Developments over the week-end would seem to indicate that former "Desert Storm" coalition members are moving towards a requirement by Iraq to re-admit the UN weapons inspection teams. On the perfectly reasonable premise that if Iraq (during the period 1998 - present) has not continued to develope weapons of mass destruction then they can have no objection to those teams going into the country to perform their task - unhindered. If Iraq refuses then those formely sceptical coalition partners will permit any UN APPROVED military action from bases within their borders.

This apparent change of heart has been formulated by countries making up the Arab League.

In previous postings on this thread, and other related threads, I have been of the opinion that without Saudi Arabia and Turkey on side - No attack will occur.

A great number of correspondents ask about what hard evidence exists, and why this has not been placed before the United Nations and Congress - don't hold your breath - it won't be. What ever evidence does exists will be shared with the governments of the five permanent members of the security council and with the governments of countries most likely to be immediately at risk. The world and its dog will not be privy to this information as that would undoubtedly compromise the sources of this intelligence. Something is known, otherwise what is the basis for the above mentioned about face by some of Iraq's immediate neighbours.

While above there is a statement about reluctance to use atomic/nuclear weapons - please accept as CB pointed out in another post above - there are others who would only be too willing to use such weapons, and those weapons do not require any sophisticated delivery system to place them at the designated target.

The fact that Saddam Hussein is not an expansionist Hitler is not from his want of trying, but more because he has been effectively contained. Subsequent to the events of 11th September, 2001, it has been dramatically shown that the term a-symmetric warfare does present a real threat - not only to the USA, but to every nation on this planet. This is different in nature to anything seen before and as such requires a different approach that cannot be paralleled to events in history.

The speach to the UN was exceptionally well crafted, it was meant to focus the attention of the governments on a specific problem that has been allowed to fester for too long. The result will be a UNITED NATIONS resolution that requires compliance of Iraq. Iraq may elect to ignore that resolution, in which case any action taken will be taken by the UNITED NATIONS - not the USA in isolation.

My guess is that the inspectors will be allowed in. The powers that be in Iraq have witnessed over the past few days:

1. Establishment of a major HQ facility in Qatar.

2. Announced build up of US forces in Kuwait to 26,000.

3. Saudi Statement regarding possible use of Saudi land bases should Iraq refuse to admit and co-operate with UN weapons inspectors/ UN resolutions regarding their deployment and work.

There must be within their ranks a collective feeling of deja-vu.

To forestall the attack as described by CB above, intelligence agencies, throughout the world must identify likely bases from which that attack may come, they must also identify regimes that are likely to support/sponsor those planning such an attack. Those bases must then be made untennable.

Regarding other countries ignoring UN Resolutions what about looking at it from the other perspective. It will be easier for the UN to convince those states to comply with those resolutions after the situation in Iraq has been resolved.

I sincerely hope that that resolution is peaceful.