Teribus: One thing is consisted in all of them, he [Blix] clearly states that he and his inspection teams did not receive the full and pro-active co-operation of the Iraqi Authorities - 1441 demanded that from day one - hence the serious consequences that followed, even before March 2003, GWB and the US Administration made no secret whatsoever what was meant by 'Serious Consequences'

Just so we have you on record, Teribus: Do you state, for the record, that because Saddam refused to kiss some one's boots and serve them tea personally on their inspections, that a war (killing 2000 Americans and many more Iraqis) was therefore justified? OK, so I've stretching the language a bit to emphasise a point, but do you think that failure to provide "full and pro-active" co-operation is a casus belli???

I just want to know how cheaply you value himan life.

I'd note, BTW, that "serious consequences" was deliberately left vague (I believe in part so that the U.N. had some flexibility in their potential responses depending on circumstances andthe extent of any transgressions). If they had wanted to leave no doubt as to what would happen, as you seem to be claiming here, they would have said "war". Believe me, they're not unintelligent people (which, of course, brings to mind where we should be placing you).

Cheers,