<% ballot="48018" ' Check nothing is broken broken = 0 if ballot = "" then broken = 1 end if set vt = Server.Createobject("mps.Vote") openresult = vt.Open("Vote", "sa", "") ' Created object? if IsObject(vt) = TRUE then ' Opened db? if openresult = True AND broken = 0 then ballotresult = vt.SetBallotName(ballot) ' read the vote votetotal=(vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes")+vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no")) if votetotal <> 0 then ' there are votes in the database numberyes = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes") numberno = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no") percentyes = Int((numberyes/votetotal)*100) percentno = 100 - percentyes ' fix graph so funny graph heights dont appear 'if percentyes = 0 then ' percentyes = 1 'end if 'if percentno = 0 then ' percentno = 1 'end if else ' summut went wrong frig it numberyes = 0 numberno = 0 percentyes = 50 percentno = 50 end if end if end if %> Votes so far:

100% 0%			>		>
			Yes: <% =percentyes %>%		No: <% =percentno %>%

Why don't the USA and Uk mind their own business and solve there own problems. I believe the USA and UK have great interest in his wealth not in his weapons. It's about time that the Western leaders keep their hands to themselves.
Joynal Abdin, UK

The answer to Saddam's continued defiance and manipulations is to hit him where it hurts: the Republican Guard. Then let Iraqis deal with their "beloved" leader themselves. There have already been (sadly unsucessful) attempts to assasinate or oust him, but of course he ensures he is well protected...
Richard Gregory, UK

The USA has least right to comment on someone's chemical weapons after what they've done in Vietnam. The UN should take better look at US sites as there is little hope that they have mended their ways.
Nickolay Kuzmin, Russia

The United States is also in violation of a resolution by the Security Council. When will Britain decide to bomb Washington in order to ensure enforcement, and in order to ensure that the Americans will not unleash their weapons of mass destruction on the rest of the world? Before the USA continues its hypocritical self serving pretences of defending peace and democracy in the world in the name of the United Nations, maybe they should prove that they actually support the UN by paying the UN their dues - otherwise it becomes a bit hard to believe that the US really supports the UN that much.
KE, USA

I sometimes wonder why the US didn't fight to win in Vietnam or the Gulf. They always walk away with the job half done, and the current situation in Iraq is a result of this policy.
Roy, Canada

Yes, I am afraid that force is necessary against Iraq. I believe that that is the only thing Saddam respects. And he needs to realize where the bounds of responsible international relations stands. He claims the UN Weapons team spent too much time there, well, if he allowed them to do their job efficiently they would have been gone long ago, instead of dillydallying, and trying to hide weapons. I do believe that the US and maybe the UK need to show Saddam he can not get away with blantant disregard of UN mandates.
Dave Halverson, USA

Why did we not finish the job the first time! Saddam continues to build palaces while his people suffer. For goodness sake get it over with and get rid of him once and for all, or is the West to a certain degree glad he is there to balance power in the Middle East?
Dolores Jukes, UK

Speak softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy sometimes requires force to back it up. The West should not be cowed by a small-time dictator in a Third World country. World leaders like America and Britain should not hesitate to act alone if necessary. After all, that's what leaders are for.
Ben Brothers, USA

Untill the rest of the world agrees that the use of force is the only option, we should not be dragged into a war that only the US appears willing to support.
Richard Butlin, UK

The job should have been properly the first time. Saddam should have been slotted and this subject would not have come up again. Jihad is an easy out for a tinpot dictator.
P. Smith, UK

Let me remind everybody that Saddam is in power today thanks to the caring attention of the West. It was the CIA that put the Ba'ath party in power in 1963 and the west made sure that any attempt to get rid of him would fail. And the constant mention of the weapons of mass destruction, well who allowed Saddam to get hold of them? The West. So please if you want to get rid of Saddam, help the Iraqies to get rid of him and not by bombing the powerless Iraqies every time you want to show that you have the military power.
Ali Kisra, Iraq

Force has to be an option due to the horrors Saddam Hussein may unleash on the 21st Century.
Andy Vowles, UK

Saddam Husein has shown in the past that he will only respond to military force.
J Goodman, UK

Saddam is not a nice guy. But his people like him. What right do the Americans have to busy body there again, haven't they learnt that their playing policemen tends to have disastrous effects? Apart from being hypocritical?
Laszlo Bene, a traveller in Spain

Admittedly Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator and in no way do I stand up for what he has been responsible for. But the West is being totally hypocritical. How can military action be justified against Iraq when it is not even contemplated against Turkey (for the invasion of Southern Kurdistan), Indonesia (for their occupation of East Timor), or India (for the brutal occupation of Kashmir)? If the main concern of Britain and the US is to protect the lives and Human Rights of innocent people, then they should give other countries the same attention that they are giving Iraq.
Naoise O'Boyle, Ireland

Having a loved one in the middle of such a conflict will usually sway ones feelings to one side or the other. In this case, I have to support whatever the British navy's job will be. That means support the job and duty of my boyfriend, LAEM (R) David Tozer who is stationed on the HMS INVINCIBLE. It's not a case of supporting force. It's a case of all of us back home supporting our loved ones because it is they who are in this situation, that not many of us would show the courage to uphold.
Elizabeth A. Stouffer, USA and UK

Force is not only unnecessary it is irrelevant. Saddam Hussein is a master of manipulation, and he has shown that HE is in charge of the situation, not the dithering ever-arguing 'international community', who he clearly has the full measure of. He has played the same game for years and will continue to do so, winning hands down every time from his own point of view. Violence might work if Saddam had any care for the safety of the Iraqi population, but he clearly has none - Iraqui deaths simply give him more ammunition in a propaganda war against the West - a war he is consistently winning within the middle east.
John Luby, Scotland

What are we going to achieve by force? The only good thing we can hope to achieve is to delay the production of weapons they have or assassinate Hussein. But, if Hussein is assassinated who is going to take his place and will the structure of the country crumble? Or will it be taken into a higher level of isolation?
Anne Wright, UK

The word "force" is too much of a euphemism - what we are talking about is killing and maiming. I have no sympathy for Saddam Hussein but I believe that we resort to force much too readily without exhausting other diplomatic options. The West seems to worry about "losing face" if they negotiate on the make- up of the UN verification team. Surely loss of face is a small price to pay compared with loss of any life - western or Iraqi ? Is it so unreasonable to ensure that the UN weapons team is a little more representative of UN nations and a little less American dominated?
Katie Musson, Scotland

Although I am often at odds with the way my government tends to throw its weight around, on this issue I believe some forceful action is necessary. I am terribly concerned about the plight of the average Iraqi; however, one must not forget who started this situation. But to be honest, I am not sure military action will bring about a positive end to the stand-off. Eventually, Saddam is going to have to realize that this situation is not going to go away. Hopefully, it will not take a couple of cruise missiles for him to realize this.
Matthew Bourgeois, USA

The people of Iraq need help in achieving freedom. Unfortunately, it appears force is the best the west can do, given the nature of Iraq's political leadership.
Anthony Newnham, USA

Not one drop of American or British blood should be shed over a dispute that at its roots is over petroleum. We should instead spend our collective monies and efforts on developing effective energy alternatives.
Tom Doyle, USA

Saddam Hussein will only respond to force. But Saddam will make sure that force applied to Iraq will harm its people first and Saddam and his cronies last of all. So we really need to go in to protect the Iraqi people against their own government. But that's colonialism.
Jon Livesey, USA

Force is not only necessary, but critical. When the UN forces chose not to take down Saddam himself, this was viewed as weakness by the Iraqis. Only force is respected in the Arab world, and having force and not using it is tantamount to being powerless.
Tom Carlin, USA

Saddam Hussein acts as if he has forgotten which side lost the war back in 1991. The UN can no longer pretend that his obstruction of inspection teams is a mere misunderstanding. Iraq's government is in violation of the terms of the cease fire. Because of the seriousness of this situation, Iraq must be brought into compliance, by force if necessary. The way to keep Israel out of it is for countries like Britain and the US, with cooperation from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, to slap Saddam down decisively.
James Castro, USA

It's Saddam who should suffer for all this.. but invariably the people will be hurt and killed in thousands, if another war is to spark off. The people are innocent and the culprit is their leader. We should find an effective method of punishing him and end the cat and mouse race.
Sulove Bothra, India

Saddam Hussein has shown by his previous actions that he only responds to force. However, the UK and USA are in danger of becoming isolated from the rest of UN member countries and Saddam may try and exploit this. If he does, things may become even trickier. I think a more low key approach should have been used.
Ross Wells, UK

US and British military action in the Gulf would have disastrous consequences. I believe the international community must take a united stand against Saddam Hussein and his desire to create weapons of mass destruction.
But to launch military strikes now would only gain Saddam the sympathy of the Arab world. Britain and America should not force the pace of events in the Gulf - the days of colonialism are long over.
James Mills, UK

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage	©