The BBC News Online debate

An invited group of BBC News Online readers has debated a proposition about whether going to war was a mistake. Now is everyone's chance to vote on the proposition.

Here the proposition is put by Sydney from New York, and opposed by Adam from Belgrade. Discussion from the group then follows, as posted on the site throughout the course of Friday.

PROPOSITION:
THAT GOING TO WAR WITH IRAQ WAS THE WRONG THING TO DO

Proposing Name: SYDNEY
From: NEW YORK
Age: 50
Occupation: RESEARCH EDITOR

The ramifications of this unprovoked, unsanctioned "pre-emptive" war of aggression will resound throughout the globe in the years to come. A misfit assortment of reasons have been presented as to why this military adventure must go forward. None has stuck.

The true cost to the faltering economies of these countries has not been revealed. The cost of the blows dealt to the stabilising influences of the UN, Nato and the EU is incalculable. The cost to the US and Britain's good name and good intentions in worldwide opinion is devastating.

The terror, suffering and horrific death being dealt out to the civilians of Iraq - half of whom are under 17 - is an unspeakable crime that, like the martyring of the Palestinian people, will become a rallying cry for generations of guerrilla soldiers.

The US can expect further attacks of the nature, or worse, that we experienced on 11 September. Expect them in London. As moderates turn radical, regimes will be overthrown and civil wars begin. Other countries, noting the precedent, may launch their own adventures. Two days ago the just retired leader of Israel's Mossad boldly stated on American television that 9/11 - and by extension this war in Iraq - was "the beginning of the Third World War".

Some few weeks before Iraq's "liberation" was launched, The New Yorker reported that the Pentagon had ordered 70,000 body bags - none of them destined for Iraq.

I propose that going to war was the wrong thing to do.

---

Opposing Name: ADAM SOFRONIJEVIC
From: BELGRADE
Age: 29
Occupation: SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR

War is hard on the common people. But when there is a global evil, the world must act.

The governments know it, and the people know it, but we are never ready to act until something triggers us. People only react in extreme situations - and this is true all the way back to World War Two. Some dictators can only be removed through war.

I was in Belgrade throughout the US-led intervention in my country in 1999. Within 500 metres of my home, there were more than 30 explosions. But they caused no damage whatsoever to my house.

Of course there were casualties, and every one is disastrous. But the number was kept small because of very precise aiming.

More disastrous for my country were the casualties inflicted on purpose by the Milosevic regime. Even in the TV building in Belgrade, where 16 people died, it was the regime that left them there to die in the face of US warnings.

Every single person here lost ten years of their lives during that regime. But why did no-one react? Because people only react in extreme situations. We were ashamed to be bombed at the end of the 20th Century. We were ashamed that we had brought it on ourselves because of our lack of reaction.

The situation in Iraq is much worse. The sanctions have been tough and long. And Saddam's regime has been cruel. The spirit of the people has been killed. We all saw the attempts by the Iraqi people to liberate themselves after the first Gulf War. They almost succeeded. But now, 10 years later, others must act for them.

We were bombed too. But now we are free. Going to war was the right thing to do.

---

Comments from other members of the group Name: OLLY LEE
From: FRANKFURT
Age: 21
Occupation: STUDENT

Adam's account is as compelling a testament to this action as we could find.

Of course the vast majority of the modern civilised world could not begin to imagine the horror of having bombs raining down on their home cities and the pain and suffering of those caught up in the explosions and cross fire.

However, we can equally not begin to appreciate the horror of living under a regime which crushes the will and spirit of its population by purposefully diverting aid and wealth, responding to public dissent with torture and execution and puts its own power and self interest before the interests of an entire nation. Saddam could have gone into exile, easily avoiding this.

Couple this with the "threat" of WMD, granted it may not be as large as some would have us believe, but I am sure that if Saddam were left unchecked he would in the future provide the smoking gun to some willing party.

Therefore, as hard a decision as it is, and as strong the arguments against it may be, I think it was on the balance of things the right course of action. Let's just hope it comes to an end as quickly as possible and as few civilians are killed by accident or purposefully by their own rulers.

---

Name: JOS JOSLYN
From: HAMPSHIRE
Age: 47
Occupation: SOFTWARE SPECIALIST

Any conflict or war is regrettable, but there are times when the wider world must stand and be counted - particularly when there are those who cannot do so themselves.

To do otherwise, is the more inhumane - I am not saying that war is humane, but it is sometimes "less inhumane" to go to war, than standing by and believing that because you are not directly affected you need to do nothing.

We have a modern saying "NIMBYism" - Not In My Back Yard - which accurately describes I believe the attitudes of the "anti-war" people.

You enjoy certain freedoms, and those freedoms you enjoy have always come at a cost. A cost that your forefathers were prepared to pay. Do these people not deserve the same?

It is true that "in concert" with the events in Iraq the issues affected the rest of the Middle East have to be resolved. Israel has to withdraw to pre 1967 boundaries - in line with numerous UN resolutions.

A totally free and independent Palestinian state has to be set-up, free from the oversight of Israel, or anyone else. Finally the US has to engage in a total review of its foreign policy, which has been part of the history that has led up to this point.

I oppose the proposition.

---

Name: JANAKI MACKENZIE
From: THE NETHERLANDS
Age: 50
Occupation: SECRETARY

I agree totally with Sydney.

This millennium is about "lessons learnt". We are working towards globalisation. South Africa's transformation has taken place by dialogue, compromise and negotiation, relatively peacefully so we know it is possible.

War may have sometimes achieved some level of success but hopefully we have grown out of using violence to achieve this.

Saddam may be likened to Hitler but with the Weapons Inspections and the United Nations backing negotiations, surely at the very least, Iraq should have been given more time to disarm and eradicate chemical weapons - if indeed they still have them.

What about America? What kinds of arms and ammunition do they have? How much do they spend on defence?

What about the companies who are already bidding for contracts in Iraq for things that have not been destroyed yet?

What about many of the government officials' relations standing to gain from all of this? No, America stop wagging your arrogant, self-righteous finger at any other country who may not agree with you and look at yourselves.

The emphasis is on taking more responsibility for our actions, as individuals, as groups, as a society. Let us also do so on national and international levels.

For God's sake stop the war and stop the killing of so many innocent people.

---

Name: BRIAN STEWART-COXON
From: ABERDEENSHIRE
Age: 50
Occupation: PROJECT MANAGER

The fact we are at war is a failure of diplomacy. If Saddam and his regime are allowed to ignore the UN as they have done for 12 years how do we bring him into line if not by force?

The regime has had enough time to put into effect the terms of the Kuwait ceasefire agreed in the UN. Saddam has decided he wants to ignore his responsibilities to the international community, Saddam alone has put his people at risk.

We let his people down once and I don't want us to do that again, the majority in Iraq deserve better than that.

I for one would prefer to believe democratically elected leaders who are wholly answerable to the people of their nations, than regimes and political indoctrination from dictators who are unable to be defeated from within.

I also do not want major political decisions being made by pressure groups on our streets.

---

Name: ANDREY BARABANSHCHIKOV
From: TULA, RUSSIA
Age: 31
Occupation: SALES MANAGER

No one in the world has cancelled the right of sovereignty yet, as it is world community's basic principle of co-existing.

Why should somebody stronger and more powerful than others act as if it's entitled to speak on other nation's behalf? In my opinion democracy cannot be aggressive.

"Since-you-don't-have-democracy-in-your-country-that's-why-we-are-coming-to-deliver-it-to-you" approach seems to ultimately infringe the basics of our existence. Just think if everyone declares they stand for peace in Iraq, what's the best way of reaching it?

Peace via war or peace via UN controlled process? Having one objective and result in common these approaches have different consequences. The war always brings death, the peaceful process brings an opportunity.

---

Name: ADAM SOFRONIJEVIC
From: BELGRADE

I don't think South Africa is a good example of a peaceful transformation of a regime. It was a completely different story. How can you peacefully disarm the regime of a dictator?

In the case of Milosevic, we dealt with him and his servants peacefully. And now, after almost two years it backfired at us. We have a dead PM, shot in broad daylight in front of his government building.

Only after this we find out how deep the roots of terror and tyranny grew in our country. Police, secret service, judges, pop singers, journalists were all connected in one organised criminal group and the dictator was just the tip of an iceberg.

Crime and sharing of limited resources of wealth among group of people close to regime is the essence of every dictatorship. Do you really think that UN inspectors and diplomats can do something about it?

Saddam and his gang can lose power only when you have a gun pointed at their head. WMD are only the consequences of criminals and dictators grow strong. Every criminal needs a big gun. Saddam was just rich enough in one moment to make that gun WMD.

---

Name: OLLY LEE
From: FRANKFURT

Janaki, how much longer would you propose giving Saddam? Another 12 years?

This process hasn't just been going on since November, it started with the ceasefire agreement at the end of the last Gulf war in 91. To say this has been a hasty decision after 12 years and over 10 UN resolutions is not correct in my opinion. Yes it may have happened relatively quickly since the last resolution which demanded full, immediate and unhindered disarmament, laid out clearly the repercussions of non-compliance and was signed unanimously.

However with Saddam remaining in power this has been coming since 1991.

Secondly, dialogue and true diplomacy (not token, last minute concessions) have proved not only an alien term for him, but the organisation supposed to administer this diplomacy has proved itself in this case to be fundamentally flawed by allowing just one country the right to veto the will of others. This is not a direct reference to France, as I believe it would be wrong for the UK, US or whoever else to be able to use such a veto in a decision as important as this.

Theoretically, every member nation bar France could have backed the latest resolution, and yet the official stance of the UN would have been against. Not my idea of a fair and reflective administration.

Thirdly, yes the US has more arsenal than the rest of the world put together probably, but I don't believe for a moment that they would be used recklessly and certainly not on its own population like certain regimes have done in the past.

---

Name: THOMAS NATHAN HADDAWAY JR
From: VIRGINIA, US
Age: 21
Occupation: STUDENT

The only wrong thing to do would have been to do nothing.

With "anti-western sentiment" resulting from years of unaccountability by western nations, scepticism on anything we do will exist.

Here we have a real problem: The people of Iraq oppressed by a ruthless dictator. Our ability to help the people of Iraq and provide for them where their government failed will serve for reconciliation between the largely Muslim people and the western states.

Post 9/11 we realise that removing our cultural influences on traditionalists is a must, only aid and a stable government are gifts to these people.

This calls for delicate removal of the current government, and it is currently under way. However the reasons for action have stuck. This is a campaign to free the Iraqi people, to stop the use of horrible weapons, and take responsibility for our errors in the past.

---

Name: JANAKI MACKENZIE
From: THE NETHERLANDS

Fascinating to read those who are pro the war. Perhaps a fair referendum should be taken in Iraq or by Iraqi people worldwide - would they be in favour of the US taking over their country to liberate them from Saddam? From the reports I've heard, I would suggest not.

The US has become far too powerful for there to be some sort of political balance in the world. We talk about democracy - democracy is about numbers - there have been many polls taken of those pro and anti this war but there is an indication that about 80% of the world's population is against the war. Where does democracy then stand? The US is NOT the whole world even if it thinks it is.

I still feel and think that at least more time should have been taken before starting this invasion and the UN should have remained involved.

The US has already blundered many times in this war eg not realising what a strong opposition they would face, the sandstorm that has hindered their progress, the market place bombardment, etc. that clearly they do NOT know what is best for the world.

Mr Bush go home and get your own house in order first!

---

Name: BRIAN STEWART-COXON
From: ABERDEENSHIRE

Saddam has made all this happen, he did not need to take money, weapons and technology from the US, UK, Germany, Austria, France and Russia.

He did not need to have a war with Iran, he did not need to spend Iraq's wealth on his own ego and weapons, he did not need to invade Kuwait and he did not need to sign up to a ceasefire then ignore the agreement.

Saddam has been able to take Iraq from an annual GDP equivalent to Spain, to the sorry state it is today. No-one else is to blame. Like numerous other countries to keep their power they need to blame someone else for the situation, this regime has blamed the West and some of its neighbours.

South Africa is a good model for how a country can disarm when all sides co-operate. That would never happen in this case, if Saddam had shown he was giving in he would be replaced.

Andrey - will you be protesting against the sales from your government that has breached the sanctions and prolonged the suffering of the Iraq people, or will you take the easy option and blame the UK and US? The coalition is speaking and acting for the 85% of the Iraq population who have no voice, are dependent on the regime bully boys for their very existence and have been subjugated for years.

---

Name: ANDREY BARABANSHCHIKOV
From: TULA, RUSSIA

The only thing I cannot understand is as follows: following this logic is it true that whenever and wherever the new dictator emerges he should be toppled by taking military actions by any country that does not like him, right?

We got used to hearing from numerous officials of any level that the war was last and utmost measure. To say so is like confirming publicly that you are not clever intelligent enough to find the common language with your opposer.

In my humble opinion the wars break out when the others keep silence and war in Iraq is just the case. Who¿s going to be the next in the line? Is Saddam the only dictator on the planet?

The thing is that he is probably the only one who has huge oil resources.

I did not serve in the army but I have never seen my grandfather and two uncles who were killed in 1942 by Nazis. What annoys me most of all is that that the world became extremely violent. Look at the calendar ¿ is it 3rd Millennium yet? Remember - the war remains act of liberation only until the notification about dead, wounded and missing soldiers will be delivered to their families.

---

Name: ALEXANDRA AHMAD
From: LEBANON
Age: 24

Undoubtedly Saddam Hussein and his regime are "evil" but this does not justify the action taken by the coalition forces, this does not justify war.

President Bush claims that Iraq refused to obey UN resolutions and must be taught a lesson, all the while ignoring that fact that numerous other regimes, such as Israel, have also refused to obey UN resolutions. It is laughable really that in order to force Iraq to comply with the UN, the coalition itself has defied the United Nations.

This war is wrong on so many levels. The deaths of Iraqi civilians and coalition forces is unacceptable and unnecessary. Ignoring the voices of the very people who elected you into power is not Democracy and if this is the Democracy the coalition wants to bring to Iraq then I think the Iraqis are better of with what they have now.

Destroying the credibility of an institution like the UN, set up to ensure security through means other than war, will cause irreparable harm to the state of international law and governance. Can the US and UK claim that they have the right to defy the Security Council and then deny this right to other nations?

Does the coalition want to destroy a "global evil"? It should look towards eradicating poverty in the developed and developing worlds. It should open schools in areas where education is unheard of. It should feed the hungry, provide everyone with potable water, make sure medical care is available to under-developed nations and elsewhere.

It should impose regulations on companies who insist on sending defective products to African nations. Maybe when people are not desperate, they will be able to achieve what they need without the help of coalition bombs.

---

Name: DAVE BENNETT
From: STOCKHOLM
Age: 29
Occupation: TELECOMS ENGINEER

Saddam Hussein is hiding something. That is one thing I think we can all be sure of. But we haven't seen any significant proof of it.

Our forces are invading the country and still haven't shown us anything to be afraid of! Saddam Hussein is not a threat. His army is significantly weaker than it was during Gulf War 1.

UN sanctions have weakened his country even further and caused more misery for his people. The UK and US are the threat.

---

Name: THOMAS NATHAN HADDAWAY JR
From: VIRGINIA, US

The problem with the peace process is that it has failed!

While trying to play according to the peace process time has passed, and would continue passing without results. Meanwhile the people of Iraq are suffering and oppressed by the institution that should be saving them.

The people of Iraq are afraid to speak out for being shot by their own militia/military. If one needs proof look at the incidents in the last 24 hours where fleeing citizens from Bahgdad are coming under fire from their own kind.

I hardly think a US soldier dresses in a white button down shirt and khaki slacks.

America and its Allies are doing the right thing by putting their problems on hold to help with the absolute poverty and oppression of the Iraqi people.

---

Name: KABVUTO
From: ZAMBIA

Yes, going to war with Iraq was a wrong thing to do. Why? Consider the innocent lives that have been lost! Who can bring them back? Nobody!

Perhaps those pursuing the war did not experience the effects of a war during the first and second world wars.

How would the Americans feel if the British leader directed the removal of the American leader by force from Britain, or vice versa? Do the people waging this war really care what human life is?

I strongly do not support this war in anyway. It was just wrong to go to war with Iraq...You can never solve any problems by means of war; you just make a lot of innocent civilians suffer.

---

Name: ADAM SOFRONIJEVIC
From: BELGRADE

Unfortunately I cannot agree with the opinion that we "have grown out of using violence to achieve our aims". I suppose I have little belief in "lessons learnt".

My bottom line is this: by leaving Saddam Hussein in power the world is sending a message that there are countries where one can rule however he or she wants, and he or she can even pull the leg of the world community.

There are people or regimes that cannot be trusted at all. And in some way the existence of such phenomena can change the face of the world that had previously believed in security and order.

Global peace has a certain cost. The most developed countries have to take responsibility to balance the world we live in.

---

Name: DAVE BENNETT
From: STOCKHOLM

Olly, sure the US wouldn't use their weapons on their own people, but that doesn't mean we shoudn't fear them.

The majority of the world's population is not American. The Vietnam war is a perfect example of why countries should fear the US.

I can't name a country that isn't a greater threat to world peace than the US of A. I do not support what they do, but I am so glad I'm an ally.

However I do agree with you on the United Nations. It's ridiculous how one or two nations could veto a resolution that the majority of nations support.

---

Name: NEIL MONK
From: SOUTH YORKS, UK
Occupation: CUSTOMER SERVICE

Adam, I found your post very interesting.

My opinion is that we need this war... the world needs this war. If this war is not sucessful, in my opinion, it is dreadful to to even imagine what will happen. We need to oust Saddam and his regime before he strikes again, possibly with even more catastrophic results.

The war is happening, and there is very little that we can do about it, even if we wanted to. The anti-war "protesters" who are blocking roads, and bringing traffic in city centres to a stand-still do not understand that, like it or not, this war is happening, and no matter what they do, they will not change that fact.

I for one do not want all the brave men and women out there to die, or to have died in vain. We need to keep up the pressure on Saddam and his regime.

So, how's about supporting our troops, agree with the war or not... let's give people the confidence to fight this war!!

---

Name: SALIK FAROOQI
From: WASHINGTON DC
Occupation: LEGAL CO-ORDINATOR
Age: 27

Let's be honest. This war is not being waged for the Iraqi people.

Far better for the US and Uk to be honest about their intentions, than be brazenly hypocritical in stating that this war is about Iraqi freedoms, Iraqi human rights, and Iraqi liberties.

If this was the concern of US and UK foreign policy, they would never have supported and armed Saddam Hussein as he came into power, and maintained that power. This tyrant was used to crush the "menace" of the Iranian revolution that threatened to sweep Arab monarchies out of power, and in doing so, jeopardize US oil supplies.

Truth is that Saddam Hussein's most tyrannical acts - eg. the Halabja gassing, and the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war - occured while Saddam was cheered on by US policymakers. Indeed, the very weapons he used were brewed in US laboratories. Some how, they did not think he was a "tyrant" then. They chose to ignore the fact that he was "evil". That he was destroying Iraqi freedoms, Iraqi rights, and Iraqi liberties. At that time, he was good, because he protected US strategic interests. Today, US strategic interests demand an Iraq without Saddam. They demand an Iraq whole. Therefore, this war. Fate has dealt Iraqis a bad hand indeed. In the 80s, The US imposed Saddam Hussein on them in the name of the "greater good". Today, the US bombs them in the name of the "greater good". Tomorrow, the US will place another ruler upon them who will exploit them, and that action too, will be done for the sake of the "greater good".

Iraqi freedoms, Iraqi liberties, and Iraqi rights never were, and never are part of US strategic interests. The only time they become "of interest", is when US politicians seek support for their more overtly aggressive acts. The sooner we see this, the better.

I wholly support the resolution, and I do it in the interests of the Iraqi people.

---

Name: SYDNEY
From: NEW YORK

I am not sure what Adam Sofronijevic means by "global evil" since Hussein's has been contained and the country crippled by more than a decade of brutal economic sanctions and regular bombardment during that period.

And if any administration has shared "limited resources of wealth among a group of people close to the regime" it is the Regime presently ensconced in the White House. This is a regime that has, and is attempting to, chip away at the Constitution of the United States.

This is a regime that cloaks itself with prayers and Christianity, while detaining Afghan fighters at Camp X-ray in Guatanamo Bay, while refusing to declare the Prisoners of War so that they may not be treated according to the Geneva Convention mandates.

The western mind has no understanding of the psyche and preferences, customs and mores of the people we seek to tell what is best for them. Indeed, they have shown that they would rather live and die in a country ruled by Saddam Hussein and the Baath party than to be occupied by a foreign western government. They are fiercely loyal to their country as they as showing.

The Williamsburg Bridge from Long Island into Manhattan was closed this morning. Three "middle eastern" men were climbing down the bridge. A large policeforce swept to the area, bomb squads, helicopters, newscrews. Traffic was blocked for miles. It turned out that three drunk young men (not middle eastern at all) on their way home decided it would be fun to climb the bridge. That sort of sky-larking is finished here.. The world is now an infinitely more dangerous place. And it has nothing to do with Saddam.

---

Name: ALEXANDRA AHMAD
From: LEBANON

Brian, Iraq did not have to go to war with Iran. Salik you are right on this point. That war maybe could have been avoided if the US had not decided that it would be in ¿everyone¿s¿ best interest if the regime in Iran at that time was deposed.

The US knew about Saddam¿s maltreatment of Iraqis but still decided that he was the lesser evil and decided to support him against Iran.

Adam, do you really believe that the world only reacts in ¿extreme situations¿. South Africa has been thrown around as an example of peaceful transition but was the age of Apartheid not an extreme situation?

Where was the US and the coalition of the willing then? Why was Apartheid left to its own devices against UN resolutions?

Neil, it worries me that a citizen of one of the world¿s oldest democracies is stating that no matter what the protesters do they will make no difference. Is this the democracy you are so willing to spread all over the world?

---

Name: BRIAN STEWART-COXON
From: ABERDEENSHIRE

The term Pro-War is as much wrong as is the term Anti-war, very few are Pro-War but people do see that when the UN unanimously passes a resolution saying this is the last chance and serious consequences will result, what did Russia and France think serious consequences meant - another resolution?

A lot of the people who are referred to as Pro-War are concerned, worried, about it being right, but are certain that something had to be done, too many people in the UN look only as far as their own countries interest both Pro and Anti War.

The so called Anti-War are in the main well minded people, but are being organised by people with another agenda that is not Anti-War, none of their websites criticise anyone but the US, UK and Israel.

If one of these groups marches against all conflict I will join them, but that would need to other conflicts including Russia - Chechnya, China - Nepal and both sides in the Israel - Palestinian troubles. Not the selected Anti-War stance that exists currently. Where are the banners condemning Saddam at the current rallies?

I believe Saddam has WMD and his regime is so unstable he would use them (again), I hope that if they are used they are against prepared troops and not civilians, especially not against Israel or Kuwait.

---

The vote has closed. Results will be announced on Monday.