Dianavan:

20 x 20 hindsight is a terrific vantage point from which to argue. The only problem is that you use that vantage point very selectively.

Point 1 - The whole object of the exercise was to ensure that Iraq had no WMD. Now it was UNSCOM that stated that Iraq had WMD, or had stocks of WMD that were unnaccounted for. The UN Resolutions levelled at Iraq were all geared to establishing that that country did not posses WMD. Saddam Hussein refused to co-operated with the UN to establish this.

Point 2 - Since when has the UN been the arbiter of what and what isn't in any member sovereign state's interest - rhetorical question, the answer to which is NEVER. The decision by the US Government to invade Iraq in March 2003 was correct based upon evaluations made at that time on the intelligence available at that time.

Point 3 - UN resolutions, with respect to Iraq, were not solely based on WMD, they covered a whole raft of topics. But in relation to WMD, the UN resolutions centred on the verified establishment, clear and positive, that Iraq no longer possessed WMD. Subsequent to the US led invasion, I think it can be stated with some degree of certainty that Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Party of Iraq now do not posses any WMD. So in actual fact Dianavan the US Government was 100% correct in acting as it did.

Now to quote your own words - "When will this realization sink into your thick skull."