The leaked details of Wasingtoms proposals for "inspections" are in effect plans for an occupation of Iraq.

"I could never imagine Iraq agreeing to this. If you're going to be invaded you might as well make the invading force shoot their way in. It's the sort of proposal meant to be rejected." And those aren't the word of some peace minded "liberal" - they are those of John Pike, the head of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington military thinktank.

Here is a link to the lead story in today's Guardian "US hardline on Iraq leaves full-scale invasion a 'hair-trigger' away"

I don't think overlong posts are a good idea - anything over a couple of hundred words gets so hard to read that I doubt if many people actually read it (even this one is a bit lengthy). And it's much easier to read this story in the Guardian's websites. (Unlike some papers the Guardian doesn't charge, and keeps its archives permanently.)

But here is a taster:
"Weapons inspectors would operate out of bases inside Iraq, where they would be under the protection of UN troops. UN forces or the forces of a member state would enforce no-fly and no-drive zones around a suspected weapons site, preventing anything being removed before inspection.

Diplomats at the UN said there was no doubt that US troops would play a leading role in any such enforcement, allowing the Pentagon to deploy forces inside Iraq even before hostilities got under way...

...John Pike, the head of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington military thinktank, said the resolution was worded in such a way that Iraq was almost certain to reject it, even if the alternative was invasion.

"I could never imagine Iraq agreeing to this. If you're going to be invaded you might as well make the invading force shoot their way in. It's the sort of proposal meant to be rejected," Mr Pike said.