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.

Valentine's Day Hope
Happy Valentine's Day, everyone! And if you're the grumpy sort that hates this day, cheer up! Even the stock market is lighthearted on news that U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix says no weapons of mass destruction have been found so far in Iraq -- although he stresses there are still many items unaccounted for.

But even Saddam Hussein must be feeling love in his heart, because just hours before Blix made his report to the U.N., Hussein declared an official ban on importation and production of weapons of mass destruction in his home country.

And in the truth-is-stranger-than-fiction department, a report from Spain says that George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein will be standing side by side -- in wax, that is, at the Madrid Waxworks Museum. Go figure.

WELCOME
Welcome to Lycos' War on Iraq blog page, where we'll be keeping you abreast of news and developments in the potential U.S. attack on Iraq. Feel free to post your thoughts and comments. For starters, here's a photo of George W. Bush waving to Navy personnel in Jacksonville, Florida. What's Dubya's motivation for going after Iraq? Is it a natural extension of the events of 9/11? Does it have more to do with oil than weapons of mass destruction? Or does Dubya really have nothing substantial on his agenda, and wants to distract Americans from the struggling U.S. economy?