|You are in: Programmes: Panorama|
Read your comments
Panorama: Chasing Saddam's Weapons was broadcast on BBC One at 2215 GMT on Sunday, 9 February, 2003.
Although the programme emphasised the suspicion that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, it did not prove that it does have them and the case for war is not a strong one at present. There are one or two dubious sites which need further investigation by the UN inspectors and they must be given time to complete their report before any military action is taken.
No country wants to go to war if there is a political solution. We have had 12 years of cat and mouse and it's about time it was resolved. The UN has got to remember why it was started. If it does not act in a positive manner it just becomes a talking shop and undermines security all over the world.
I thought the programme showed the deviousness of the Iraqis and the almost impossible task of the inspectors. But it seemed more intent on proving the western viewpoint than being even handed. I wonder how much access it would have been granted to our own weapons programmes.
And it was clear that most of the facilities in Iraq were half wrecked and to bomb a country to smithereens because of a few old papers found in the home of a scientist is wrong.
Any weapons programmes they have could only be small. Whilst the reporting reflected arrogant and hypocritical western attitudes it did illustrate the difficulties of dealing with a regime like Saddam's
Why didn't the US finish the job during the Gulf War, when they could have walked to Bagdad?
If UN-resolutions are so important all of a sudden, why is nothing done about Israel which has been breaching resolutions for years?
The UN must, with any rogue nation, be prepared to assess the facts presented to it by those entrusted to gather them and then judge accordingly.
It's obvious to anyone who has a memory span of more than two years that Saddam is playing the same game he has always played.
In the programme, you inferred continually that the weapons inspectors cannot find concealed weapons in a country the size of Iraq.
And yet you state that the Iraqi WMD programmes, which had been concealed initially in the early 1990s, had only been discovered by the original weapons inspections team.
You cannot have it both ways - they either work or they don't.
Christopher Ashley, UK
It is absurd for the Iraqis to be put in the position where if they admit to having weapons, this will be used as an excuse to attack them - and if they do not admit to having weapons they will be attacked anyhow.
I believe in international law - and it seems to me that the proper way to deal with people like Saddam is via the new International Criminal Court (or some other similar international body).
The idea of the mobile laboratories really is silly. The contents of even the most basic chemical or biological lab even if packed tight would not fit into the type of vehicle shown in those photographs.
For those sorts of materials one needs a large well equipped laboratory.
I am strongly against the attack on Iraq and I do not believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
For the simple reason that if it did, America and Israel would opt for a dialogue and a peaceful solution, as Iraq would have the capability of attacking Israel if threatened by America.
I hope our kids can live in a peaceful and war free world.
Common sense dictates that a man who has refused inspection for 12 years has something to hide.
The only thing that has brought progress in the last 12 years is the threat of force, because that is the only thing that Saddam understands.
Yet various nations are bleating about "giving peace a chance" and complaining about potential civilian casualties.
In the present situation, we have the best chance in years to get rid of an evil despot with minimal loss of life. It would be unethical to fail to take this opportunity.
Shame on France, Germany and Russia, for not fully backing the USA and UK.
They are allowing Saddam Hussain to "play" with the UN inspectors, as he has done before. Saddam may think differently if the whole of Europe was united.
I agree that the UN inspectors need more time, but I also don't believe Saddam is being truthful....how can you trust a man who is prepared to "murder" possibly hundreds of his own people?
Any one with any common sense will know that the Iraqis do have these bio weapons but the real question here is why they have them, is it for research or as a deterrent?
If you look at it from the Iraqi point of view they say why us? There are 13 other countries who have and are in the process of developing nuclear power and other WOMD.
So why single them out now? More revelations are surfacing, so why not leave the inspectors to deal with it, now the scientists are coming forward?
If we don't deal with Iraq's threat to world peace, then in a few months there will be people writing to this site asking why did the mighty America, with all its knowledge, not prevent nuclear bombs being dropped, killing possibly millions. I wonder how many people will reply to this site saying they made a mistake. I say, leave it to those who really know how to deal with protecting our lives.
Dr A.H Mirza, UK
Has the USA and the UK any chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction (WoMD's)? If they have, what is the amount? Under what conditions would they intend to use it 'legitimately'?
It is clear from your Panorama programme of this evening that no evidence has yet been uncovered to suggest that Iraq presents any threat to the UK or the USA and that war is not justified.
How do we know that if Iraq presents their WOMD that this will be in total?
I'm sick and tired of the threat of war against Iraq and it's innocent people. I hope everybody who is against this war will come out and be counted. Then, let's put our attention to resolve the injustice committed daily against another innocent people, the Palestinians. Let's have new UN resolutions to contain Israeli aggression. There should be one law for all.
Let's look at the weapons of mass destruction that the Americans and British possess, why they are spending billions on developing them and the effects on humanity. As long as one country possesses these weapons every other country has the right to possess them to defend themselves from aggression.
A Lawson, Scotland
I totally agree that Saddam is an evil person. But Bush and Blair are joined at the hips to fight! I don't think they would do this to any western country! So my question is that why Iraq when England supported them to fight against Iran? The UK is being a hypocritical and following USA too much.
Thank you for being a sound and sane voice, one of the few I've ever heard on the issue of Iraq. The 'leftists fascists' in this country are completely confused between their anti-American feelings and the real facts, colluding with the most horrible dictators and endangering us all.
Sam Khorie, UK
Jane Corbin closed on the assumption that war is inevitable. It's not, and millions all over the world will send that message to US on 15th Feb.
This war is about Iraq's oil and giving Israel the sole domination of the whole Middle East.
The Iraqis are clearly not complying with the inspectors. But, if the US really wants to avert war, they can. They seem more bound on bombing the place, which they do right now as we speak. The inspectors are putting in a lot of effort, but is it worth it? Is it worth their efforts if things are pre-planned, and Iraq is destined to be bombed? With America's economy getting into recession, I cannot see them bringing their forces back.
Hermann Cuschieri, Malta
Jane Corbin talks about the chemical attack in Halabja but she fails to reveal Donald Rumsfeld's role in the Chemical industry of Iraq and indeed the role of military industries based here in the UK. Massive defence contracts took place between the UK and Iraq during the 80s simply so that the 'Islamic' revolution doesn't happen in neighbouring Iran.
First time a war will be fought on suspicion. Hope this does not set a precedent for others. "I will attack because I believe..." WMD are freely available in the former Soviet Union. If one is deployed against western countries, will we automatically jump to the conclusion it was Iraq?
Saddam Hussein's regime has been seeking forms of the world's most deadly toxins, capable of the slaughter of hundreds of thousands, for years. Between all the slurs against the PM and against President Bush, we must not forget why they're making the stink they are: Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer with some of the world's most deadly weapons at this disposal.
Should we (and the USA) not worry more about keeping on good terms with France, Russia and China? Surely we are going to need their help in the next "arms of mass destruction" crisis with North Korea.
Britain and the United States supplied Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction when it meant that Iran was the testing ground for these weapons. Why can't today's politicians address this issue which similarly led to Osama Bin Laden coming into power? The West should start realising that they pose a far bigger threat to world security than do Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction!
The US Government. say they definitely know that Iraq has WMD but have no idea where they are. That is illogical. Iraq says they have not got any WMD and no one can find any. That is logical!
Top Panorama stories now:
Links to more Panorama stories are at the foot of the page.
|E-mail this story to a friend|
To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>> | To BBC World Service>>
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy