Actually, I criticised you, your judgement. It was you who drew a conclusion from the series of quotes, and since you haven't detailed any argument as to how you think your judgement follows from those facts, only Bush's words were there as 'arguments'. And I was aghast that you will base your judgement solely on the position of the guilty side - what the admin-friendly paper's collection of quotes can certainly not be called is an objective sampling of all the relevant facts.

And the omitted facts make your conclusion unwarranted on several levels. You forget about the explicit declarations that 1441 does not contain an automatism to war. You forget that 1441 entrusted the UN SC (kind of the UN's overseeing board, made up of 15 states not just the USA and France) with making a decision about whether the UN did its job, and what should be done. You forget that war is not only not the only serious consequence the UN SC could have meted out, but there were actual proposals - from France and Germany, again from France, Germany and Russia, separately from Mexico and others -, all of which would have meant a strenghtened and boradened inspections regime, but not war, and hence the USA dismissed them out of hand. You forget that Bush's, the Chicago Tribune's, and your interpretation failed to convince the overwhelming majority of the UN SC members, despite threats and bribes for all who resisted.

Furthermore, you forget to measure the UN's success in practical terms. You make it as if Saddam violating UN orders means failure, end of story. Whereas even if Saddam drags his feet, if he could be later forced into accepting demands, then the UN was effective, massively effective. This is how they dismantled the WMD programme: bit by bit, starting from Saddam's complete denial, then forcing him all the way down until he had to hand over even remaining documents. Saddam even didn't dare to touch the UN's seals on equipment and yellowcake during the four years of the UN's absence. You forget that starting an illegal war that kills 100,000 people (or even 10,000, or even 1,000) is a much bigger crime than delaying the success of inspectors.

Furthermore, you forget the US's role in the story as constant abuser and saboteur of the inspections process, an even more significant forcer of superseded resolutions than Saddam. You forget the parts about regional disarmament as condition in the post-Gulf-War resolutions. You forget the twisted story of the no-fly zones, which weren't approved by the UN (they were initially a US-British-French trilateral unilateralism, the French dropped out when Clinton started making decisions alone). You forget Desert Fox and what preceded it (from entry into palaces through undercover agents and provocations to thinly veiled excuses). You forget that Bush started the air war in August 2002 with a campaign to bomb air defenses unprovoked. You forget public declarations from Cheney down that the inspections are worthless, before they started (which were a rather clear message as to what Saddam has to prepare for). You forget the information withheld from UNSCOM and IAEA, despite 1441 spelling it out as a duty. You forget the bugged telephones at the UN and at UNSCOM. You forget that 1441 upholds 1284, which spells out a programme and timeframe for inspections, whose implementation was denied to Blix et al in a rush to war - the time for decision would have come after.

So I criticised your judgement, which seems as strange as when you declared that the Oil For Food program gave more into Saddam's pocket than on humanitarian goals.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

an 'ad hom' is an attack  or insult towards the person's character, NOT his beliefs or even behaviour.

the mass madia is full of the arguments you consistently bring to the table here. i am glad for your presence , as it encourages retorts and rebuttals of the quality made below to you and your talking points.

i'm sure you're a nice, reasonable guy, but like many with your viewpoints, you offer nothing new or alternative in your posts.

i wish you well, as usually you are serious, polite and have done some considerable homework.

however, i am continually reminded by your predictable positioning and explanations that i haven't learned anything new from your posts, and it does irritate me somehow that someone of your obvious intelligence should come here and repeat stuff that parrots those who are placing our entire planet in peril right now;  i come here for new and radical offerings to the important debates of today this forum offers.

so it's not personal, but when you accused him of an 'ad hom' it just eerily reminds me of how easily even a good thinker can become defensive and act like a victim, so to blow smoke.

as for you being a troll, that's not what i said.

i do find that conversational tactic deeply troll-like however!

behaviour/person = reflective but not equal

your character cannot be inferred by internet posts, but your behaviour as a writer can be seen and commented on.

a troll is an attention-seeking liar.

when challenged, their behaviour often consists of blowing smoke or playing victim.

ever notice?

if you come here to seriously and humourously debate with everyone, even though as you mention you are often the only one coming from where you do, then that's great, and all the better to have opposing viewpoints.

if you come here to undermine, sow doubt, and try to disempower original thinking by crying foul when there wasn't one, then you're a troll.

just saying...

thanks for reading

~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~