"As far as France and Russia were concerned "serious consequences" meant, no further action to be taken"

Is that proveable fact, Teribus, or are you putting words into France and Russia's mouths? The UN's agenda (and I agree that it is a 'weak' organisation), does not, and should not reflect that of individual member states'.

The USA was the only one (originally) to have interpreted 'serious consequences' the way they did; they got 'us' onboard because of that oft talked about 'special relationship'.

Sure, Saddam was a spoilt child in charge of a country; quite a lot of people in those kind of positions, are. If member states, however, paid what they owe to the UN coffers, perhaps it wouldn't be the semi-eunoch that it is presently conceived to be.

World Peace entails World solutions, and the UN should be there to ensure that no rouge state, democratically elected or not, tries to shift the agenda to their own private interests.

But I agree with you about the kit issue; I joined up for 'King and Country', not for Blair, Thatcher, Bush, or anyone else, and we have been used as the pawns that we are, to serve political interests more and more. And I don't know about you, but many of my friends have died needlessly on the eve of elections.

Jim