@Dralix- I have seen two distinctly irreconcilable views of the UN trotted out by the same people and want it clarified as I move on to discuss resolution 1441:
Either the Arab world is laughing at the U.N. because it won't punish Iraq or the Arab world
IS the U.N. and they live to make political attacks on Israel. Either the UN is in charge and we abide by their decisions or the UN resolution is meaningless and we don't base our case against Iraq based on that resolution.
Now, we're on the brink of a war because we have been pushed there- and not by Saddam, who DOES fear the UN and who wants a war just about as badly as he wants to meet Allah and be judged for his misdeeds. We are on the brink of a war because of the firm language and firm resolve to go to war of America's top brass- a resolve that gave the option to the UN of passing 1441 or being ignored in favor of an IMPERIALIST invasion (the only kind, btw).
If the UN decides that a military action is necessary to disarm Saddam (I doubt they will opt for "depose" in the wording, that simply isn't the UN's job), then support would be justified for such action (although as a moral pacifist I can not ever support such action). If the UN wants more time, who are the posters in this forum to decide what their role is? People, and governments, who stand opposed to military action do so not out of a sentimental attachment to Saddam but out of an absolute aversion to mass destruction and bloodshed. Why must I constantly repeat that point? There is no "national self interest" for anyone but Saddam in avoiding war, but there is MATURITY and GRAVITAS in seeking to defuse this situation.
The attacks from Iraq are not forthcoming. Lies, yes, hiding things, maybe, attempts to intimidate their own populace, who doesn't? But threats on the lives of the inspectors or the numerous American doctors and missionaries who even now work to do actual good in Iraq rather than the dubious good of destroying a whole ant hill to kill one ant are not forthcoming.
I see no way under the rule of international law to say that the UN has the power or right to remove an individual leader from office, and maybe Bush should be glad of that. Now if you want to level war crimes charges at Saddam or crimes against humanity, that would certainly fly: too bad the US vetoed the idea of joining the international war crimes court treaty.
EDIT: @Everybody: let's also try and calm down, this thread has become a minefield!