Hey, all you Lycos Newshounds, here are a few articles on the Web today about the pending war with Iraq:

JDAM the Torpedoes - Slate.com

The price of winning the war and keeping the peace - Christian Science Monitor

Students Ditch Class To Protest War - CBS News

BET's news shows to ask if Iraq war is necessary - Cleveland Plain Dealer

Seen any other interesting articles? Then post the links here!

Iraq Still Trying
After destroying four al-Samoud 2 missiles on Saturday and six more on Sunday, Iraqi workers crushed another six today as Saddam Hussein seems to be stepping up his good-faith efforts. But President Bush still insists Baghdad isn't doing enough, continuing the build-up of military force in the region, now numbering 230,000 U.S. and British troops.

However, many of these troops are now hanging in limbo after Turkey's surprise parliament vote Saturday nixed plans to use that country as a northern front. And it seems previous hints that Turkey might put the measure to a new vote as early as Tuesday have fallen by the wayside.

With such a big monkey wrench thrown into the works, do you think the U.S. should increase its economic aid offer to Turkey in an effort to change its mind?

The Day the Tide Turned?
The U.S.-led impetus for war on Iraq may have been derailed today by two developments, one positive and one negative. First, the U.N. has confirmed that Iraq, as promised, has destroyed four of its al-Samoud 2 missiles, although many more still remain.

And in a blow to the Bush administration, Turkey nullified a vote approving the deployment of U.S. troops in that country. Earlier in the day, the measure had been approved by a vote of 264-250, but Turkish parliamentary law requires 267 votes for a deciding majority. Turkey is crucial to staging a northern front for an invasion of Iraq.

Without the help of Turkey to Iraq's northern gate, do you think President Bush will go to "Plan B" and try and attack Iraq anyway?

The U.N. Security Council is still bitterly divided over how to proceed with Iraq, seemingly unable to reach consensus on anything at all after a meeting today. Such division is likely to remain, especially after Iraq got coy again, agreeing "in principle" to destroy its al-Samoud 2 missiles, seen in the photo below with a U.N. weapons inspector.



House Democrats, meanwhile, are angry at the Bush administration for not publicly disclosing war cost estimates, which privately have been put in the range of $60 billion to $100 billion.

Do you think the U.S. can afford to spend that much money on a war, especially with the economy in the condition that it's in? Post your comments and let us know.

Rival Resolution
President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair now have competition, as France, Germany and Russia offered their own proposal for what to do about Iraq. The two factions now begin lobbying the other members of the U.N. Security Council to sway their vote. The outcome will depend heavily on the March 7 report from chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, as well as any further concessions by Saddam Hussein, or lack thereof.

Hussein, in an interview with CBS' Dan Rather, has also challenged President Bush to a live televised debate, which the White House scoffs at.



Meanwhile, the U.S. and Turkey continue last-minute negotiations over use of Turkish military bases for a northern invasion of Iraq.

Which do you think is more crucial to a U.S.-led attack -- the verbal approval of the wider international community, or the more substantive military support of Turkey?

Bush's Second Push
The U.S. and Britain are set to present a new resolution to the United Nations declaring Iraq in violation of disarmament requirements, which would set the stage for war. Getting it approved by the 15-member Security Council is going to be a tough sell, because the resolution needs at least nine votes, and also avoid a veto by France, Russia or China. So far, President Bush and Tony Blair only have the support of Spain and Bulgaria, with all other council members pushing for more time for weapons inspections.

What do you think it would take for the majority of the international community to agree on war? Would prolonged stalling by Saddam Hussein be enough? Unaccountability for missing weapons? Outright hostility on Baghdad's part? Post your thoughts and let us know.

Ready To Go
Despite no clear unilateral support from the U.N. Security Council or their NATO allies, the U.S. and Britain appear ready to invade Iraq, with over 210,000 American and British troops already amassed in the region.



Turkey, at least, may have diminished as an obstacle as that country says it has reached a preliminary agreement with the U.S. on economic aid in exchange for use of Turkish military bases.

If the U.S. and Britain went it alone and invaded Iraq, how big do you think the international backlash would be?

U.S. Offers Turkey Gravy
The U.S. and Turkey continue to wrangle about how much economic aid America will provide in exchange for using Turkey as a base of operations for a possible war on Iraq.

While the political sweet talk, cajoling and saber-rattling continues, let's not forget our men and women in uniform, ready to do their duty at a moment's notice. Be sure to check out the links on the left to donate blood and/or money to our troops, or just to send an e-mail showing your support and wishing them a safe return.



Our own Paul Dynan has been called to duty in the Persian Gulf, and all of us here at Lycos can't wait to see him back here. Godspeed, Paul.

Losing Steam?
Well, the case for an American-led invasion of Iraq has had more wind taken out of its sails with several new developments. First, U.S. stalwart ally Turkey is warning Washington not to assume the country can be used for an American "launch pad" for an attack on Iraq. Secondly, French president Jacques Chirac is making new noise at EU leaders, calling for them to diminish their backing of the U.S. Lastly, it's been confirmed that a U-2 spy plane has flown its first mission over Iraq, yet another concession by Saddam Hussein that may make it difficult to garner more support.

If you were in favor of war before, have recent developments changed your mind? Tell us what factors swayed you the most.

People Power?
The U.S. and Britain are now saying they may consider giving diplomacy more time, especially in light of severe disgreements that still exist within the U.N. and NATO. But could Messrs. Bush and Blair also have been a wee bit influenced by the anti-war demonstrations that took place worldwide this weekend, with over six million people taking part? Maybe the masses can influence our world leaders, although they probably would never admit it, of course.

Did you participate in an anti-war demonstration this weekend? Tell us what it was like, and share your feelings about why the U.S. should not go to war.