The definitive debunking of the arguments for a war on Iraq - by the former weapons inspector who is currently a major voice throughout the international media and knows from the inside what the risks really are - both of not going to war and going to war. During the seven years that UN weapons inspections took place in Iraq (until they were banned in 1998), Scott Ritter and other inspectors confirmed that Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programme had effectively been destroyed. This undermines Bush and Blair's premise for waging war on Iraq. If the weapons aren't there what is the war about? Ritter and Pitt explore the White House (and No. 10 Downing Street's) premises for war, and show the complete lack of any plausible link between Hussein and al-Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden, like Bush, has also called for the death of Saddam Hussein. Ritter and Pitt show why a forced 'regime change' is absurd and won't lead to democracy in a nation divided for centuries. And they have a bleak forecast of the possible consequences for American and British troops if there is a ground war.