>>Lets blame the messenger - it was Bush who railroaded resolution 1441 through the UN, Hans Blix only has to check on the compliance.
>
>Didn't France vote for 1441? And Russia? And the entire Security Council? And you are saying the Bush railroaded those countries? You do live in your own little world.

I haven't read Len's answer yet, but my point of view is...
of course President Bush "railroaded" the U.N. into resolution 1441. He said, essentially, 'prove the U.N. has relevance and pass the resolution because I'm gonna war on Iraq regardless'. I'd say that members voted for it for two reasons:
1) an attempt to save some semblance of value of the concept of the United Nations;
2) to give themselves more time to undo President Bush's intentions.

Keep in mind that, heretofore, the U.N. has passed countless UNTOOTHED resolutions. Who'da thunk that the standard handling for such things was expected to be DIFFERENT THIS TIME!?!?!?! Not most of the members, I'd hazard.

What matters most is preventing Iraq from using any WMDs that they **may** have. Getting rid of Saddam would be damned nice too, but it isn't worth thousands upon thousands of lives. They are pretty well hamstrung now.
The U.N. was present as peacekeepers for almost 3 decades in Cyprus. The U.N. is still present on the Golan Heights between Israel/Syria. I'm sure they have been other places a long while too.
So what's the REAL problem with leaving inspectors interminably in Iraq and continuing surveillance flights and the like indefinitely??? Seems a very cheap arrangement to save several thousands of lives, at least to me.
Many speculate that the REAL problem is both control of oil and the 'conversion' of all middle east states to "democracy". Yet I don't see ANY effort at all to convert China or North Korea to democracy. I wonder why???