there's nothing more to be said as the people have spoken.however, one thing remains clear,i.e.,the iraqis should be given the chance of crucifying or acquitting this man.why should his case be different from that of the erstwhile dictator in croatia(bosnia-herzegovnia)?
makanjuola gbenga, Ilesa,Nigeria

We NEED a war with Iraq! If you say that we don't have enought evidence, I must ask you, what are you waiting for? We have not found out for sure that they have weapons of mass distruction, but we have not found evidence that they DON'T have them either. Obviously, they are not going to come out and show us pictures, saying "here, please start a war with us." I'd rather not wait to find out if they have them the hard way. Besides, there should be no questions if they have them or not; they were suppose to have distroyed 12 years ago! This alone is a threat to many countries, and if we don't take a stand to threats, our country will not be around much longer. This alone may seem a little mean of me, but if we went to war, it would also be for the good of the Iraqi people, in the long run. They may, and probably will, have to suffer for a while, but don't you think it would be a lot better to get rid of the! sick dictator, who is torturing his own people in ways that are not acceptable to mention here? It's like getting a shot for a sickness. The shot hurts for a while, but in the end, you end up being a lot better off. For all of those people who are protesting the war because of all the people that would be killed, SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO GET UGLY! If not for all the bloody battles that the United States has had in our past, we would not be a superpower. I hate that things sometimes have to come to this, but when you are dealing with lives that will be killed for the next hundred years by the Hussein family, you have to take drastic action to stop it. This is not a war for oil, either! Hello! We are just helping them set up a government! And don't tell me that we haven't cared about when other dictators have tortured their own people. If we went to war against all of them at once, we would get nowhere. And it is our buisness as far as I'm concered. We have a responsi! bility to help others because of our position as a superpower. STOP whining about saving peoples live and do something about it: stop the evil dictator who puts his own people through shredders! (And stop protesting President Bush, he is a great president who could really use our support! i am proud to say that i support him with all my heart.)
Jennifer, South Carolina, USA

I believe that we need to back our country up. Yeah I understand that with this war many innocent people will die and our economy is not in the best of shape, but sometimes you just got to do what you have to do. I stand behind President Bush 100%, because it takes a lot to be the leader of a country. ~I am so proud to be an American!~
Cindy, Ohio

I hate to bring the aspects of 9/11 into the argument, but after that act, the US made a pledge to fight terrorism wherever it happens. Saddam has offered $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers, that is a raise from the $15,000 he was offering pre 9/11. Obviously promoting terrorism. Furthermore, Saddam is responsible for the systematic killing of 1.5 MILLION people in his own country. This is in my eyes an act of terrorism ... creating fear for a large number of people through violence and death. Just because it is not happening on our soil doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything. Saddam isn't going to just step down from his post because the world wants him to, he isn't going to disarm when the citizens of his country would revolt and overthrow him if he didn't have chemical weapons, let's get real. If you want to protest the war fine, do it in your own homes (letter writing), and not on the streets where! your doing nothing but screwing up other peoples livelihood (blocking streets/ emergency vehicles). Realize that you live in countries where you are able to express your opinions and that if you did this kind of stuff in Iraq you would have been put in a wood chopper, your children would be killed, or your entire coalition of peace advocates would be gassed, and we wouldn't have anything to say about it. If you want peace in the world you have to start going after those who oppress freedom and personal opinion.
Rob , Ohio

I back the usa and uk wholeheartedly on the subject of iraq,everyone has their own oppinions,and i respect each to their own,i just feel the toppleing of saddam hussein from power can only be a good thing in making the world a safer place,and am 100% in hoping all our troops along with their american allies are as safe as is possible during such an operation of whats happening in iraq,and that the uk population at least wishes them the utmost best wishes in their safety during the coming days/weeks etc....
Darren, Teesside

I maybe only 17 years old but I know that this war is a disgrace. I recently attended a anti-war march in Leeds before war was announced, everyone who was there was outraged at the prospect of war, I feel that this war is totally unjustified & should never have started, it has put America & Britain to shame. Thousands of innocent people will die because of it.
Tom, Ripon

These are the start of a new dark age for humanity. The war in Iraq has starkly illustrated the awsome power of the high priests of oil-guzzling plastic worship (America). We are now entering an age where endeavour, culture, the arts and higher aspirations will be superceeded by superficiality, junk-food, trash media and selfishness. All this against the background of one of the most dangerous periods in world history. Woe betide us all.
Graham, York

what if they start bombing europe? anybody might want to bomb europe at anytime because we are a war the threat is just increaesed thats all.to be honest i think that is a little selfish because think of the poor kurds and other innocent iraq's going through the bombings? weve got it easy so far
rachel, malton

I think war is stupid. what if the start bombing Europe.
vicky, london

All credible UK MPs should absolutely insist on going via the UN - or they make us electors responsible for its demise as an essential force for order in world affairs. If this government ignores the UN path, it is legally and morally compromised, and it deserves to fall. As a taxpayer, I'm unwilling to foot the bill for avoidable carnage not sanctioned by the UN or by any democratic forum. As a postgraduate student of 1930s diplomacy, I'm intensely worried at the poorest-quality exchanges on our behalf which have become the hallmark of post-9/11 US international relations and are increasingly infecting the UK. Why do you think the proposed war has not attracted more than 3-4 states in total? We won't gain an appropriate influence for good in the world by puerile namecalling. There is zero comparison with the German threat in 1938: a) the US today can bomb Iraq flat; and b) our current leaders are pushing war with the insight of myopic gnomes. A civilized country which is the stronger party in such a confrontation should use its strength intelligently to prevent war. Especially if the alternative rides roughshod over international initiatives, international objections, and international law.
Adrian Clayton, York

There is some value in every opinion on these pages, both for and against the war. My standpoint is that why do we accept that it has to be that way, History has shown us that what we call Politics and Diplomacy simply do not work because of the reasons stated by both Rachel and Phil, dishonesty, greed, 'horse trading', the willingness to sacrifice life because 'that's the way it is', it's only that way because of the so called Law of the Jungle. This conflict if it comes about has nothing to do with the good of the people of any Race, it's about the Master Races of Politicians and Business becoming even stronger, that's why Mugabe, Israel/Palestine, Korea have been ignored, they have no fiscal value. There IS a very serious moral issue here, one which should be sorted by the whole world, shoulder to shoulder, 50 deep on the borders of Iraq so that all Saddam could see was the end of his reign of terror. That will not happen, as time goes on the thinking world can see that the people who control this World are in their own way just as corrupt as Saddam himself, especially with Bush steering the ship. Since this Government came to power the number of Millionaires in this country has more than doubled but there are more than a million children living below the official poverty level,(Gov.Stats).
Bob , Thirsk

In reply to Bob's comment Ii do agree that it would most probably be a better place if we had a mixed race goverment but my confusion with this, and not being at all racist, that over the past hundreds of years we have fought battled and died on numerous accounts to make sure our country, and others, are not over ruled by somebody who wants 'it all' to put it simply (and there i am most certainly NOT saying other races want it all). Of course with the oil rigs and things aside I do believe this is what the iraq 'good' people need. People say that innocent iraqs will die, but how many innocent britsh people died fighting for us on the front line and back home? i dont want to believe this but people must die to save others. In war it is something that has happend over the years and no matter how far into the future and sophisticated we are from the 1600's and further, you will always get somebody who wants to be better than the rest.
Rachel, malton

Let's face it,like all animals we human are selfish. Besides Bush and Blair it includes you and I. The economy is bad in the US and everywhere else, that affects all of us. For Bush, he wants to get re-elected next year and like his father, unless he can fix the economy he will not get there. So how he plans to do that? Tax cut would not do it, but lower the cost of petro will. During the mid 90s, petro in the US was less than US$1 per gallon. It has been more more than twice that ever since Bush become president. Let's look at the oil price in the US and some published research. As can be seen during the economy boom of mid 90s, crude oil price was around $15/b. Nowadays it's more than twice that much. Who control the price of crude oil? OPEC. Does OPEC listen to Bush?? No. US consumes around 20 million B crude each day. That's about $600 million each day at today's price. Or $200 Billion a year. Once Iraq is under US control, the production & pricing of Iraqi oil under US control, price of crude could easily go back to $15/B or even cheaper. That's a $100 Billion a year boost to the US economy!! We will see the economy boom of the mid 90's again. Is this good for the US and the world? Are Bush and Blair doing the right thing? You be the judge.
Tim, Harrogate

I have visited this site to air my views but realise that Phil from York has said it all. I wish to support Phils views Along with (thankfully) others of this world, I am able to see the world as it is and not take some ill thought out, blinkered, moral high ground. Twelve years is long enough. Now its time to act.
Clif, York

After having to go to the Persian Gulf every 6 months since the Gulf War to protect the Kurds from being gassed by Saddam Hussein, I think we need to sort the situation out once and for all. Anyone else who has done this thinks so too.
Rob White, Leeming

This 'war' would not have needed to happen if the US had completed the job 12 years ago, the went nowhere near the Iraq capital, THEY RAN OUT OF FUEL. What about after the war, I heard that there is a huge pot of money to assist in the rebuild from the US and firms are already putting their bids in!, BUT only US firms will be allowed to 'assist in the rebuild'. Why should those who destroy a country then get the exclusive contracts to rebuild it, and will the people of Iraq have to pay the money back (with interest). Do these people want their country built by America, do they want to be Americanised I believe the Americans 'trust in God' but they are going to impose their will on a Moslem country, are they going to convert Iraq to the christian faith, eating McDonalds and freedom fries. BUT WILL THEY GET SADDAM or will he disappear, only to return when it is safe.
Clive, York

I feel that we Should go to war with Iraq, they've been playing games for too long and weapons are appearing in front of U.N. inspetcors, when iraq claimed they never exsisted.
William, Pennsyvilia

my son has just joined the army ,if i thought for one minute that the war with saddam was unjust i would have done every thing i could to stop him .if we give in now like the other turn coats at the un ,who say this man is a threat but we give him chance to disarm ,when 12 years from now? i dont think so!.all thugs the only do your will when it is forced on them.and that is what we must do.
john budden, isle of wight

The Iraqi people suffer under the hand of a cruel tyrant, and we refuse to allow action because "we aren't doing this in Zimbabwe/N Korea/Iran/... insert despotic nation here"

If we really are concerned for the defence of the human rights of the Iraqi people, why make them contingent upon the defence of the Zimbabwean people? Yes, we do need to do something about Zimbabwe, and yes, conceivably, military action.

Similarly, to argue that Iraq's WMD store (and of course we will have intelligence to prove the existence of such a store) shouldn't be dealt with, because we're ignoring other, similar, issues, is to miss the point.

The issues may be similar, but they're not linked - deal with each in isolation.

Just because a few oil tycoons in America will be raiding their piggy banks if troops go into Iraq, there is an unjustifiable assumption that military action is being directed for the reason that it will serve America's economic and energy needs.

I don't believe Pres. Bush and co. are able to understand how the rest of the world sees them, for which reason, their reasoning is never particularly lucid.

To accuse the US and UK of bribing minor nations is to misunderstand international diplomacy. How do people think conflict is sorted out? By soundly arguing that something is morally right (or wrong)?

If we live in the real world, we have to accept that international diplomacy always carries with it horse trading - or was Dominique de Villepin simply standing on the common history of France and Guinea?

To pick up on something that appears on many, many posters and placards, the linking of Iraq with other Middle East issues is specious.

I support war in Iraq and the creation of a Palestinian state. Now, why try and link the two issues, and so risk losing my support for the one, at the cost of the other?

The first casualty in a time of war is no longer the truth - it's well-reasoned argument.
Phil, York