Since their withdrawal in December 1998 the UN (Note the UN not the United States of America) has been trying to get the weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

They are now going back - Why? What has caused the shift in their position? Answer: Pressure applied by the United States of America - nothing else - no change of heart on the part of Saddam Hussein - no sudden stiffening of the resolve of the united nations.

There are many in this community who, irrespective of fact, just point blank refuse to give GWB any credit for his handling of a situation resulting from the only direct attack on the United States since Pearl Harbour.

Doesn't matter what this man does - it will never in their eyes be right, so there is no point in responding to some of the more outrageous statements made here.

Please, go back and read what he said to the United Nations - Look what resulted from that address.

Guest Kiwi:
"Like the last war the States was involved in a few months ago it's purely about oil and gas. I still say the CIA were involved with Sept 11th. Bush has huge personal vested energy interests."

Oh yeah? - perfectly plausible, totally credible - my arse.

Nicole C:
"Hey, maybe Saddam is full of it. Maybe the capitulation on inspections IS a ploy to take steam off of the Bush crusade. But wouldn't an effective leader use the opportunity to compromise with the international skeptics who have thusfar been unhappy about the war plans, and get them to agree to nail Saddam down and not let him wiggle out of it this time? THAT is a coalition that could be successful.

The reports that the US is continuing preparations for war unabated only makes us look more and more like the schoolyard bully, and less and less like the "benevolent but tough police officer" image we try to project."

First paragraph - that is exactly what the current American Administration has, and is continuing to do.

Second paragraph - perfectly logical course of action to follow, given Saddam Hussein's track record - it keeps the pressure on.

Kevin:
"I can think of several other possible explanations. When you are very strong and very rich and very forceful, the fact that people go along with your wishes does not necessarily mean they agree with you."

The United States has been in this position for sometime. I will repeat my question, if they have been able to coerce Iraq's neighbours on this occasion, why have they not played the same card previously to settle the Israeli- Palestinian conflict?

Also from Kevin:
"What I imagine will happen is that, assuming the inspections take place, if they come up with reports that there is nothing to worry about, that will be presented by Bush and Co as cast-iron evidence that Saddam is even better at concealing things than anyone thought. This will mean that an immidiate assault is needed as a way of enforcing UN resolutions which forbade him to have these weapons he has managed to conceal so successfully ..."

"assuming the inspections take place" - completely ignores and pours ice cold water on the fact that Iraq has stated that the inspectors are free to return - and have been invited to return unconditionally - and that the Iraqi Foreign Office has already held preliminary talks with the Head of the UN inspection teams. Kevin the inspections will take place - you can bet the farm on it.

The remainder of your comment quoted above, bears out exactly what I say in my opening remarks of this post. You have absolutely no grounds for making the above statement. Unlike his Democrat predecessor, GWB has acted throughout, strictly within the constraints of existing UN Resolutions wrt Iraq. Clinton on the other hand only went to Congress before he authorised the lobbing of cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan. To you my friend, I get the impression, that the cup will always be half empty.

Amos:
The position of Saudi Arabia within the Muslim world I was referring to was as guardians of the most sacred sites of Islam and leader of the Muslim world. Don't laugh at that - it makes them an extremely influential force in the world, they are already extremely rich, and America needs them more that they need America. Anything the government of Saudi Arabia agrees to wrt foreign policy adversely affecting another "muslim" country must be justifiable to the world muslim community. In Desert Storm, that was easy because against the tenets of the Koran, Iraq (muslim country) attacked and invaded Kuwait (another muslim country). This time the change in attitude was a little bit more difficult, something caused it and I do not believe that Saudi Arabia would compromise its position in the muslim world by bowing to "graft, blackmail and coercion". Hard evidence against Saddam's regime in Iraq would be one compelling reason that would be acceptable - another would be a firm commitment by the international community backed solidly by America, Russia, Europe under the auspices of the United Nations to resolve the Isreali - Palestinian conflict once and for all within the next three years. That was announced at the UN last night. In one of my previous posts on this subject stated my belief that if you got movement on one, you would get movement on the other - seems to be happenning - bet Amos and Kevin don't agree.