I have yet to hear what "serious consequences" means, given the situation at the time that wording was adopted. UN having sat on it's collective arse doing absolutely nothing, apart from talk, for the best part of 12 years, while Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at them.

The wording of a previous resolution was good enough for the UN to permit "Desert Fox" under the Clinton administration - but not good enough apparently for any action under the Bush administration. The difference, post 11th September 2001, they knew that Bush would treat the matter a great deal more seriously.

And before I get the call that 911 had nothing to do with Iraq - I know and fully appreciate that point. However, none of you, who argue against the American governments stance on Iraq, can offer any form of guarantee whatsoever, that a regime with a history of supporting terrorist groups, that are becoming more and more international, a regime with a history of actively pursuing weapons programmes to acquire weapons of mass destruction, would not at some time in the future pass that knowledge, technology and material on to such a terrorist group. The evaluation of that threat says that it is possible.