The high quality of threads like this has to give the lie to the old prejudice that big penises and little brains tend to go together.

As a fellow Brit, I want to record my agreement with much of what Finnmark has written. I don't know why, but I had you down as a Scandinavian ...

Just to stick to the UK role in all this, on my reckoning (someone no doubt can put me right on this), aside from the ill-judged 1956 Suez venture this is the first time in a century that British troops have been sent into battle other in response to an offensive from an enemy. If you are looking for some criterion by which Britain may be reasonably judged as "great", I reckon that our record of fair play, the British instinct of support for the underdog, and of resorting to battle only as the last resort (as in 1939) could be it.

But given what is happening now, I wonder. The only basis for supporting this war in my view would be solid evidence that Iraq was amassing weapons with offensive intent ... so far IMHO we haven't seen it. If there is real evidence to support the need for this war and all the deaths it is causing, I fail to see why it can't be made public. Before the war started our leaders in their rhetoric were every bit as belligerent as were the Americans; it was almost as if we were spoiling for war. That I think is shaming, if nothing else.

I have a hunch that British attitudes to France have probably changed for the better over the past few weeks as a result of their scepticism about the war - despite the best efforts of our tabloid press.

I agree that the troops have to be supported, and now the war has begun we have to hope for a speedy end to it. But I fear that the long term results will be devastating.