Here are the news headlines that are hitting the Web this afternoon:

US, Britain defer key UN vote on Iraq, The Times of India - In the face of resistance from France and Russia, the U.S. and U.K. have delayed a U.N. Security Council vote.

Iraq forces suspension of U.S. surveillance flights, San Jose Mercury News - Iraqi jets confront two U.S. U-2 spy planes, forcing them to return to base.

Rift over Iraq war threatens old alliances, New Zealand News - An analysis of the discord that's been building up between the U.S. and European nations.

A question of votes and vetoes, Melbourne Herald Sun - A sort of FAQ on how the U.N. Security Council operates.

Iraq War: African States Could Be Wavering, AllAfrica.com - A report on the uncertainty being signaled by U.N. Security Council members Angola, Cameroon and Guinea.

Pakistan says difficult to support Iraq war, Reuters AlertNet - Pakistan, which holds one of the swing votes in the U.N. Security Council, conveys its reluctance to go along with the U.S. proposal.

Iraqi press goads US, Melbourne Herald Sun - A story about the gloating going on in the Iraqi press.

Security adviser quits over Iraq, Melbourne Herald Sun - An Australian senior intelligence analyst has resigned in protest over a possible war with Iraq.

Here's an interesting article from Business 2.0 about the technology of modern-day warfare.

Do you think it's beginning to look like the U.S. and Britain may not go to war without the backing of the international community? Post your comments and thoughts here.

Here's a snapshot of headlines around the globe this morning:

Secret drone 'part of Iraqi chemical warfare plans', London Times - A report on unmanned Iraqi drones, capable of delivering biological or chemical agents, that the U.S. and Britain say Hans Blix failed to elaborate on in his presentation to the U.N. last Friday.

Is Weapons Case Against Iraq Disintegrating?, ABC News - A report from Good Morning America about the authenticity of documents cited by the U.S. ABC has an interactive map of Iraq here.

Russian minister vows Iraq veto, CNN.com - The first strong public statement from Russia that it intends to veto the current U.S./U.K. resolution in the U.N. CNN has a nifty interactive U.S. map showing which military units and divisions are deployed in the Persian Gulf region.

Chretien: Iraq war already won, Canada.com - According to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, the U.S. has already succeeded in disarming Iraq.

Why Iraq? Why war? Why now?, Asia Times Online - A guest commentary outlining the reasons for a war on Iraq.

The fig leaf of moral impotence, Yellow Times - A guest editorial from a former Iraqi nuclear scientist who refutes President Bush's evidence about the Iraqi threat.

Here's a detailed profile of Iraq fom the CIA's World Factbook.

And here's another blog from Netizen Steven Den Beste about the war on Iraq.

Now, here's your homework assignment: between the two editorials above from Asia Times and Yellow Times, which one resonates with you more? Post your comments here and tell us why.

President Bush presented his case to the world last night in a prime-time speech where he dismissed Saddam Hussein's actions as a "willful charade," and emphasized the U.S. doesn't "need anybody's permission" to go to war. Dissenting U.N. Security Council members, meanwhile, will be listening closely to today's crucial report from chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix on the extent of Iraq's cooperation. Stay tuned to find out about the aftermath of Blix's report. In the meantime, here's a snapshot of what's being reported around the globe:

Bush's New Iraq Warning Spreads Gloom - The Guardian

Iraq strengthens air force with French parts - Washington Times

Iraq military strategies - Australian Broadcasting Corp.

Quagmire in northern Iraq deepens - Asia Times

Between Iraq and a Hard Place - The Harvard Crimson

Saddam's popularity may be waning - MSNBC

Here's an informative overview of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in the Middle East:

Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East - Center for Nonproliferation Studies

And here's an analysis from the Energy Information Administration of Iraq's energy production and consumption.

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?