>>What are the us options should France, Russia and Germany go ahead with their peace propossal? Personally I can't see sending in UN troops will achieve anything, the inspectors are already allowed to go where they please. But should the French/ German propossal go through it willmake life very difficult fot he US/UK position. But what can they do to counter this?<< Since the French seem willing to secretly wheel and deal to get a proposal of French and German UN peacekeepers on the ground in Iraq (if Saddam allows them in), I think it's perfectly acceptable for the United States and Britain to secretly debate whether or not warning them to take cover when the Tomahawks start flying into Baghdad is worth the trouble.

AK has a point...

AK wrote: " ... I think it's perfectly acceptable for the United States and Britain to secretly debate whether or not warning them to take cover when the Tomahawks start flying into Baghdad is worth the trouble." What about warning them to take cover when the Tomahawks start flying into Paris? :-D My guess is that we'll campaign heavily against it right when the proposal is about to be made, and warning the U.N., as we've been doing for some time now, about shirking their responsibilities and attempting to find an easy way out, or to delay, rather than face unpleasant decisions. Leadership is not just a bunch of handshakes, ritzy summit meetings, photo ops, and fundraisers. The U.N. realizes that they only look strong because we haven't turned a serious microscope on them. At the end of the day, they'll come around. The U.N. professes "sovereign equality," but diplomatic clout is still a reality and the Franco-German axis has seriously overplayed their hand, trying to act as though they were not only stronger than they are, but speaking for countries which did not give them permission to speak for them. There was the well-publicized Letter from the Eight not so long ago, but not long afterward, there was another missive from ten Eastern European countries (with some overlap with the eight who signed the first bombshell) saying, in effect, that France and Germany did not speak for them and were overstepping their bounds in presuming to do so. If the U.N. votes to continue with inspections and deny Saddam's threat in the same chamber where Colin Powell clearly showed that they are a threat and that inspections have been useless, it will make the U.N. even more of a laughingstock than it already is. Has anyone else compared GWB with Teddy Roosevelt? I can see him calling what's about to happen "a splendid little war." The whole point is that I'm not soiling myself when I think of that, whereas the French and Germans seem to be. Power looks a lot less scary when you have it. --Phoenix Rising

One scenario: The UN insists on voting for this resolution, allow the initiative and ignore it. Immediately following the resolution vote restate that Iraq is in violation of 1441 and is using delay tactics, point out that is was the threat of war that has brought Iraq to any semblence of co-operation and that history has shown that the Saddam regime will stop at nothing to retain WMD capability-allow 48 hours for inspectors to leave then launch the offensive whether or not the inspectors have left or not. The UN will prove itself to be ineffectual and be relegated to the dustbin of history along with the League of Nations. Scenario 2: The US states it will launch an attack with or without a new resolution and will attack even if the Franco-German proposal passes. France, Germany, Russia, ect. back down to avoid Scenario 1. Preserving the UN.

YP, I think Scenario #2 is much more likely. France and Germany rely on the UN as a paper shield and a vehicle for imbuing their anti-Americanism with international legitimacy. I think any impedance to the U.N.'s credibility hurts them a lot more than it does us.

>>AK has a point...<< "A pointy head. Good thing you'll never run anything except the bathroom tap." This comment contributes nothing to the discussion, and exceeds the bounds of the rules of use that discourage personal attacks. So, FifthColumnist, go fvck yourself.

giblets, "sending in UN troops" Pardon me, but what, exactly, are "UN troops"? There are none. There are uniformed personel of various countries seconded to the UN. That means that for this benighted proposal to work, some countries would have to pony up "thousands" of troops. I'll believe that when I see it. There have been problems for many years, now, finding troops to do almost anything. It's not that I don't think this is a bad idea. I think it's a terrible idea. But, I'm not sure how seriously to take it until I see firm offers of troops from actual countries.