Europe South Asia Asia Pacific Americas Middle East Africa BBC Homepage World Service Education
BBCi CATEGORIES   TV   RADIO   COMMUNICATE   WHERE I LIVE   INDEX    SEARCH 

BBC NEWS
 You are in:  Talking Point
Front Page 
World 
UK 
UK Politics 
Business 
Sci/Tech 
Health 
Education 
Entertainment 
Talking Point 
Forum 
In Depth 
AudioVideo 


Commonwealth Games 2002

BBC Sport

BBC Weather

SERVICES 
Tuesday, 9 April, 2002, 12:28 GMT 13:28 UK
Should there be military action against Iraq?
Iraq montage
US President George W Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair have expressed their support for a change of regime in Iraq.

After a weekend of talks in Texas, the two leaders again warned Iraq that it could face military action if it refuses to allow weapons inspectors back into the country.

Mr Blair also said that, "if necessary and justified", military action could be aimed at toppling Saddam Hussein.

Both Bush and Blair were careful not to mention immediate action, but their tough talk will inevitably raise fears that the US and Britain are preparing to strike against Saddam Hussein's regime.

Is military action against Iraq justified? Does it have international support? What should the world do about Iraq?

This debate is now closed. Read your messages below.

Who has deemed the United States and Britain as the governors of the world? I believe that we already have such an international body attempting to do just this. Yet they proceed with more caution and sound thinking. Why should other nations not return Bush's favour and change his regime, for shaking up the world balance with his defence shield or withdrawal from the Kyoto agreement? Or even the new impositions on European steel? American hegemony is not something we need at this point in time. What we need is a clear balance and sound judgement
Mike, Japan


I would welcome the opportunity to again participate in this successful and totally justified campaign.

Jeremy E.Vellon, USA
Military action against Iraq intended to remove Saddam from power is completely justified. While geo-political situations rarely fit into black and white descriptions, Saddam is evil. His mere existence perpetuates the suffering of his people and the destabilization of the region. Finally, he continues to threaten the physical and economic well-being of Britons and Americans everywhere with his weapons and corrupted commerce. As a US Navy pilot currently in between deployments to the current area of operations, I would welcome the opportunity to again participate in this successful and totally justified campaign.
Jeremy E. Vellon, USA

Saddam Hussain is a dictator. He rules his country ruthlessly. HIS country. It is not up to us to overthrow him, unless it is proved beyond doubt that he threatens the West with dangerous weapons. His country will throw him out if they want him out. Even if he was threatening America, why should we send in our military? Many of our men have already died protecting America in Afghanistan. Let the Americans fight their own wars alone!
Chris Hawes, Great Britain

Any action taken unilaterally, without the full, unbullied consent of the UN, by the US/UK would be wrong. It is debatable whether it should be up to us to remove Saddam anyway - we have done more harm to the country than he ever did. Who sold him the chemical weapons that allowed him to kill so many Kurds, then stood by while he used them? The weapons inspectors were able to access 90% of their targets and were pulled out (not expelled) when Saddam accused the US of using the teams as an excuse to spy. The number of people who have quit the UN over this issue is surely a sign that something isn't quite right.
Niall, Scotland

It takes more than the removal of Saddam to fix the problem, because his son or another member of the public trained by Saddam will take power, and continue Saddam's rule, even after he may have passed. If any action is taken against Iraq, then the sanctions imposed on the country must be lifted, or the conditions for the true sufferers of Saddam will not have improved.
Firas Al-Hassani, UK / Iraq

Military action against Iraq is sure to lead to civilian casualties - and it is against all forms of international law (is there is any!). It will further undermine the US ability to attain peace.
Saima Hameed, London, UK


Our government is the real threat

James, USA
I'm sick of hearing these fellow Americans talk about "threats" from the Middle East and "action against terrorism". Nobody is a "threat" to us. Our government is the real threat - to the safety and well-being of the rest of the planet. Open your eyes and stop all this patriotic whining. Any true human being should fully support a free Palestine.
James, USA

Let's not forget that the military intervention in Afghanistan has been a complete failure. All those neophytes banging the drums of success should be reminded that the death of over 5'000 innocent civilians, wholly unconnected with a crime they never committed, and the escape of the main culprit is not a success. The forthcoming Iraq war will be exactly the same, more innocent civilians will perish and the one-eyed American media will once again spoon feed us the success stories. No thanks, I don't want to be a part of this, I have always been pro-Blair, however, this is the last straw, I shall be demonstrating my discontent at the next ballot box.
James, UK, Manchester

The military action against Iraq is not legal since there is no resolution from the Security Council. There are many resolutions from the Security Council against Israel, but none of them has been implemented. This is a biased policy.
Qurashi, Saudi Arabia

Don't do foolish things! You may find it turns out to be negative though it is positive today. Think it over carefully and learn more from history.
Anonymous

I am still waiting for a shred of evidence that Saddam is producing weapons of mass destruction. Or are we to believe everything politicians tell us? We have no right to attack Iraq as it stands. I do wonder, however, how much this has to do with terrorism? Or is it more about oil? I think Blair should consult his own country before (once again) running at America's whim.
Tom D., UK

When Atta met with the Iraqi intelligence agent in Czech republic, what in the world do you think they were talking about? I say, seize the oil fields! Maybe one of the Queen's brilliant subjects can answer this for me...when did we add two new states to the union and who said the goal of the gulf war in 1991 was to remove Saddam? As any idiot knows, there are 50 states in America and the only two goals of the 1991 war were to eject Iraq from Kuwait and restore the government!
Alan, USA


The USA can do whatever it wants when it perceives a threat

Gerald Paul, USA
The entire Western world has basically let itself get into the position of having the USA take care of any substantial military threat. Accordingly the USA can do whatever it wants when it perceives a threat because if something major were to happen as a result of Iraq threatening with weapons of mass destruction, everyone would come crying to the USA for help just like they did in WWII.
Gerald Paul, USA

Stop the bulling. Stick to the principles of the UN charters. Let the international body deal with the weapons of destruction. Anything less will bring anger and, maybe, another attack against the USA.
Yonas A Isaak, USA

If your heart still have a bit of conscience and love, you will know the answer. You, the grateful people, know that so many year sanction on Iraq and Iraqi people has resulted in the dead of thousands and hundreds child because of shortage of medicine and food. This is the civilized terrorism against innocent people in a small and weak country by the economy weapon. It is much dangerous than the suicide bombing. So, we are living in a danger world. Why the people don't want to live in this world and want to end their life as bomber? You think about it. This is the answer.
Peace, US

There is 12.7% of people living in poverty in this country. Educational system is a failure, many people can't afford health insurance. And yet, taxpayers have to finance bombing Afghanistan, Iraq etc.
Marko, USA

I think the people that think we are after Saddam Hussein because of oil are misguided. We as in the US and the UK have a tough job ahead of us. Saddam has to go before he uses weapons of mass destruction on innocent populations. He has not complied with the UN and we have been too easy on him. Without sounding like one of President Bush's rhetoric speaks, I will say it pure and simple: "We need to put him on a time table within reason to comply with ". I think that even the Iraqi people can understand our position.
Richard Williams, USA


Saddam should be overthrown for the simple reason that he is exterminating the Kurds

Jeff Bander, USA
Saddam should be overthrown for the simple reason that he is exterminating the Kurds. He has gassed thousands of them and continues to kill there leaders today.
Jeff Bander, USA

Andy Fitzerald of France is correct: Bin Laden needs to be bought to justice first.
Greg, USA

Give me one good reason not to get rid of this Saddam. If we don't, any country can be in for September 11, but worse!
Maria, USA

First of all the last I checked the United States had 50 States and with the addition of the UK it (if I am doing my math right) would make 51. I voted for Bush and I think that he is doing a great job and should oust Saddam immediately.
Paul Roberson, USA

Yes, of course!
George, UK

Yes, the Iraqi regime must be toppled in the interest of the people of Iraq. However a military action against him is not what I would like to see. The common man of Iraq is already in a lot of misery...and a military action will only add to that. A military action against Saddam might also fuel already burning anti-US feeling due to the Middle East problems. UN and UK have a bigger role to play. Mr. Blair should be leading the EU, not walking behind Mr. Bush.
Pulkit, India

I think Saddam should be ousted. He's clearly a very irresponsible leader. He could have the sanctions against his country lifted immediately by complying with the UN's demand for inspections. He obviously puts his pride above the welfare of his people. He also continues to support his armies and weapons programs while his people starve and then blames the US and the UK for his plight.
Hector, UK


It's a shame coalition forces stopped short during the Gulf War

Russell, USA
Saddam Hussein should be ousted from power? It's a shame coalition forces stopped short during the Gulf War. Now he's had a decade to test and build biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons; all the while snubbing the UN and it's weapons inspectors. He's been given the opportunity to cooperate, but has shown his lack of regard for the world community and his own people. Yes the sanctions hurt Iraqis, but Hussein could alleviate their suffering by opening the doors to inspectors. He's used chemical weapons on his own people, and who knows what he has now in his arsenal. All of the naysayers need to ask themselves this question: If Saddam Hussein was in power of one of your neighboring countries, then would you still want him there with his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction? If you say yes, then you're either lying or a fool. He's a credible threat to the Arab world as Kuwait and the Kurds will testify. It's time for a change in Iraq, no more second chances.
Russell, USA

It seems that US campaign for going to war against Iraq pivots around three points:

  • Iraq does not like US,
  • Iraq is developing weapon's of mass destruction,
  • Iraq is in breach of UN resolutions
. Well at this point probably not too many Muslim countries (and probably half of the remainder) care for US either. As far as developing weapons of mass destruction, I can name a lot of other countries that are developing it too. As far as being in the breach of UN resolution, Israel ignores it all the time, but we don't start a war with them.
Motorman, USA

If your heart still has a bit of conscience and love, you will know the answer. You, the grateful people, know that so many year sanction on Iraq and Iraqi people has resulted in the death of thousands and hundreds children because of shortage of medicine and food. This is the civilized terrorism against innocent people in a small and weak country by the economy weapon. It is much dangerous than the suicide bombing. So, we are living in a danger world. Why the people don't want to live in this world and want to end their life as bomber? You think about it. This is the answer.
Peace, US


I'm amazed at the US' selfish motivations for threatening war

Jim Apple, USA
We have no more reason for attacking Iraq than we do China (for its atrocious and numerous human rights violations). I'm amazed at the US' selfish motivations for threatening war - it's all about oil (once again). Just because Iraq is rightly demanding an Israeli withdrawal doesn't mean that we have to attack Iraq. I wouldn't mind paying a few dollars more per gallon if it meant that the gas I was putting into my car did not cause more violence against the already-wearied Arabs.
Jim Apple, USA

Bush only wants Sadam because he can influence oil production so much. The US depends on it and Bush doesn't like that so he feels that by removing Sadam he will get his oil.
Owen Wallace, USA

I think it is time we started calling Great Britain 'Pet Britain', after all that's the direction Blair is taking it in. When will the US come out of its bubble and look at the world from the other perspective?
Rahul, India


He threatens every neighbour and the whole world

Alex Dryden, Canada
Yes. Get rid of Saddam. Since when did he ever observe any Muslim tenets, or any civilised standard of behaviour? He threatens every neighbour, and the whole world.
Alex Dryden, Canada

Despite what they or their supporters might believe, neither Bush nor Blair are leaders of the world. Saddam Hussein may be hated in the West, but he is tremendously popular in his own country. Bush has no more right to remove him, than Hussein has to remove Bush.
Andrew Smith, US (ex-UK)

The same lame excuses from the same people that cried about any military action in Afghanistan. Please stop your whining; Bush and Blair have very large intelligence organisations and therefore are much better informed about Iraqi threats than you are. They know what's going on and thank God they are going to prevent it.
James S. Welsh, UK


An attack on Iraq spells imminent doom for Middle East peace

Thomas, Greensboro, NC, US
Bush may want to act against Hussein for the wrong reason: to avenge his father's failure at an ouster more than ten years ago. The other disconcerting notion is this: say there is action on Iraq (whether the Iraqis possess mass-destructive weapons aside) and Iraq fires on Israel in retaliation. The US is already in a bad position for not acting on the Israeli pullout sooner, and if Israel goes under fire from a third party, the US situation will be much more a mess than it is already. In short, an attack on Iraq spells imminent doom for any Middle East peace as well as damning the US to a horrific foreign policy blunder.
Thomas, Greensboro, NC, US

How much of a threat are Saddam's alleged weapons for mass destruction? Pakistan has illegally developed and tested nuclear missiles yet they have conveniently become our allies in the so-called war on terror. The hypocrisy of American foreign policy is astounding.
John McNally, Singapore


Americans are unwilling to help a post-war Iraq rebuild

Jonathan Versen, Dallas area, Texas, US
Neither Bush nor the Democrats have the resolve to attack Iraq and see through the consequences of an ouster of Saddam Hussein. Most Americans who may be in favour of Saddam's ouster are unwilling to concede the responsibility to help a post-war Iraq rebuild itself. My impression is that most Americans favour a viscerally rewarding and superficial solution and I fear that we will just bomb the hell out of Iraq's infrastructure and leave her people desolate, with only token, guilt-salving efforts at reconstruction. If we do this we will have made our problems in this region much, much worse. We already seem to be headed in this direction in Afghanistan.
Jonathan Versen, Dallas area, Texas, US

Today, we live in a small world. Saddam is a dangerous link to us all and must be replaced with someone who will strengthen the global chain. We must demand that a fair global media be established to inform everyone - fairly, of what is really happening. Without independent media, no government will have legitimacy nor will its people be able to make decisions for the good of all.
Jack Bing, UK


Once he is gone, America should get out

Pete, UK
It is extremely worrying that a man such as Saddam has weapons of mass destruction in easy reach. The most important thing is that he is in breach of UN regulations, and not what the US and UK think. We have been to war too many times with Iraq with little accomplished. Blair and Bush seem to think that a regime change is a simple matter. If they start blowing up Baghdad and kill innocents in the process, the Arab world will go mad and rightly so. Maybe Saddam is just waiting for the fighting to start before he launches his weapons of mass destruction. We put ourselves in the firing line here. America's biggest problem is not Saddam's weapons but the Arab view that America is trying to control the Middle East. Going after Saddam could well antagonise and produce many September 11ths. Maybe Saddam should be toppled, but once he is gone, America should get out of the Middle East and stop trying to influence the world with what it thinks a political system should be. People don't like being told what to be.
Pete, UK


After 11 September, we can no longer plead ignorance of the threat

John, US
Yes, military action against Iraq is justified. Hussein had chemical weapons in the past, so it is not unreasonable to believe he has both chemical and biological weapons now. 11 September and the evidence found in Afghanistan later suggest that terrorists will use these weapons if they gain access to them. It seems inevitable that Hussein will ultimately give them that access. There is not international support but there doesn't need to be. All we need is Turkey and Kuwait. The US and Britain should remove Hussein and help set up a new government, as is happening now in Afghanistan. After 11 September, we can no longer plead ignorance of the threat. If terrorists use weapons of mass destruction in the future, those who work to prevent the US from taking action against Iraq today are partly responsible.
John, US

If we look at statistics, the US and the UK are the countries that were involved in the greatest number of wars, military actions and "interventions". When will it be enough? Maybe we should ask ourselves what should the world do about these trigger-happy governments? This time Iraq has not used its weapons. The US doesn't allow foreign weapons inspectors to check their arsenal - why should other countries? When will American anger be silenced down?
Mickey, Germany

Does Blair realise what a can of worms he is opening up for the UK by getting us so involved? We are no longer an empire Mr Blair. We don't have the economy, resources or people to commit to what will be a Middle East war, like it or not.
Michael Ashwin, British ex-pat

Governments do not take military action lightly. While the trendy Lefties and anti-Blairites will be parading the US/UK stance as an example of our Americanisation, Blair and Bush are likely to be responding to intelligence revealing a real and imminent threat. I feel sorry for Blair; he is doomed to be criticised if he takes action, and will suffer all the more criticism for failing to take action if Saddam's regime carries out any new atrocities.
John, UK


Bin Laden escaped in spite of the huge military operation

Maryam, Sweden
Being Iraqi, I agree with all the points mentioned about the impact that sanctions have had on the Iraqi people. But the issue that comes into mind when talking about toppling Saddam is, how on earth are they going to do it? Look at what happened in Afghanistan; Bin Laden and Mullah Omar just escaped in spite of the huge military operation. Saddam has a very strong personal and secret army services that have been highly trained for such attempts. In addition, if the US and UK claim that he still has weapons of mass destruction, how can they make sure that if his life is in danger, he won't use them to strike back?

In the end the only ones who will suffer are the Iraqi people. It is true that they are suffering under Saddam, but at least there is stability, the planned strike will only drive the country to chaos and this threatens the stability of the whole region. Bringing some member of the opposition to power is by no means a solution, because the Iraqi opposition does not have any credibility at all inside Iraq. The only solution is a diplomatic one where the suffering of 22 million Iraqis should be stopped. If people are not hungry and just thinking how to feed or dress their children day by day, they might even start demanding for more rights inside their country.
Maryam, Sweden

The people of Iraq would be much better off if we toppled Saddam. If it wasn't for the Republican Guard they would probably topple him themselves. The reason the rest of the Arab World is against such an operation is that they are afraid of the consequences of the action. Don't be fooled by their talk of destabilisation, no. What they truly fear is that Saddam will be replaced by a successful secular democracy. Such an outcome would only shorten the tenure of the dictators and Kings that now hold all the power in the Middle East. When Arab leaders oppose action aimed at toppling Saddam they speak only out of concern for their own rule nothing more.
Shawn, US


If you don't finish the job properly, then it will rear its ugly head again

Michael, Dublin, Ireland
I think we should have learnt an important lesson from this mess with Iraq. When you go to war, you finish the job. If you don't finish the job properly, then it will rear its ugly head again. When war is half-heartedly waged it prolongs the agony, suffering, hostilities and naturally the casualties.
Michael, Dublin, Ireland

If "President" Blair is deciding that the UK is going to become involved again in Iraq, it would be nice if he could involve the rest of the government by open debate in the House of Commons. This is not the first time he has decided what to do with our troops independently of Parliament. He, rightly(?), recalls Parliament to pay tribute to the Queen Mother on her death. However the decision to send British troops into a war zone, Afghanistan, was made without open democratic debate. Perhaps "President" Blair is angling for the UK to become the 53rd state of the US? Or, a better alternative for the ordinary Joe Public, as he likes to be the foreign emissary of President Bush he should move permanently to the US.
Alan Hancock, England


Why wait until it is too late?

Andrew D, UK
Glenda Jackson stated that it would be irresponsible of the US and UK to go into Iraq without relevant evidence. What reason does Saddam have to dismiss UN weapons inspectors if he is not developing weapons of mass destruction? Why wait until it is too late? Clearly the intent is there and the longer we give them the more likely it is that a weapon of mass destruction will be used against a western country. We must act now.
Andrew D, UK

Bombing or invading Iraq will do nothing except inflame the situation between East and West more and more, with the possibility of losing any remaining support from other Arab states.
James, UK

With talk that Saddam Hussein is trying to stock weapons of mass destruction, then there is little option but to take him out. However, it should be done with as little disruption to the Iraqi people as possible.
Hall, UK

After witnessing recent developments in Afghanistan and Israel I can't see why you are still procrastinating. Less talk, more action is what's needed. Our leaders have talked and talked for a long time - too long. It's time to clean up our mistakes and do something for a good reason for once.
Malcolm Archibald, United Kingdom


I remember voting for Blair - not Bush

Dave Hill, England
Will Britain end up being the 53rd state of America? Our government once again sucks up to the American Government. I seem to remember voting for Blair - not Bush.
Dave Hill, England

Here is a man who is responsible for: two major wars with hundreds of thousands of lost lives, bringing ruin to millions of his countrymen, producing dangerous weapons which he will one day donate to extremist terror groups and yet, we are still asking whether he should be left to carry on!?

George Bush Snr made the terrible mistake of letting him off the hook, now his son is (hopefully) trying to remedy that. Tony Blair is probably the only European leader who has the vision to see the long-term benefit of dealing with Saddam Hussein.
Kourosh, Switzerland

Children, old people, sick people and many other innocent people are going to pay the price of one man. It's time the world see that war won't take us anyway because the outcome is another war. Military action against Iraq will give way to create more dangerous weapons which may wipe up the entire world.
M. Keeletsang, Botswana

I can think of two other countries that amass weapons of mass destruction, defy world opinion and UN resolutions and will not allow inspection of their stockpiles. Yes you've guessed it the good old USA and Israel. Funnily enough, the two countries causing most strife in the world today. Do we bomb them into the dark ages too?
John D, UK


Military action breeds more terrorists

Sandra Vaughn, Richmond, VA, US
I think military action is not the best solution. It kills innocent civilians, destroys a country's infrastructure and results in deep hatred and desperate acts like suicide bombings. As far as justifying military action against Iraq for possessing weapons of mass destruction goes, possession is not the reason enough. I think my country possesses more weapons of mass destruction than any other country in the world. Military action kills innocent civilians and breeds more terrorists.
Sandra Vaughn, Richmond, VA, US

It seems to me that we are not the world's police force. More like the world vigilante force. Who is next? Russia? Why not target the people who terrorise our streets at home?
Bob Davies, England

If Saddam Hussein is such a threat, how come only the US and UK are making so much about it? Is it because the post 11 September excitement has worn out?
Mahesh Srinivasan, Manchester, UK

We should not attack Iraq, the people of Iraq have suffered enough! One and a half million people died due to UN sanctions, also they have suffered an epidemic of cancer due to the uranium depleted bombs the coalition and American troops dropped on the people of Iraq. Enough is enough!
Jack Homsette, USA

If there is to be action against Iraq it should be complete and sustained until the job (the removal of Hussein) is done. The West and the people of Iraq can not afford another wave of piecemeal attacks and sanctions.
N. Bradley, UK/ NZ


Let Iraq decide who they want as their President

Dr Khamis, Sweden
It is not justified to invade Iraq. There are other countries that not abiding to UN resolutions. The world has already seen enough of killings in the region. How can you get rid of Saddam without killing civilians? Let the citizens of Iraq decide who they want as their President.
Dr Khamis, Sweden

The first job of bringing Bin Laden to justice has not yet been accomplished, and President Bush made a promise that he would be brought to justice. All resources should be targeted on finding him first and completing the first job before even talking about an attack on Saddam Hussein.
Andy FitzGerald, France


We do want to get rid of Saddam as soon as possible, but the way to Saddam should not be over the bodies of innocent Iraqis

Ahmed Shames, UK
The situation in Iraq had to be dealt a long time ago. What is worrying me as an Iraqi is the neglect of Iraqis and their opinions when talking about this issue by the media and also by politicians. We do want to get rid of Saddam as soon as possible, but the way to Saddam should not be over the bodies of innocent Iraqis and the ruin of their infrastructure. We understand that any change of government will include some civilian losses, but we want the West to learn from their mistakes in Afghanistan and other places.

The other very important issue is the future of Iraq if a change of government is achieved. Iraqis has suffered long enough, and it would be a disaster if this suffering ends with the establishment of another dictatorship. Finally, I think that the threats of a civil war and/or a Kurdish state in the north of the country are unrealistic and unfounded.
Ahmed Shames, UK

Desert Storm, the countless sorties since, and the sanctions did nothing to remove Saddam Hussein. More than one million children's lives are upon the consciences of America and Britain. Should we give more reasons for East to hate West?
Jacob Smith, US


Removing him will be tricky because if his defeat is imminent, he may do something very rash, like attack Israel

Emerson, UK
Hussein is very dangerous when backed into a corner, his primary preoccupation is survival. His history of misjudged military bluffs and his extreme vengefulness make him very dangerous as a leader of a state with weapons of mass destruction, and if nothing else for that reason he needs replacing with a leader and regime that understands things like deterrence, and with whom an understanding is possible. Removing him will be tricky because if his defeat is imminent, he may do something very rash, like attack Israel, which would likely result in a general Middle East meltdown as Israel would almost certainly retaliate with its nuclear arsenal.
Emerson, UK

Haven't the people of Iraq had to go through enough in the past decade? Are President Bush and Prime Minister Blair hellbent on stirring up the unstable situation in the Middle East even more? Saddam Hussein may be a tyrant but toppling him by brute force because you don't like him isn't the sensible way to go about it. Perhaps there's more to this than meets the eye and the dollar signs from potential oil gains have blocked the West's vision.
Olly, Oxford

Military action or invading Iraq is more dictatorial than Saddam's rule.
Birbal Chungkham, Chicago

Any action against a country means that the general people suffer most. Iraq is already under economic blockade and other forms of isolation. The pressure of these actions is not on Hussein but on the general public. One more millitary action means that conditions there will become harsher. And what is expected to be achieved from these? Toppling Saddam? Even if they succeed, is there any guarantee the situation will be changed or improved? Who will be the successor?
Jishnu Subedi, Nepal


What should the world do about Iraq? End the embargo so people stop starving

David, US
Is military action against Iraq justified? No. The whole purpose of the war is to finish the job that daddy Bush started and make little Bush seem like a tough guy. Does it have international support? No, except from Israel and possibly the UK. Most people don't think that helping daddy's reputation and helping little Bush in the polls is worth killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. What should the world do about Iraq? End the embargo so people stop starving. Then more trade and tourism. Free trade aids political freedom, and will show the Iraqi people that they don't need Saddam to protect them from foreigners.
David, US

David, Olly, Jacob Smith etc, shame on you. Saddam's regime has plenty of money to spend for healthcare, food and services for its people, that is, IF Saddam bothered to spend it on that. But the misery of his people enormously helps his PR campaign in the West and in other Arab countries, helps him portray Iraq as a "victim" of the West, particularly amongst the "humanitarian" groups and Western leftists. So, he instead spends it on building palaces for himself, on rebuilding his army and on other inappropriate things. It's amazing how many people in the West fail to see that, or rather choose to not see that.
Stephen, US


Bombing Iraq is going to invite the wrath of all Muslims

Karthik, India
I don't think the military actions have international support. I think the US and the UK needs to work with all the Islamic countries. If they simply go and start bombing Iraq, it is going to invite the wrath of all Muslims. The better approach is to discuss and get the Islamic countries involved in any kind of actions
Karthik, India

See also:

06 Apr 02 | Middle East
US and UK call for Iraq 'change'
07 Apr 02 | Americas
Bush and Blair's united stance
03 Apr 02 | UK Politics
Short 'carpeted' over Iraq
Internet links:


The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites


E-mail this story to a friend

Links to more Talking Point stories