So no UK or USA chemical/biological weapons since 1960, Teribus? How do you categorise napalm? ASnd the uranium-depleted armour-piercing stuff that still litters parts of Bosnia-Hercegovina? And if I may be allowed a little diversion into morality, why was it OK for the UK to use chemical weapons in the 1920s (in Iraq, by happy coincidence) and not OK for Saddam to use them in the 1980s.

After quoting Blix above you then tell us (in red, but forgetting to tell us who you are quoting) "what was required." Well for sure there were indeed "requirements". The bit that's missing is any suggestion that failure to meet the requirements would be all-out war. Let's keep in mind here that Iraq is not the only country to have flouted a UN resolution. Israel has done it repeatedly, with impunity.

On the question of 1441, of course, we now know that your assertion about Chirac's position was completely without foundation. Chirac did NOT say he would oppose a second resolution in all circumstances. He just said he would not support such a resolution until Iraq (and Blix) had been allowed more time.

In this respect Chirac, Blix and most of the civilised world were all on the same page. Only the US admin was pressing for a war without UN authority. Perhaps your mistake has been to accept too readily that "might is right."