Teribus:

[Dubya] acted to serve the national interests of his country, ...

You misspelled "his own political interests". Remember Andrew Card's (unintentionally revealing) comment about when you roll out new models?

... and of his country's allies in the middle east.

Ummm, you mean the 'good guys' like "Bandar Bush"? You know, I really can't think of too many of Dubya's allies in the middle east that came out in favour of the invasion. But maybe Israel thought it a great idea. Refresh my memory: Who else there was all "rah, rah" for Dubya's war-mongering?

OK the UN had NO resolution in place prohibiting the US from taking unilateral action.

Glad to see you admit the U.N. didn't sanction Dubya's little war.

The U.N. (and treaties) are generally against the idea of aggressive wars (pre-emption has still to become accepted as a valid form of diplomacy). Only under exceptional circumstances would they approve of such. This was not such an occasion.

Just so that we get this clearly understood Ron - He did not need to get any blessing or permission from any other body, national or international to do that.

Sez you. But YANAL. In fact, your 'opinion' here ain't worth the paper the Iraq constitution is printed on.

As...they...were...UN...resolutions,...when...was.....the..UN...going...to...do....anything.... to...enforce...them......and....with....what?

Ummm, with what they decide, if they decide that circumstances warrant. Seeing as the inspectors, contrary to Dubya's hallucinations, were in Iraq and doing their job -- for some reason totally strange and unfathomable to Republicans, their sycophants, and the 101st Fighting Keyboarder chickenhawks -- the U.N. thought this peaceful resolution should play out, and refused to back Dubya's 'rush to war'... to the sorrow of Cindy Sheehan and two thousand other mothers.

Cheers,