Just reading back a bit further...... I guess you might not be reading here anymore.... but when the UN gave Saddam another final resolution and backed it with the words "serious consequences", maybe you can remember, what it was the UN had in mind?

To me, the UN had technically backed the force able removal of saddam for breach of his UN agreements, but th ey just hand wrangled over it for so long... its like the child ready to jump into the water, and they stand there for so long, it takes a slight nudge to get them to actually plunge in!

We realize that this was a far more complicated issue than simply Saddam breached another UN agreement, and the serious consequences that followed..... the US was glad to see him breach the UN agreement, and there were a multitude of other reasons besides the UN breaches that the US had for wanting to get Saddam out.....

Anyway, to me, it is a far more complicated and complex situation than some in here make it out to be... its not clear cut on either side.... but just the fact that the Un had agreed to serious consequences for one last failure to comply, gives their technical "backing" of the US and coalition efforts to remove saddam.