Consequencies U.N.defined I think this is where the UN has failed us all... In this age of peaceful diplomacy, how much non-compliance to world order is "too much" before forceful action must be taken? Well? BREAKING THE LAW. Saddam appearently agreed to the UN Resolutions over the past 12 years or so. Yet, has violated each one despite trade sanctions. What's the consequence? The latest resolution passed (1441), identifies he must *proactively* follow it's rules on documentation, inspections, disarmament, and private meetings with scientists. Slowly, and thru SHOW of force, he's slowly and reluctantly beginning to perform *some* of these tasks. Despite these reluctant actions, by world law, he's already failed. MORE ON CONSEQUENCES. How many UN Resolutions has the US, France, Russia, UK or broken? I have no idea. If so, what were the consquences of our actions? Were we punished? What's the precedent? CRAZY MOTHER Due to Saddam's obvious well-documented and historical disregard for human-kind and world order... *this* is why we need to be wary about moving our 12year war into an "active" state. Sure, with our military technology, we'll kick some ass, but he's a crazy mother f*cker, and probably has some very self-destructive shiite(or suni) up his sleeve... watch out for well-paid Suicide Surrenderers. *boom* peace- seanrox