Foreign governments have been mixed over the way the US has handled this situation. France has roundly criticized the US for suggesting the use of force to make Iraq open up the sites to inspection. Russia, as noted by my colleague Jeffrey Deutsch in his past several articles has mentioned how Russia has also accused the US of warmongering and calling for a use of force when it really isn't warranted.
While the use of force is continuing to be debated, the US has continued to send weapons platforms to the Gulf and has made preparations to attack locations within Iraq. Among the weapons positioned for attack are B-1 and B-2 Stealth bombers for deep penetration raids on underground storage bunkers and command and control sites. F-16, F-15 and F-117 Stealth aircraft are also in position to attack targets of opportunity and weapons production sites. These fighters and bombers are all equipped with the latest generation of precision guided munitions that are claimed to be more precise and more cost effective than previous generations of weapons.
The struggle between the US and Iraq highlights the tensions within the international community between the use of force to achieve goals under the UN auspices and non-violent means to achieve those same goals. Many have argued that the use of embargoes and other non-violent means do more harm to the civilian population than the dropping of bombs and this has led to serious soul searching among human rights experts and policy analysts over what course a government should take to achieve goals when a particular country objects to treatment under UN orders.
To access the UN, you can go here. They have more detailed information about the peace process, the various resolutions that have been submitted regarding the Iraqi situation and it also has a large depository of statutory international law.
Go To Page: 1
