If Blix HAD been given the extra time the results would have as follows. Saddam would have played the same delaying game that he has ALWAYS played- throw 'em a crumb when the pressure is on and then delay again- until, for sheer economic reasons we had to withdraw our troops from the Persian Gulf region.
Then he could go back to the same hard-line intransigence that he has displayed since 1990 and before. All the while continueing his quest for the development of WMDs.
How will it all end? The following is an opinion from Libertarian, Neal Boortz from last Friday.
"I wrote the following paragraph during my show preparation last night:

      Try this scenario. Coalition troops have Baghdad surrounded, but are reluctant to enter the city to engage in
      urban warfare that would surely mean the deaths of large numbers of Iraqi citizens. So .. they wait. They lay
      siege to the city instead of invading it.

This morning I awake to find that Pentagon Don is talking about just such a tactic. It looks like a siege is the plan right
now.

This may well be the correct military decision at this point. But it isn't difficult to see what's going to happen. Simply
put, Saddam may well start killing his own people. He could cut off their water, deny them food and medicine. Lack of
basic sanitation could lead to widespread disease. As civilians start dying the pictures and video would be broadcast
for the world to see. America would be blamed. America won't let these people have their food, water and medicine.
America is killing innocent Iraqi women and children. Riots erupt in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and other Middle Eastern
nations. Leftist, anti-American protestors march by the tens of thousands in Paris, London and New York. America is
killing thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children.
No mention anywhere of Saddam.

Finally, America capitulates. The siege on Baghdad is lifted. Troops are withdrawn. Once again, the Iraqi people are
betrayed.

Think it can't happen?

Think again."

troll