<% ballot="212962" ' 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 %>%

To have your say click here

Saddam is vicious. But so is the current policy of sanctions against Iraq. I don't see Iraqi participation in this debate - but I can imagine the bottom line: If Saddam is any sort of leader, he really has no choice than to try to defeat us on sanctions. I further suspect that Albright, Clinton, and Blair are fully cognizant of this necessity on Saddam's part. In fact, this conflict is not about Democracy, Tyranny, or for that matter, Nuclear and Biological Weapons. If Saddam were to start something he would set into motion an apocolyptic response. This is the end-game of the US-Russian conflict, (as well as an attempt to sideline France). We are carefully picking our fights - quietly supporting the Taliban, and the new regime in Congo - both of whom are at least as evil as Saddam. At the same time we decry Serbian atrocities and Iraqi non-compliance, both areas of profound strategic importance (choke-point for the Balkans, and access to the Red Sea). Both of these regions had at least nominal relations with the Eastern Bloc, and virtually no American influence. This is now changing. The new order of things demands that Russia continue to be contained. It is certainly evident that a Western monopoly on Central Asian resources, as well as the distribution of those resources is to be implimented and maintained. During the Gulf War, there was a popular bumper-sticker: "What if Kuwait exported broccolli?"
Erich Walrath, USA

I believe that the quicker we get Saddam out the better. All he is doing is while the arms inspectors are away is stocking up on his weapons. One of these days he will take it out on Israel or Kuwait. The sooner we send in the USAF and the RAF not to mention the SAS and drive the whole Iraqi army to surrender the better. This points the question why did we not do this the last time in the Gulf War. I don't care what people say, with people like Saddam there is only one way and that is force.
David Clark, UK

Time and time again Saddam Hussein has got away with toying with the UN and especially America. But every time he has been allowed to get away with it. Why? Because people don't have the will to stand up for what they believe in. Get rid of Saddam Hussein and you're half-way towards solving the problem.
Daniel Ratcliffe, England

The time of diplomacy has clearly expired. Saddam has used these delay tactics on a number of occasions in order to gauge world opinion & quite possibly to conceal sensitive materials from inspectors while they are out of Iraq. A strong message must be sent NOW that such conduct will not be tolerated. What the supporters of Iraq fail to grasp is the immense danger presented by a totalitarian regime which is armed with weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has used such weapons before and could use them again.
Aman Dhillon, Australia

I would be interested to know which has caused the greatest hardship and loss of life; Saddam or the UN sanctions?
Steve N, UK

Saddam is not a nice man, but he will rule Iraq for another 30 years. It does not mean that the Israel/American SIEGE of IRAQ should continue for another 30 years. 8 year siege has caused enough death and misery on the civilians of Iraq. Time to stop the madness.
Daud Sharif, USA

Once free of sanctions who will Saddam turn on? Israel, Iran or internal opposition? It's true lives are lost because of sanctions on the regime of Saddam Hussein. A bloodbath of purges can be expected once Saddam and his murderous gang are once again free from all laws. My conclusion: the obvious, Saddam is the problem.
Andrew, USA

For the US, UK or any other UN member to attack another country when no UN Security Council resolution exists that authorises the attack, is illegal. In fact it is one definition of terrorism. The US and its 'junior partner' the UK are willfully and openly showing that they have no regard for the rule of law. The UN charter clearly emphasises the use of diplomacy to resolve international disputes, again we hear the US rejecting 'last minute talks' and 'the time is up for negotiating' a complete diresgard for the UN Charter.
Hugh W Gleaves, UK

Saddam Hussein invaded his weaker, peaceful neighbor, Kuwait. The only reason that he is not in charge of Kuwait today is that he was removed by force. He has demonstrated a desire to produce biological, chemical, and nuclear weaons. Recently VX nerve gas was found by UNSCOM inspectors in warheads, together with a cleaning agent that had apparently been used to try to remove the evidence. When the inspectors have come in the front door, he has taken the weapons out the back - at least once literally. Clearly, he is committed to developing these weapons. If he is permitted to develop them, one day we might wake up to see in the newspaper that someone has put anthrax in a major municipal water supply and that thousands are dead. Once he had weapons that can kill so many people so quickly, it would be a relatively simple matter for him to invade other countries, like Kuwait, or to smuggle the weapons into countries he cannot defeat directly and kill millions. What would it have been like to try to stop Hitler if he had had these weapons. The only possible solution is to stop him now, while we still can. Once he had these weapons, the world would have to pay a terrible price to stop him.
Brandon Shaw, USA

Saddam's time came in 1991 but the World missed it. Instead we have allowed a brutal and evil man to continue to abuse his people and murder the men, women and children of Iraq. Have we forgotten that this man rained missiles down on Israel during the Gulf War and Israel were not involved in the coalition against him! Those who seek to appease Saddam should think carefully about the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds and question their own beliefs about freedom, morals and democracy.
Simon Parkes, UK

Saddam is a tyrant and will not co-operate with the UN inspectors. But, we cannot suddenly attack him while the Inspectors are present, therefore it is obvious that we must give him a warning by withdrawing the Inspectors.
Bob Neumann, UK

People who claim that it is wrong for the US and UK to take military action against Iraq have a poor grasp of foreign and diplomatic affairs. We should never seek to appease people like Saddam. By failing to take action today, we only store up problems for the future.
War is never a popular option; it is, however, sometimes a necessary evil. Those who seek to appease Saddam would most likely also have opposed a war with Germany in 1939 - then where would we be today?
Neil Saunders, UK

No, I don't think time has run out for Saddam, he will continue to try and drive a wedge between the UN, and the United States, to the point where he will try and portray Iraq as a victim of the USA. The only solution is to remove him from power, permanently, by whatever means necessary. My sincere appreciation goes to the UK government for being a constant friend and ally of the USA through thick and thin. Yours is the only country in the world we can count on in a crisis, all of our other so called allies are "fair weather" friends at best. May the sun never set on the British Commonwealth!
Dale McLane, USA

Why does Tony Blair and the UK Government continue to support US terrorism on the world stage? A strong nation would condemn such action. By supporting the US we are justifying and allowing them to act in this manner. Where exactly does this fit with the national interest of these isles?
Owain Davies, Wales

I don't really think that Iraq is hiding enough weapons to remains a serious threat to any neighboring countries. I am getting increasingly fed up with the fact that we are spending millions of pounds a year sending our troops over to the gulf to threaten Saddam, which time and time again has achieved absolutely nothing.
I say that we should either attempt to appease the Iraqi leadership somewhat by easing sanctions and hoping that they will reciprocate by becoming more co-operative, or we should just bite the bullet and overthrow Saddam by force. All this expensive posturing is getting us nowhere.
Richard Galloway, UK

United States policy on Iraq is vicious and self-serving. It should be seen as a war crime against the Iraqi people. Saddam serves as a boogieman to justify atrocious acts, be they bombing or economic strangulation. GB policy a la Blair is more than pathetic in its obsequiousness to US objectives.
M. K. Brussel, USA

Iraq signed a biological/chemical non-proliferation treaty, made the weapons, used them in war, invaded Kuwait and than said the U.S. is interfering. They should not have signed the treaty, it is their own fault and they must honor that treaty in order to become part of the international community. Everyone who lives in a free country should look around and be glad their government is willing to fight to keep their freedom. Get a grip.
Mike, USA

This man (Saddam) is laughing at us and at our pushover Government! He has defied us over and over again, pushing til the last minute, and then, lo and behold he says "oh alright" and boom we let him go. He has something up his sleeve and it won't be pretty. How do we know he doesn't plan to set off a giant germ cloud by forcing us to blow up the very building he's hiding it in? Meanwhile he's safely hiding underground somewhere. Everytime he denies the U.N. access, he squeezes a few extra days of making, planning, or hiding time. Then we waltz in and do a cursory glance and say "all's fine here" and then leave. The next time it's the same thing. Do they look for secret doors? Tunnels? Many would say that I am the paranoid one or read too many books, but am I the one with the weapons? Am I the one that killed my own family or tested germ warfare on my own people? This MAN is the biggest threat to our WORLD, because if given half the chance, he'll take it all in any way and not let ANYBODY stand in his way.
Carolyn, USA

I'm thoroughly disgusted at not only Saddam's arrogance, but that of the US officials as well. While America's infrastructure declines, education faulters, and curruption runs rampant, our leaders put it upon themselves to police the world with our hard earned tax dollars. I should wish one day that my US $60 a week in federal tax will be spent on improving life not destroying it or trying to control others' lives. The Gulf buildups (every one that has happened) is mostly rooted in a need for an ego kick for the US, and the need of American Corporations to get cheap oil. After all, we're defending coutnries that aren't known for social justice and individual freedom anyway.
G Ferrell, USA

The pretext for bombing Iraq was wrong right from the beginning. How can it be said that defying UN security council resolutions is a reason to bomb a country when Israel has defied Resolution 242 for years?
D Masieh, UK

Yet again, time is on Saddam's side. Since the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has defied the UN on numerous occasions and will continue to do so until the sanctions are lifted against Iraq. Once the UN sanctions are lifted, Saddam will be free to do whatever he wants - from stockpiling weapons, killing Kurds and eyeing up Kuwait. WHEN WILL WE LEARN?!
Geoff Richards, UK

Ironically enough the country most like to have illegal weapons of mass destruction is the US, shouldn't UN inspectors also check the US!
Adam Buteux, UK

The US - and certainly the UK - has no right to interfere with the internal policies of Iraq, unless similar weapon inspections are carried out wherever arms are held - including the US and the UK. Sanctions should be lifted; why should the Iraqi people suffer because of their leader?
A leader who was created directly as a result of Western political gerrymandering; like the Shah of Persia, Pinochet, Idi Amin, Mobutu - the list is pretty long. Iraq's chemical weapons are made from raw materials sold largely by the UK. What is being done to prevent the sale of chemicals and arms - to any nation? Shutting the door after the horse has bolted has never worked and never will. The anger of the world should be directed at the exporters of death.
Ann Eastman, UK

The question is academic, depending as it does, not on who is in charge of the biggest guns, but on who is in charge of the situation. Whatever our opinion of Saddam Hussein as a man, there is no question that, so far, he has been in control of events. It might even be true to say that Saddam effectively has more control over the launching of a B52 than does Mr Clinton.
There was never any doubt in my mind that Saddam would back down at the 11th hour - he's done so before, and he'll do so again - and again - as he tests his adversaries' strength of purpose. Threats and counter-threats are NOT going to provide an answer to the problem of Saddam - he's far too old a hand at that game. If a political answer cannot be found, then he must simply be informed that, in future, non-compliance will result in immediate retaliation without warning. However, he'll be betting that the west has not the resolve for such measures. I'm rather afraid he's right.
John Luby, Scotland

I believe the United States and the United Nations should lift sanctions on Iraq. The people of Iraq have suffered enough because of them.
Dhara Mehta, USA

This is all a stupid waste of time. As soon as the gun's no longer pointed at his head, Saddam will just resume hassling the weapons inspectors. The USA and Britain should just drop the matter, because the only other thing that could work is nuking Iraq back to the stone age, and nobody wants that.
Julian Morrison, England

If Mr Clinton's conscience allows him to send American troops to war in an attempt to divert public attention from his personal failings and to bolster his popularity, that is between him and the American voters. But when he wants to involve our troops - my former colleagues - and our political leadership lacks the spine to stand up and say "No" that becomes a matter for us all.
The United States does NOT have the right to impose their will on the rest of the world. They cannot continue with the farcical claim that Iraq poses a threat to US interests, nor can they seriously expect the Iraqis to meekly roll over and allow sanctions to continue unabated while the UNSCOM team dig up every cabbage in the garden in case a nuke is hidden under one! It's about time we stopped following Clinton like a lost puppy and actually started to think for ourselves. I'll fight for a cause I believe in, and I'd be happy to return to uniform should my country demand it. But I'm damned if I'll go to war to save a career politician's backside.
Simon Bradley, UK

There is no argument that Saddam Hussien is a ruthless dictator. The international community should as a group help the local people in Iraq. However, the US stand and Britain's habit of being America's 'yes-man' wanting to unilaterally take upon themselves to bomb the helpless Iraqi civilians is deplorable. Why have a sham called the UN. Why not just call it the US's private war committee and dissolve the UN?
Joy, USA

Iraq can no longer continue to defy the UN. It is not right that he can have the ability to hide any weapons of mass destruction. His behaviour is suspicious enough to convince me that he is hiding something. It is not right for anyone in this world to have the lives of thousands in their hands.
Debbie, Australia

Okay, let's accept his backing down one last time. If he so much as postures once against the UN inspectors, let's hit a couple of his so-called palaces and see if he changes his mind. Who knows, we might get lucky and blow one of his palaces up with him in it.
Ed, United States

The money being wasted on these game-like missions is absolutely absurd! We, the United States and the rest of the UN must act. Is it not apparent Hussein will keep playing these costly games until action is taken. He just like watching the US spend millions of dollars of the peoples money on transporting out military here and there. Bomb him! Get it over - please! It won't stop until his palaces, warehouses, and other possessions have suffered damage, then perhaps he'll see how costly it is.
Mak, United States

The US and UK use utmost restraint in the face of active atrocities before resorting to violence, as in the case of Bosnia and Kosovo. Iraq is now a POTENTIAL danger to world peace and may remain so in the short lifetime of Saddam. Inflicting additional suffering upon his abused people seems hardly the solution. Greatness is not in resorting to violence, and the US/UK axis should not promote this so easily. Inflexible sanctions exacerbate the hatred and belligerence of Iraq. Is 21st century world peace to be promoted by overwhelming force of arms? The threat of world dictatorship is real with the western axis in sway. US/UK welfare is not under threat. How would they react if the threat were real and imminent? A nuclear response? One advises restraint and caution on the part of the "great" western powers. Congratulations to France are in order.
MF Rahman, Trinidad

President Bill Clinton has demonstrated his ability, restraint, and wisdom in holding back against a strike against Iraq. I have to wonder if this nasty bunch of opponents to the President would rather have a war than to have peace. The Iraqi People should look at America not as the 'great Satan' of the world; but, as a humane and kind people with a good government. America is a great country. And, America has a good leader. We are proud of our English friends and allies and look forward to doing great things together.
Dave Adams, USA

Britain has become pathetic in the way in which it follows America around supporting them always. If Britain wants to do this, they should do it properly. Their military presence compared to Americas is pathetic.
Bernard, Finland

Why has the US Government decided that it as an international policeman may act solely without any discussions at least with other permanent members of UN? I think that US has got no moral right to act on behalf of all mankind. For the time being only UN has got such a right. And let US not think that their big money will allow them to bear a responsibility for the whole world.
Andrey Mineev, Russia

Contrary to general opinion, I believe that the Gulf crisis was, from the very beginning, in the US`s interest and that Iraq`s attack against Kuwait in 1990 was allowed to take place because:
1) Saddam`s undoubtedly foolish attack against Kuwait gave the US the chance to implant its forces in the Gulf region.
2) Saddam`s attack made it possible for the US to intervene into Middle East politics and redefine the positions of certain key players. Yasser Arafat went along with Saddam and lost the funding he had previously been receiving from the rich Gulf States. Syria joined the US-alliance. Saudi Arabia had to step down from its no-compromise position as an Islamic nation and accept a greater American presence not only physically in the Gulf but also in Middle East politics. The ultimate consequence: the opening of peace talks between Israel and the PLO with the support of Syria, Saudi Arabia and the US.
3) Countries such as Libya and Sudan which are notorious for harbouring terrorists all allied themselves with Iraq (the baddy), which made them members of Saddam`s `mob`, thus justifying any military and political action taken against them by the US.
4) The Kuwait-campaign was an important move (an election campaign point-gainer) for George Bush and his successor, Bill Clinton.
Today we can see the results of Saddam`s Kuwait-Campaign: comfortably low oil prices, a humble penniless Arafat negotiating with Israel for peace, American forces snuggled comfortably smack in the middle of the MidEast and a goody-baddy scenario for the world`s news networks and the US president`s campaign managers to feast upon.
Amir Hassan, Finland

I think it is best for Israel's security not to bomb Iraq, since there is a possibility that Iraq would retaliate by bombing Israel, just like it happened before. Military strike would obviously cause damage for civilians. I believe it is in no-one's interests. Seek for peaceful solutions!!!
Neli, Israel

The degree of misinformation, and absence of the Iraqi viewpoint in the US media is appalling. I have had to use the Internet, so I don't get completely brainwashed by the US government propaganda on US's TV networks and newspapers.
Stephen McDonald, USA

You cannot believe a word Saddam says and he breaks every promise and agreement he makes. As far as so-called diplomatic efforts are concerned, this is a man who has made a fool of Primakov and Kofi Annan when he reached so-called agreements with them. It is time to take decisive action, that means force, otherwise we just lose credibility and Saddam remains a real threat to neighbouring countries.
Ronald Ransom, Germany

Hopefully, other people are as sickened by the international community's hypocrisy. Where were the self-appointed moral guardians of the world (America) when Saddam gassed the Kurds? Only when their oil supply was threatened did they suddenly develop an interest in Saddam Hussein's 'weapons arsenal'.
Michael Findlater, Scotland

The threatening by U.S. to bomb Iraq must be condemned by all the people in the world. It is very unfortunate that the world leaders does not condemn U.S. when ever it bombs any place. The other permanent members of the security council is to blame for this development in the world today. An unfortunate situation indeed. The solution to the problem is that Saddam has to pledge before the security council that he has no intentions to threaten his neighbours with weapons of mass destruction and must have bilateral agreements to visit the weapons production sites by the neighbours. An armed conflict will only deteriorate the stability in the region. May Allah give wisdom to the people to live peacefully and avert bloodshed.
Naina Mohamed Iqbal, India

I lived 7 years in the Middle East including Baghdad. The Iraqi people are great guys and they had a nice country until Saddam got to power using terrorism. This guy and his gang from Takrit are not nice people to know and all concerned would be better off without them - Iraq, the GCC (who are terrified of Saddam) and world peace. Air attacks will not change anything - has the US the balls to put in ground force or not? If not then this show will run and run and Saddam will carry on with his acts of genocide and barbarism. It is about time the UN dropped its current crazy doctrine of unbridled "sovereign" rights for whoever currently controls a country.
Howard Wortley, France

Only Iraq can end this. No one is about to send ground troops in again and all the cruise missile attacks in the world won't add up to more than a failed Presidency in search of a better foothold in history. But at least get this part correct, it is not the USA that is going to do anything to Iraq, it is the Commander-in-Chief, William Jefferson Clinton who dictates what our response will be. If we are about to do wrong then place the blame squarely where it belongs. A mans' character is not just important, it fundamentally defines him. Saddam's has made him a despot. I'll let the President's actions, past and future, speak for his.
William Peak, Texas, USA

"Man is a wolf to Man" - humans kill humans. Innocent people in Iraq are dying from starvation or being killed - whether they die from a missile attack or hunger, it is a tragedy that they die. To rid them of this misfortune, Saddam must be removed but he will not go away as long as the US keeps bombing him. Anything that doesn't kill him makes him stronger - to get rid of him make the people of Iraq stronger. Give them food and a recourse to normal life - they themselves will topple Saddam, a feat no US missile can!
SD, Australia

According to the UN Children's Fund, the economic sanctions against Iraq are killing thousands of children a month. The Iraqi Democratic Opposition, which strongly opposes Saddam, has said the following comment:-
"How much suffering must innocent Iraqis endure before the UN ends its strangulation policy or Saddam is removed? Is the world willing to stand by and watch a whole nation be starved and strangled? To continue the present policy is analogous to blowing up an aircraft with all passengers aboard to kill the hijacker. In this stand-off, eighteen million Iraqis are the passengers."
Joel Atallah, Canada

After the often biased news reporting of the situation in my country a few years ago, I find it hard to see how any person can have an informed opinion of what is happening in Iraq. The coverage we see, is mostly American, and so little time is spent putting Iraq's point forward. I don't for one minute condone Saddam's actions, in the past and now, but how does the USA expect a country to tow the line if there is no end in sight. This inspection saga is so open-ended and all Saddam wants is a timetable, a plan to work to so that he knows that if he co-operates he will have the western "spies" out of his country. Is that too much to ask? The UN should sit down with Saddam and tell him what they want to see and exactly how long that will take and then get the hell out of Iraq, let the spy satellites do the rest. As long as the UN are putting pressure on Saddam he will be popular with his people, let's restore the satus quo and he will be ousted on domestic issues, a much stronger case.
David Minnie, South Africa

First of all, please distinguish between Saddam and the Iraqi oppressed people. Iraqis have no voice in Iraq, no respect, nor freedom. So, don't accuse them. Secondly, all that Iraq (Iraqi people and Government) wants is a clear schedule to lift the sanction upon Iraq compliance with UN resolution. I don't think that's too much to ask for - for oppressed people suffering from sanctions for the last 8 years. Moreover, civilised people should always use diplomacy and peaceful approaches rather than using the law of jungle.
Sam, Malaysia

The UN has proved itself to be as inept at solving the many current international problems as the League of Nations of the twenties and thirties. Appeasement and diplomacy got Europe nothing but a false sense of security with Hitler, basically allowing him to take control of most of the continent. What makes everyone think it will be any different with Saddam? Saddam cares nothing for his own people, only about what power he can derive out of the region. He's already invaded a sovereign nation once. Are we really naive enough to think he won't try it again? Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it.
Anne-Marie, USA

What I wonder is why does it take so many years to search this little country? Either there was no real co-operation after the war ended and it would have been a better time to sort it then, or this inspection is also a little bit half hearted and part of the problem? And I don't understand why US is making decisions for UN! Why not changing the name UN to US since US is the boss and running and making decisions on its own.
Fatima, Iran

Everyone is quick to criticise the USA. Perhaps this great country should ignore this problem. If we do, all of you will come crying to the USA for help when Iraq threatens your back yard. You cannot have it both ways. Every country is selfish, self-serving and hypocritical - the USA included. All we want to do is prevent a madman from dominating the Middle East.
Mr. America, USA

Let's face it guys, time has run out for Saddam, because the US has run out of excuses for persecuting him - it's now or never. We all know Saddam hasn't got any nasty weapons - if he had, he would have used them in 1991 when he had the chance. The only display of the use of weapons of mass destruction we are going to see is yet again by the US, still the only nation in the world ever to have used nuclear weapons on civilians. At the bottom of the pit sit the Iraqi people, and I shudder to think what the forthcoming attack will turn them into.
Andrew Hunt, UK

This whole Iraq situation is a farce. The rules of the game should be stated clearly and concisely. Every six months the US and the UN go through the same exercise with Saddam & Co. Why bother spending $1.5 billion a pop (every 6 months) just to threaten to enforce something, that realistically cannot be enforced.
Muzzy Copperswaith, USA

No matter how co-operative Iraq might be with the UN, the United States won't give up while Saddam is in power. It's not the chemical weapons that is an issue here--Iraq crossed NATO and is paying for it. It's unjust, but there is not much that can be done, now that there is no power in the world to stop the United States and its allies from bullying other countries. Iraq is just a victim of its rashness with the world's self-designated police, just like Panama and Yugoslavia were.
Vladimir Nikulin, Ukraine

Who do they think we are? Even last year the US & the UK tried playing cat & mouse with Saddam Hussein. They can't just continue this for ever it has got to stop. Right here, right know. We cannot drag this matter into the 21st century. The leaders of the 2 countries have to make their decision now. Or else dig the graves of millions of people that will perish in this nonsense of theirs which they call war.
Merwyn, Kuwait

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage | ©