because we are aware of them and have no right to turn our backs. It isn't about Americans, Brits or moslems. it isn't about oil either, it's about human rights in every corner of the world. I for one would have no hesitation in removing Mugabe. Neither would I have any doubts about telling countries like Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, the Phillipines and Iran that they must institute free elections and dismantle some of their ludicrous Sharia laws. In fact I'd dismantle all religious control of men and women everywhere. We should start right here at home by dumping our ridiculous poncing royals.

Karl: ok then, I expect the figures are a bit out, its hard to know. But I estimated that thers around 20-25,000 schools, so its about enough for an extra teacher; though of course, only for a year. Still, that would make a big difference to a lot of people, Less workload for the staff, smaller classes, better education. Cost of war: I don't know, I read somewhere it was about 3 billion. If thats right its a phenomenal sum. Maybe enough for a few hospitals, but you're right, its guess work. I find I'm quite equivocal about the Iraq thing, don't know about anyone else. I'm not in faviour of war (who is?), but I'm not in favour of leaving a mass murdering torturing tyrant alone to rape, kill, and terrorise; so I guess on balance it was right to do something. But its the WAY they do it. And I didn't expect the aftercosts, the rebuilding: 550 million!! Were we ever told we'd have to pay that? On top of the war itself? Couldn't we do with it ourselves, in this country? Don't we have people to house, children to educate, sick people to look after? Thats all I was thinking, really.

Totally agreewith that missi. Somehow, religious persecution (or persecution masquerading as religion) has to be opposed. Ditto for state sponsored terrorism. The problem is though, that the USA, and others, have historically been more than happy to tolerate, even promote, oppression in other countries for their own ends. So it becomes difficult when its an individual state. I always supposed that was what the UN was set up for. But no. It seems to do very little in this area. Its good at UNICEF and health things, but the central problem that gives rise to issues which then have to be dealt with by UNICEF and WHO; is the problem of state corruption and oppression. Until the UN finds the political will to tackle that; (and lets face it, that WAS the point of the UN, following the 2nd WW, the commitment that state violence should not get that out of hand again), until it gets that will, then problems that arise from that kind of corruption will always happen. In the meantime, it will, perhaps unfortunately, be down to individual states to do the job. But, its the WAY they do it.

> I'm not in faviour of war (who is?), but I'm not in favour of leaving a mass murdering torturing tyrant alone to rape, kill, and terrorise; so I guess on balance it was right to do something. < You can't have it both ways skeets, so what you gonna do? Close your eyes and walk away leaving the innocent to their fate, or do something about it, knowing that some of the innocent will have to suffer too so that the rest may be free, and most of all, your conscience will be salved? It's tough in the real world. I think all that can be expected of anyone is to do what they think is right. The fact that others may feel you got it wrong is no reason not to follow your heart, just as long as you meant well and right, it's an acceptable decision for the individual. Some people shy away from the hard decisions in life because they can't shoulder the responsibility that inevitably accompanies them, but that is really just cowardice. To avoid a difficult decision on the basis that maybe some innocents will suffer is also cowardice, it's not possible to get through life without sharing some guilt here and there. The welfare of the many has to come before that of the individual.

I do agree with that sentiment, 'the good of the many outweighs the good of the few' or 'the greatest good of the greatest number'. But, we must be careful not to think that this gives us, or those who claim to represent us, carte blanche. There is always a balance to be struck, I think. I actually came down to agreeing with Blair, recognising that a tyrant had to be deposed. I think he was right. Those who fought the war did so voluntarily, they knew the risks. Its not like Vietnam, where there was mass conscription. So in many ways yes, I agree. The problem is the way it was all conducted, the seeming lies, the cover ups. Politicians need to learn to be honest, and to trust people to understand and to engage with the real issues; after all, most of us are quite capable of doing so. What bothers me now is the aftercosts, like I said, I don't remember that being spoken about, maybe it was and I missed it. Its a lot of money to pump into another country. Why can't the UN do it? They're loaded aren't they?

Politicians say whatever they think they have to to get their way. Those that decided that war was the right way (and that obviously included Blair AND his cabinet who in the main have escaped the slagging that Blair got) then dressed it up for public consumption so as to get broad support for their intended action. A politician that always tells the unadorned bare truth would not last five mins, because his honesty would leave him open to the dishonest. Personally I believe that anyone who volunteers for military service and then thinks they either have the right to decide which orders to follow or that they have been hired as manequins to sit on a beach somewhere until their time is up, is just plain bloody stupid. Also anyone that thinks that the cost of war ends with the last bullet is naive in the extreme. There is ALWAYS an aftermath to be paid for and it almost always exceeds the cost of the preceding military action. The UN seems to be reticent at the moment, mainly because the war was prosecuted against their will and Blush defied them and told 'em to eff off in the first place. Bush has adopted a 'we fought the war and paid the price so we will dole out the reconstruction jobs' policy and refused to allow the UN any say. Therefore you can't blame them for adopting a 'you break your neighbours window, you pay for it' stance.

I'm edging towards Skeeter's argument here. Apart from the fact that we're all such good blokes, why on earth should we give any more of our hard-earned wedge to a foreign country. Surely it's up to us as individuals to decide which collection tin we drop our spare change into. Yes, we did break our neighbour's window, but we did it because our neighbour was an ******* and was a danger not only to his own household but also to everyone else in the street. So we got rid of him for the good of all. Let his own household clear up the mess. We've done our bit. We have enough problems of our own to sort out. However, £550m is a such a paltry sum. It's peanuts! It would cost that much to renovate a listed building and turn it into a block of luxury apartments. I'm not saying that we couldn't put it to better use, but why quibble over such short change?

You can't have responsibility without power. The trouble with removing evil regimes and replacing them with something better is that the locals don't like it. Nothing supports a dictator more than a foreign threat, and if its perfidious albion or the great satan then so much the better. The US is undoubtedly the most super technologically and militarilly dominant superpower the world has ever seen yet all of that might cannot subdue the iraquis who don't want us in their country. I think the trouble the US has with being the sole superpower is that both they and everyone else believes that all of the world's problems can be theirs to solve. Look how the Liberians felt let down that US troops had not intervened in their civil war. We in the UK are fortunate that we are no longer in that position. No-one has any right to expect much of us nowadays. I read somewhere a comment that the British Empire grew through people saying "something must be done" everytime a piece of savagery was reported somewhere in the globe, and among all of the pillaging and profiteering there was probably an element of trying to do the right thing, especially in the late nineteenth century when everything started to get completely out of control. Nine times out of ten intervention would make the thing worse and the US is finding exactly the same thing. What I can't forgive them for is having the power to curb Israel's excesses in the middle east and not lifting a finger to do so.

I would "pay" for breaking my neighbour's window if it was done by mistake, on the other hand if I had done this on purpose, I wouldn't have paid for anything! This is the way I see things, that's why I avoid breaking anybody's windows unless they start breaking mine. :)

P.S. Have you checked out the cost of just one cruise missile? I haven't been able to get a valuation from Google because it keeps showing me "low-cost cruise missiles" but to just build one AND purchase the software to get it off the ground comes to quite a substantial sum. I think that a 30-hour mission alone by a fleet of supersonic aircraft-type bombers with hard men in hats and steel jaws costs about $12m. You have to be looking at about $20m for a single cruise. That alone would pay the salary of about 1500 teachers, paramedics or firefighters for a year.

Total cost to the UK is nearer £3 billion...there is no excuse for wasting that money on an unnecessary war...and losing so many lives needlessly... I'm a long-time (moderate) Labour supporter...but will vote LibDem next time, because of the war... To think we waited 18 years to get rid of a Tory government, only to have it replaced by another one!

I once thought Jim Callaghan was too right wing. On putting money into the reconstruction of Iraq though. Doesn't anyone think that this could be an investment that would save money (and lives) in the long term. If the country is not somehow made stable and put economically back on its feet then it will fall into the hands of another dictator, and sooner or later we will start lobbing some of those very expensive cruise missiles at them again. After the first world war the victorious allies decided that Germany had to be punished for their wrongdoings and imposed a regime of reparations on the country. The result was a crippled economy which destablised the country and allowed the Nazi party to come to power. Result, another world war. Following the second world war, the americans being the only viable victors, did for once everything right and pumped money, not just into Germany but Europe as a whole through the Marshall Plan. Long term result; a mature and democratic Germany which has more sense than to get involved in adventures like invading Iraq. I do take Mississippi's point about soldiers who join up having to expect to fight and agree with the general argument. I think there is a difference though between expecting to defend your country's legitimate interest and acting as the military wing of the oil industry.

You're reading too much populist tabloid copy Argy. (perfidious albion? I take it you are not a fan then?) >> the British Empire grew through people saying "something must be done" everytime a piece of savagery was reported somewhere in the globe << I beg to differ, it grew mainly because Britain instigated the savagery financed by drug sales in the far east. To be honest I get a bit pissed off everytime somebody visits the sins of the fathers on the kids. Everybody should be allowed a clean slate at birth. (Unless of course they are born into a malignant royal dynasty, in which case they should be drowned at birth)

Now £3b really is a significant amount! I've voted Lib/Dem for the last few years because more importantly, to me at any rate, they put up a kissing-gate in our alley, thus making it impossible for any little sods to drive their off-road motorbikes along the path outside our house. I now no longer have to drag them off their bikes and "flop them in the mud" as my little boy said, and I no longer have to worry about him being knocked over by a motorbike if he plays in the front garden. It's all down to perspective, isn't it?

Lol at Karl's gaffe in re-opening the 'thug drags kid off motorbike' scenario. Goatee, to flounce out of the party because you don't agree with one of the records being played shows a rather superficial belief in, and understanding of political ideology. Argyll, it's your turn to wear the hat of commonsense this week then? I don't believe all this rubbish about oil interests though. That's not to say I can't see that oil is an important commodity, just that I believe the security of the world is a more important consideration and I believe THAT was the main concern at the time.

I'm not flouncing out mississippi, I'm storming out in a very masculine way, because this is a crunch issue that transcends ideology and political tribalism...and I've just realised I can't vote Lib Dem either because they are far too pro Europe... aaaaargh!! there's nowhere for me to go....

Start your own Goat Party, you can use the devil as your emblem. By the way do they still make crunchies?

Cue Tony to say 'vote Red Pepper' except we can't. Goat's last post is interesting though. How are we middle muddle headed part time politico's to vote nowadays?

I disagree, it's not a crunch issue for the ideology, just a personal one for you and maybe others, Goatee. A belief an ideology is bigger than an individual issue. I'm not saying the issue is unimportant but I don't believe it should reciprocate mass defections. Perhaps it requires a more active role on the part of the individual, i.e. party membership, conference attending, policy forming etc. I don't agree with many of the individual policies of the Labour party, and dislike intensely some of the front bench, Brown and Prescott in particular, but that has no bearing on my underlying belief in the rightness of socialist ideology as opposed to capitalist. I'm not a lefty revolutionist either so don't go getting the idea that I'm a 'Citizen Smith'.