Micheal Moore's "Farenheit 9/11" was on Channel 4 last night.

Ever since the invasion of Iraq was announced, I've been forced to sit on the fence. I have never managed to find a convincing enough argument either for or against the invasion. As many times as someone points out how Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 (true) and didn't have a working relationship with Al-Quaeda (true) and he shouldn't have been invaded, but negotiated with, someone else points out that Saddam was an evil man who murdered mutilated and terrorised his own population for 25 years (true) and he deserved to go.

In strict terms of being part of the War on Terror and an attack on a terrorist regime, the invasion was unfounded. But undeniably Saddam had to go.

I'm on the fence about the resulting American occupation of Iraq. On one hand, it's evidence of the US's arrogance, corruption and imperialism, but on the other hand, Iraq actually doesn't have any military force which could take over. The country would rapidly descend into bloody civil war or simple all-out chaos if the coalition troops left.

I really can't see how I can fall into one side of the argument or the other.

So I was very interested in "Farenheit 9/11"

What a dissappointment. Moore doesn't provide any easily checkable proofs, but relies on pathos and emotional blackmail to present that which comes across as a personal vendetta against George Bush. Now, there's no reason why this isn't a good thing, but it also strips any credibility from the film.

I can see as much wrong and as much to criticise in this film as I can about the whole situation.

So I'm still on the fence.

Iraq goes to the polls this weekend for the first time since 1954. Good luck to them.