In the latter part of Part 5, Bobert mentioned the existance of a "position paper" reported by the Scottish Tribune. The report apparently prepared in 2000

"According to a report in the Scottish Triobune today, a "position paper" has surfaced that was written in 2000 prior to the 2000 election laying out a scenerio where Iraq would be attcked for stategic reasons. This paper was prepared for Jeb Bush and Donald Rumsfield wha as we know are4 now key figures in bringing GWB into office and having vast influence over the current administration.

More will be coming our about this evidence over the next day or so and I will repost with sources. As for now, I think that if true, that Teribus's arguments that there is a body of evidence known only to the folks that have to know, may not in fact have any substance."

A "position paper" is evidence of what exactly? That certain leading figures in the US took an analytical view of the feasibility of an attack on Iraq should come as no great surprise to anybody. I have no doubt that within the US, dating back to early "cold war times", there are "position papers" on attacks on Iceland, Ireland and the UK. Those papers would deal with scenarios that would not be confined to response to a Soviet attack, they would address all likely reactions by the governments of "friendly" countries to the threat of a Soviet attack, or Soviet destabilisation of key "friendly" countries as a precursor to a Soviet attack.

The evidence I was referring to in my posting relates to continued Iraqi interest in the development of chemical/biological weapons and nuclear weapons. I still contend that to offer such evidience to the world at large would result in the sources of that information being compromised and silenced. American intelligence assets in this region of the world have always been scarce, it would therefore be a very foolish move to squander them. Since 11th September, 2001, pooling of intelligence information has been on an unprecedented level. The American Intelligence Services and the current American administration knows that it cannot disclose information obtained through this network for fear of harming the intelligence assets of their allies.

It should also come as no great surprise that the root cause of this conflict is seated in politics and money - or put in more basic terms, resources and control of those resources - that has been the root cause of damn near every conflict throughout history.

McG of H and Amos tend to think that blackmail and coercion were the reasons for the shift in position of the states comprising the Arab League, but offer no basis for this belief. If was possible for the US to do this, on the reasoning that the US is big and powerful - why have they not done this in the past as a means of solving the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Another factor that McG of H and Amos conveniently ignore is the position of Saudi Arabia in the Muslim world.

As has been reported above and predicted by myself in previous posts - Iraq has agreed to the unconditional return of the UN weapons inspectors. The reactions to this announcement by Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, are described above by some as predictable and "hawkish". Given Saddam Hussein's track record a more considered and accurate viewpoint would be to describe them as cautionary and prudent. Why? Because the inspectors are not yet in place, and it remains to seen what access and co-operation they will be afforded. The initial reactions of the United States, Britain and France maintain the required focus and pressure on Iraq and that pressure must be maintained or we end up going round the houses one more time - and IF IRAQ IS developing a nuclear weapon capability, then time is the thing they want more than anything else - George W is making it clear from the outset, that he is not prepared to let them have that time - my bet is that the UN will back that position. No negotiation, total compliance, if Iraqi claims are substantiated then the threat of war is averted, if evidence is found the facilities are destroyed and the threat of war is averted.

The Iraqi request that any threat of attack is removed during weapons inspections, that assurance to be categorically given by the United Nations is interesting. The Americans have claimed that the Iraqis are months away from acquiring a nuclear weapon capability, so it will be interesting to see what transpires.

I still remain cautiously optimistic that this situation will be resolved peacefully.