The evidence against Iraq: Is it convincing?

Prime Minister Tony Blair has opened an emergency sitting of Parliament by arguing that the case for making sure Iraq was disarmed was overwhelming.

The prime minister presented MPs with a 55-page dossier on Iraq to make the case for military action against Saddam's regime.

As many as 56 Labour MPs registered their concerns at possible war with Iraq in a Commons vote on Tuesday night.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said that Tony Blair and his ministers share the anxieties of the Labour rebels, but the threat of force was the best chance of getting a peaceful resolution to the Iraqi crisis.

Do you think the evidence is convincing? What new information would you need to change your mind from your current position on Iraq?

---

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your e-mails; please read a selection below.

What happens AFTER he is out of power?

Kathleen, USA

Iraq may have chemical, biological and, in the future, nuclear weapons. However, will removing Saddam solve the problem? What happens AFTER he is out of power?
Kathleen, USA

I wonder what might be achieved if the so-called 'civilised West' was to spend the millions of dollars it costs to bomb a country on a daily basis on humanitarian aid and education? We should attempt to win the support of the PEOPLE of the countries whose leaders consider us to be their enemies. Counteracting the propaganda of those that are against us is the best way to achieve peace between nations.
Simon, Watford, UK

If Saddam has weapons of mass destruction ready to go in just 45 minutes, it would be actually pretty dumb to invade, wouldn't it?
Hasan Al-Harbi, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Let's respect the dignity of others

A Singh, Tulsa, USA

We talk of replacing stateheads as if they were pawns on a chessboard. Let's respect the dignity of others. The US needs to rethink its foreign policy so that it's looked upon as a friend of humanity and not otherwise. Never has hatred ensured peace. Let's aid the people by lifting sanctions and our leaders inviting/visiting Mr Hussein for talks.
A Singh, Tulsa, USA

The hard truth is that the US media left America as unprepared for terrorist attacks as any Air Force general or CIA bureaucrat. As we dropped bombs on Iraq for 10 years running - justified or not - the US media failed to report on it. Then suddenly, on September 11, we think "We're at war" when in fact there hasn't been a day since the Gulf War ended when an American aircraft hasn't locked onto a target with a missile or bomb. We were at war, it's just that the media didn't think it was interesting enough to tell you about it. That's our lesson to learn.
Michael Moran, USA

Is the UK going to follow Bush when they go after Iran? Syria?

Mohammed, Dallas, USA

Don't kill innocent people in Iraq by pretending to help them. If Saddam is a threat to the people in his region, they sure are not showing it. It is the US and UK that are a threat to world peace. Is the UK going to follow Bush when they go after Iran? Syria? War without end? Is that what we want? We must say no to this madness.
Mohammed, Dallas, USA

The majority of you are saying "Let's live in a world where the criminally insane rule countries, let's leave this mess for our children to sort out. We are perfectly happy to live in a world which threatens our very wellbeing, it will probably never happen." But if it does, what then? If only we had some of the great leaders that we once had in this country, Iraq would already be a problem solved long ago. But alas, all we're left with is the current generation of pacifists: Those who believe that problems simply go away.
Robin, UK

We are storing up far greater tragedies for the future

Chris, Perth, Scotland

The anti-war brigade need to wake up and realise what side they are on - Saddam wants to destroy the West and he's close to acquiring the means of doing so. Saying we should do nothing is just wishful thinking. Even a basic appreciation of history should make it clear that dictators like Saddam need to be stood up to at the earliest possible opportunity, otherwise we are just storing up far greater tragedies for the future.
Chris, Perth, Scotland

Let's get the Hitler comparisons straight. It's a rather different situation. Hitler and his regime had already invaded and were in occupation of several countries at the time of the "appeasement" deal. This is not the case with Saddam. He knows the consequences of invasion from the Gulf war. Please stop using such rhetoric, it is not the same.
Gordon, Switzerland

Schroeder will at least see the value of his stance against a war in Iraq when the first civilians start to die in that country. He above all showed some backbone and I guess the fact that he was not congratulated by Bush is no hardship either, rather a compliment!
Alan, Warsaw, Poland

We and the Americans are supposed to have the smartest soldiers in the world - SAS, SOS etc. Why do we have to send in thousands of soldiers? Surely we must have the ability to remove this man without the need for an all out war killing thousands. Or could it be that the arms dealers and manufacturers and the oil industry have decided differently?
Bill Dredge, Northampton

We already know that Saddam has WMD, but so has the UK, the US and many other countries. The dossier does not appear to convince with regard to his intentions, which is the most important issue. There is no case for war. The intent for war is coming from the US, driven by the disproportionate influence of business interests both there and in the UK. The UK should keep out of the whole affair other than to back a UN resolution for agreeing and policing an international boundary around Israel. I know many people in the UK are now fed up with Bush's aggressive rhetoric and sabre rattling. Any genuine sympathy following 9/11 has long evaporated.
David, Wales

It is evidently a judgement call. In my opinion the problem with Saddam having WMD is not that he will just drop them on Britain, but he can take other aggressive actions knowing that the threat will be enough to scare off the international community. I think he would like nothing more than to try to unify the Arab world under him with a powerful attack on Israel. Would anyone react if the man had nukes?
Bryan, Edinburgh, UK

Even before the dossier was published there was endless justification for a military attack on the Hussein regime. How can people argue against it? This is a man who has continually defied UN resolutions, used chemical weapons against his own people and tried to obtain materials to make nuclear weapons or WMD. I understand that with war comes casualties, but wouldn't it be more beneficial to the rest of the civilised world to strike before he does?
Matthew Shephardson, Newark, Nottinghamshire, England

This is not new evidence. The document is just compelling war propaganda which could be easily countered. I found the Amnesty International report surrounding the suffering of the Iraqi people due to the UN sanctions to be more harrowing.
Scott M, Glasgow, Scotland

Are we really sure?

Kamal, Coventry, UK

If we are sure about nuclear weapons in Iraq, we should go to war until we destroy these weapons. But no excuse will be accepted if we were wrong. Are we really sure???
Kamal, Coventry, UK

As a war studies student this is very interesting. The cause is correct but the methods used are not.
Ashley, London, England

So basically this "dossier" is telling us that the 10 years sanctions didn't work, so why are we still keeping up these sanctions that are hurting only the Iraqi people?!
A Parks, England

Don't attack Hussein in the name of the Iraqi people

Michael, New York, USA

If Saddam Hussein is a terrible ruler, it's up to the Iraqi people to resist him. But from what I've read, I don't think there's much support for war within Iraq. Don't attack Hussein in the name of the Iraqi people.
Michael, New York, USA

After reading the comments from so many of your readers it seems the consensus is for the US and UK to back off Iraq, let the UN go back in three or four more times and then everyone can proudly proclaim "Peace in our time".
John Bock, Northville, USA

There is no such evidence that warrants the invasion of a sovereign nation. If defying the UN Security Council resolutions is grounds for invading a country and killing innocent people, then how about Israel defying 28 resolutions going back to 1967.
Farid Omeed, Washington, US

Convinced of the need for UN inspectors to be readmitted yes, but to overthrow by force another country's regime definitely no. This would still be a totally illegal act.
ANDREW, UK

I really doubt that either Mr Blair or Mr Bush are at this stage interested in any kind of evidence. They have passed the last bridge long ago. There is nothing in the report supporting those two gentlemen. I just pity them.
Sven Nyberg, Sweden

If everything in the document is correct then why did Blair not raise these issues before Bush did? By putting together this farce document now he is giving the impression that Britain is on contract to justify anything that US comes up with.
Harry, Philadelphia, USA

Why is the US so eager to attack Iraq now, all because of September 11? The US and UK should look for evidence that proves that al-Qaeda has links with the Iraqi regime.
Allan, Singapore

The complete dossier provides evidence that Saddam is a bad guy, and that he has bad ideas. It does NOT PROVIDE adequate evidence for an all-out invasion by two carrier-wielding, heavily-armed Western powers (the US and the UK).
Patrick C, Los Angeles, USA

Evidence? Do you think that a convincing case could have been made against Adolf Hitler in 1939? The British PM at that time did not think so. Are you willing to see - or suffer- the consequences of 'appeasement' once again?
Janet, Seattle

It certainly does not constitute justification for invasion, regime change and mass murder

Graham Wood, Kampala, Uganda

I can only assume that the UK Government hopes no-one will read this document. I am even less convinced after reading it. It certainly does not constitute justification for invasion, regime change and mass murder.
Graham Wood, Kampala, Uganda

Many of the accusations in the dossier can be levelled at many regimes in many countries which the US and UK show no intention of attacking. My view is that Saddam is interested only in dominating the Gulf area which will threaten the US oil supply. If it's the UK and US's intention to prevent this, then they should say so. An oil war would probably be more acceptable than one with seemingly no point at all.
David, Worcester, UK

If having WMD and being violent to people in your country or nearby are reasons then why aren't we planning on attacking Israel or North Korea? It's not so much why attack Iraq as why single out Iraq?
Alastair Somerville, Wolverhampton, UK

During Desert Storm the reason not to topple Saddam was the possible loss of regional stability. Has that changed? By the way, the number of Iraqis killed by the UN sanctions probably outnumbers the original victims of Saddam.
Klaus Belsner, Ulm, Germany

Saddam needs to prove something, not us!

Erin, Washington, DC, USA

The US, the UK, and the UN shouldn't NEED to prove anything. Iraq's the nation that invaded a country, lost a war, and has defied its punishment. Saddam needs to prove something, not us!
Erin, Washington, DC, USA

The dossier seems to be all conjecture and relies on mainly circumstantial evidence. There is no "killer fact" warning of an imminent threat, certainly not convincing enough to justify the invasion of a sovereign state.
I. Ahmad, Manchester, UK

Whether the dossier is sufficient reason for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq is not even the point. The point is whether any country has the right to remove the leadership of another country simply because they can. "Might is right" has been America's foreign policy for decades now, but it can hardly be viewed as a good example to any truly democratic process.
Victor D, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

I have the utmost admiration for the way Mr Blair is conducting himself

Ryan McMullen, London, England

I must confess - I didn't vote Labour at the last election, but I have the utmost admiration for the way Mr Blair is conducting himself in the midst of this crisis. I hope that soon people will realise that war is the only language Hussein understands.
Ryan McMullen, London, England

If on September 10 we had known for sure we were going to be attacked on September 11, they would have said "there's no proof". But we suffered immensely because of the warm fuzzies who want to sit back and wait. If the evidence is credible, we should act now and save untold millions of lives.
Catherine Weekley, Martins Ferry, Ohio, USA

Saddam needs to be taken out, no question about that, and this should have been done during the Gulf War. It should now be done as part of a covert operation as all-out war will cause more problems than it solves.
Wolf, Hampshire

The document is just a way to try and discredit the effectiveness of the weapons inspectors

Mike, Reading, UK

The document is just a way to try and discredit the effectiveness of the weapons inspectors before they even go back in. Bush is terrified that they will go in, disarm Saddam or prove the absence of WMD which would force the UN to lift sanctions and remove any justification for the US's plans for a regime change. That would make Saddam a legitimate player in the Middle East again, and remember he's a leader that often encourages the rest of the Arab world to use their oil as a weapon against the West.
Mike, Reading, UK

After reading the long awaited document three things leapt to mind. I think it very likely that Saddam has these weapons, however, I also think it very likely that the UK and the US also secretly have them. Examples are given of human rights abuse. Awful, but since when has the UK or the US ever been willing to go to war on this basis? The report says that Iraq is undermining UN authority. I would have said that the UK and US are doing that quite well on their own, by insisting on acting without UN approval.
Emma, Newcastle, UK

No right-minded person actually wants to go to war and we do not need the usual arrogant intellectual brigade to tell us that. The point is while Saddam thinks that the US will lead the rest of the world against him then he will think twice about his actions. International politics is all about bluff and counter bluff. While people continue to take the moral high ground and question Blair and Bush's motives, Saddam will believe that there is sufficient evidence that war will not happen and he can continue unchallenged.
Geoff, Loughborough, UK

The US has meddled in the affairs of other countries for many years

Steve Coppard, London, England

Something has to be done about Saddam. But it should be a global effort to stop those who are perceived as a threat. The US has meddled in the affairs of other countries for many years, largely with the express intent of improving their own standing, be it financial, strategic or political. I have no sympathy for terrorists, tyrants or dictators, but America's efforts would be better served driving the global neighbourhood into action rather than embarking on another crusade.
Steve Coppard, London, England

I'll be glad when the world has run out of oil and the US and UK will have no reason to try and control the Middle East.
Nick, Thailand

After watching Panorama last night and seeing what this man is capable of doing to his own people, it would be morally wrong not to act. I accept that innocent people will die due to a war but how many lives could be saved from being unwitting test subjects in a new biological and chemical weapons programme in Iraq? We must act and we must see this through, so that the Iraqi people can live in peace and prosperity without the fear of persecution, torture and execution.
Chris Beesley, Manchester, UK

The White House is now so desperate to invade Iraq that they are linking Saddam Hussein with AlQuaeda. Hussein's government is a secular one. Al Quaeda are religious extremists. The arguments are specious, casting doubts on all those that have gone before. Why are they so desperate to have a war? That is the real question.
Nancy, Savannah USA

The whole thing makes me very, very sad

Hamfish, Glasgow, Scotland

I think that the information presented in the dossier is, at best, entirely inconclusive. Why would Saddam wish to launch an attack on either the UK or the US using "weapons of mass destruction" when this would almost guarantee the destruction of his country? The US wants the oil under Iraq and for whatever reason, the sycophantic Mr Blair has become their puppet. The whole thing makes me very, very sad.
Hamfish, Glasgow, Scotland

If you read carefully what Blair is saying his motives are clearer. He says regional conflict (there is no direct threat) will have an effect on the rest of the world and goes on to say that we must safeguard the "prosperity of our people". That's an admission that it is about safeguarding our oil interests against the prospect of Iraqi regional dominance, isn't it?
Phil, London

I am amazed that Tony Blair thinks this will convince the population that we should attack Iraq. What was he thinking? That we are so stupid that we didn't know this already? What I reckon most people were expecting was a dossier of "evidence" that Saddam needs to be taken out not a rehash of information that was in the public domain already. He really must think we're a pushover.
Toby, UK

He is a menace for all neighbours in the Middle East

Hugh MacCamley, Brunei

Whether it is convincing or not, do we have any say in the matter? Only the very naive could have missed the fact that Bush's diplomatic efforts, so-called, have all pointed in this direction. Ultimately, he is a menace for all neighbours in the Middle East region let alone elsewhere. Until this part of the world develops better governance, more democratic forms of leadership; more equitable societies and adopts kinder policies for its ethnic and religious minorities, it will remain terribly unstable.
Hugh MacCamley, Brunei

Are people missing the point here? Yes other countries have and are developing nuclear arsenals. However not all those countries are headed by an egotistical maniac hell bent on overthrowing the West. I'd like to see the evidence that Iraq is a peace loving nation with no intention of harming its own people or those in any other country.
David, UK

I am frustrated by the lack of discussion about the alternatives to an all out attack on Iraq. If this dossier does not provide sufficient reason to invade, then should the world community simply allow the sanctions to be dropped, and relieve Iraq of all its obligations set forth by the UN? The anti-invasion clique needs to address the fact that for ten years Iraq has continuously flouted the authority of the UN in a deadly way. And why was it necessary for the US to threaten a unilateral invasion before the UN decided to act to enforce its own resolutions?
James, Seoul, Korea

Our motives need to be questioned

Karen, Bangor, Wales

Tony appears to be missing the point here. Ask anyone in the UK whether they think that Saddam has plans for chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons and they'll probably say yes. However, I think most of the people opposed to this war are questioning UK and US motives. Lots of countries have WMD and some countries routinely break UN regulations (i.e. Israel), so why are we only focusing on Iraq? If we go to war without the backing of the UN, our motives need to be questioned.
Karen, Bangor, Wales

Isn't every country going to have WMDs eventually - are we going to bomb them all? You'd have to wish your country to be destroyed to use them now. Surely it would be better to support a military uprising to replace Saddam or whoever. By the way, is this still about terrorism?
Neil, London, UK

Can someone actually tell me what the point of this document actually was? Bush Jr is going to invade Iraq no matter what anyone else wants or says - after all he's "defending democracy" and "making the world safe".
Chris, UK

Saddam is an evil dictator who must be dealt with decisively and without delay

Dominic Londesborough, London, UK

This dossier fully justifies the overthrow of Saddam's regime. He has already proved his willingness to deploy chemical weapons when he used them on the Kurds. He shows utter contempt for humanity. Saddam is an evil dictator who must be dealt with decisively and without delay. But after his regime has been destroyed, it is the responsibility of the civilised world to pour substantial aid (food, medicine, cash, human resources and technology) into Iraq to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people, and provide a strong foundation for democracy.
Dominic Londesborough, London, UK

Few people could deny that Iraq (like many other countries) is a growing threat. But once again the United States seems set to ignore the UN and may be about to act unilaterally. So far, the objectives for war do not seem well enough defined. Let's be clear what we want at the end of the day and not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Dr Ian Gibson, Leeds, UK

Where is the evidence?

Bob Knox, England

I can't believe this country waited so long for the dossier. Where is the evidence? Most of the information is hearsay and the rest is old news. The dossier could have been about any modern country, all of the points would still be true.
Bob Knox, England

The dossier is a pup, the Americans want the oil in the country to feed there MPV vehicles. Do you really think the US would want to attack if there was no oil there?
David Withers, Liverpool

And now we see the result of the government being shown to manipulate info in the past - I honestly do not know whether to trust this document or not! How, after all the spin, are we to know whether this is just a cover for an oil war?
Lee, Winchester, England

His people are starving and not having a normal life. What does he do? Builds weapons of mass destruction instead of looking after all his people. Why has he got them if he is not going to use them? If we do nothing we will be very sorry later. Did we not hear and see this all before many years ago? Hit him now.
George, Essex, UK.

If Tony says it's true then it must be....
Gary Raggitt, Northampton

People appear to be answering whether the dossier supports their preconceptions, not whether the Iraqi regime have WMDs. They clearly have them, and methods of delivery, in contravention of UN agreements. I suspect the no-war lobby would not be convinced even if Saddam said shouted he had them from the top of the largest tower in Iraq.
Simon, UK

I don't know, I'm unable to reach any of the sites it's published on...
Chris, Basingstoke, UK

There is nothing in the dossier I find surprising

Bert Carter, Chester

I'm no military expert but there is nothing in the dossier I find surprising - and nothing another dozen countries in the world are trying to do - should we attack them all?
Bert Carter, Chester

No it isn¿t convincing. Scott Ritter has said that Saddam has no weapons, Colin Powell has said that Iraq is at least nine years away from even rudimentary weapons. Saddam knows that if he tests a weapon Iraq will be wiped out.
Vish, London, UK

Even Iraq can issue a dossier denying it all in 50-100 pages. Do we accept that? The truth can be established by showing solid pictorial evidence to the whole world. Unless a solid evidence is produced ,it looks and sounds like a sham. Perhaps the Russians and Chinese could be asked to provide a pictorial dossier on Iraq.
John Henry, Singapore

This report says that Saddam is further away from developing nuclear weapons than we thought! The rest seems mostly old news, this is a very weak case for a war.
Mart Bell, England

Does it really matter what is in this document? As long as there's enough substance to appease the Russians, Tony would have done his lap dog job for George W, who seems determined to finish the job his dad failed to do 10 years ago.
Ian S, UK

Having read the dossier, no concrete evidence has been produced.
Greenton, London. England