Kevin, as far as I am aware I did not mention Mr. Bush or Mr Blair in regard to the process of determining Iraqi non-compliance, what constitutes a material breach of resolution 1441, or, with regard to what the term "serious consequences" in effect means. All those as you correctly state should be the sole preserve of the UNSC, as advised by Dr's Blix and AlBaradei, and I did refer to both those gentlemen in my post.

You went to the effort of detailing the precise contents of UNSC Resolution 1441 in order that there could be no misunderstanding of what was being discussed - for that, on my part I am most grateful.

The basis of my comments with regard to Resolution 1441 are that terms, conditions, stipulations, call them what you will, came into force in their entirety the day thet Iraq agreed to them. Not "We (Iraq) will comply in part if they (UNMOVIC/IAEA) bring up such and such a point on such and such a date". Then "We will concede on such and such a matter if the UN takes such and such a stance over this issue." - That is not the way that the process was meant to be implimented. Under the terms of Resolution 1441 there are demonstrably five instances of Iraqi non-compliance that could be viewed as Material Breaches. It remains to be seen what the UNSC intend to do about them after this final, final opportunity.

Initially neither France, Russia or China wanted UNSC Resolution 1441 - In fact they argued vehemently against it.

UNSC Resolution 1441 was a greatly modified version of the USA & Britains original draft resolution - blocked by France, Russia and China. Now lo and behold look what Germany and France (backed by Russia) have come up with - The Mirage Proposal - The original US & UK draft that they blocked. Pity it wasn't adopted back in September of last year - it might have ensured Iraqi co-operation from the start.

Fact - Iraq must disarm and renounce its policy on WMD, and prove to the world that it has done so.

Fact - The only way that this can be done is for the Iraqi's to do this themselves.

Fact - If they refuse to do so they must be compelled to do so. The word of the current Iraqi regime cannot be relied upon. Sanctions do not work. The only stumbling block to this situation being resolved is the current Iraqi regime, therefore if Iraq must be compelled to disarm - That regime must go.

Back the US & UK stance and the "serious consequences" will ensure that the matter will be resolved.

Back the French and German stance and the "serious consequences" will ammount to a "severe talking to" as a result of which nothing is resolved and the UN is shown to be precisely the paper tiger its predecessor the League of Nations was - i.e. totally irrelevant.