The situation as of today appears to be:

The American & British Position:

We want the inspectors to go back in as soon as possible. They must be afforded full co-operation and their inspection must be intrusive and unhindered. As they have been there before we would like an additional UNSC resolution that clearly spells out to the Iraqi Government what will result should there be any attempt by them to derail than inspection programme.

The French Position:

We want the inspectors to go back in as soon as possible. They must be afforded full co-operation and their inspection must be intrusive and unhindered. This we believe can be accomplished under existing UNSC Resolutions.

Should the efforts of the weapons inspectors experience any hinderance from the Iraqi authorities we would expect the United Nations Security Council to convene so that a new resolution can be agreed upon to ensure Iraqi compliance.

The Russian Position:

We want the inspectors to go back in as soon as possible. They must be afforded full co-operation and their inspection must be intrusive and unhindered. This we believe can be accomplished under existing UNSC Resolutions.

The only difference I can see in the three positions outlined above is in the perceived urgency of the matter.

I have attempted, as best as I am able, to set out my stall to back up my belief that the United states of America will not act unilaterally - I still hold to that belief. If they should, it would be disasterous for the world, including the United States - I believe they know that.

And Bobert I am not, nor ever have been, the one pounding the drum here. I do believe, from past experience, that the position outlined by the USA and Britain above is the the way to go, i.e. operating solely within the auspices of the United Nations - that is not beating the drum, or showing any great desire to go to war. It was the threat of war that prompted the invitation for the return of the arms inspectors, it will be the threat of immediate action that will ensure that they will be allowed to do their job.

Nicole, you continue to ignore the enormous logistical difficulties that would have to be overcome should America attempt to go it alone. The basis for your belief, presumably, being in the perception that America is all powerful - they are not, not unless they are prepared to set the world alight, and if that ever looked likely, the American people would stop it dead in its tracks.

How could unilateral action by the current American administration be thwarted by the rest of the world?

The rest of the world in the form of the United Nations can blockade the Straits of Hormuz to deny America access to the Arabian Gulf. It would take a hell of a lot of selling to the American Senate, House of Representatives and population should any President ask for permission for American forces to open fire on Russian, French, British ( I include Britain because our man is on record as having said there will be no action that is not backed by the UNSC), Japanese, etc, etc, ships that could be used to enforce that blockade.

A little story from history:

The greatest gamble Hitler ever took was the re-occupation of the Rhineland - he needed the industrial complexes and raw materials. The selected point of entry was over a bridge in a zone under French control. When he ordered the re-occupation the troops had strict orders that if they were resisted in any way, even if that resistance was in the form of one French Gendarme standing on the bridge telling them to go back, they were to turn back. Unfortunately for the rest of the world there was no French policeman on that bridge - (The source of that story is a German General, Heinz Guderian).