<% ballot="236856" ' 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 %>%

Clinton just broke the international stand towards Saddam. I pray that the embargo which is punishing the unfortunate children and citizens of Iraq will be over.
Z. Barzinji, USA

Something should always be done to prevent a regime that has a history of, and a willingness to, cause harm, as a matter of policy. In fact, it would be a dereliction of "our" responsibility, as a world community, to allow such regimes to gain access to, and use, weapons and/or technology to forcefully escalate their own ideology. Hitler and his Nazi regime is the greatest case-in-history to show the damage one man can cause on the world community if allowed. We did allow Hitler to reign free for too many years and history will always damn us for it. Can we afford to repeat history again?
Steven Novella, USA

We never expected a mature person like Bill to show his muscles in this barbaric fashion.
Saiyed Sajjad Hussain, India

It is not the weapons that kill, it is the people that use the weapons, that are to blame. Saddam, is a military man, people are only numbers, statistics, targets. This is true with all military men. When a single person can have full control of this amount of fire power, without any checks, well... absolute power corrupts absolutely, don't let anyone convince you otherwise. All major powers have checks and balances. No one becomes an enemy without cause. Fear, misunderstanding, poor communication, and untruths all represent cause. Who is really lying, is the real question. It will all come out in time, as has, in my opinion, Saddam's propensity to rationalize any and every thing related to his actions, even the mass murder of Kurds. I really don't know why he lives.
James Jarvey, USA

The bombing of Iraqi military infrastructure is a necessary evil as long as the Saddam's dictatorship is in control of it. Iraq has no natural enemies to protect themselves from, that require the military firepower they were building. This clearly indicates they were planning a future attack against their neighbours and others that try to stop them from this. In general it is very dangerous for world peace if religious fundamentalists who do not tolerate other religions, are permitted to build war machines.
Glenn B, Norway

Assuming that the bombings have now stopped (although the news this morning is a little confused), I pray that we are not repeating the mistakes of the Gulf War of allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power and if anything become stronger than ever. If we are serious about him being a threat to world peace, surely the only acceptable outcome is for him to no longer be in a position of power or influence. Whether it is the Iraqi people themselves who remove him from power, or the might of outside force, would seem to be immaterial. That he must go appears to be mandatory.
Alan D Hudson, UK

Saddam's philosophy is one of cruel & total suppression of the very right we are currently expressing here - If we do not check him with force, then can you with an unbiased logic work out the consequence? Yes we need to use our military might to express our total rejection of repression by force.
Jas Golan, UK

Stop this nonsense!
Andres Vosman, Estonia

It is GENOCIDE! and nothing but GENOCIDE! And the smoke curtain about Billy' s own sickening affairs plus petrol and power of course! And Blair? following the master.... (what a disillusion! I thought he was a better person.) But nobody talks about the innocent.... no-one cares!!!
Leonor Fernandez-Mora, Australia

Anyone who threatens the world oil resources must be controlled at all costs, global economy is at stake here.
K DE SILV, AUSTRALIA

I think that the air strikes on Iraq were a case of too little too late. The coalition should have made good their threats a number of years ago instead of waiting for Saddam to gain support around the world. In theory I agree with the air strikes but I believe they reach far beyond the policy of ridding Saddam of his NBC capabilities.
Jamie Nicholl, UAE

Surprising why nobody thought of bombing Beijing after Tiannenmen Square. Is it the UN or the US, that makes the decisions? Desert Storm was in response to a cry for help from imperiled neighbouring Arab states. None of them asked for the Desert Fox's intervention. Is Iraq the only "errant" nation developing weapons of mass destruction?
If not, are we to expect a strike against North Korea next? By attacking innocent and starving men, women and children, Saddam gets a common enemy to show to his people and convince them to believe in him. Is this what is desired? Isn't this whole muscle flexing exercise a reckless action and a very rude threat to other nations' self governing authority?
Ajay, India

Now, let us get this hypocrisy and subterfuge out. How do we reconcile the fact that the International Atomic Agency accounted that Iraq was complying whereas UNSCOM accounted otherwise? Bill Clinton might not have ordered these bombings to deflect his impeachment proceedings; but he sure acted tough in this respect to solidify his already high approval ratings, in the face of impeachment, with Americans. The US relishes these war games. As for Blair, he was trying to help an embattled friend. Let us not forget that Blair was the foremost western leader to go to Washington in support of Bill Clinton at the outset of the Lewinsky sex scandal. Now check this out: The bombings end right after the impeachment vote.
Bernard Afrifa, USA

Saddam is safe in his own little world. The only people to suffer are the Iraqi population. They have basically being trying to survive since the war with Iran started in 1980. Also the UN cannot win politically unless Saddam concedes, which he will never do, as he has no where else to go. As history has witnessed, no matter what is done, Saddam has survived and will continue to do so. Unfortunately this is a no win situation for the UN. Understandably this seems hard for the UN to accept or understand how anyone can holdout in this situation. Saddam will not conform to anyone's wishes but his own, no matter what happens. Therefore the UN diplomats need to be more creative in finding a solution to this problem.
Nigel Nightingale, UK living in USA

"If it were done when 'tis done, 'twere well it were done quickly" There was no alternative
Mark Walker, UK

I think Saddam has had enough opportunities to show how much he can be trusted. I don't think it´s wise to let him get away with all the humiliation and lies. I don´t like the way UN is treated like a fool by him. It is time for him to pay. One can not make diplomacy with a liar. USA and Britain both have the means and the will to do something he might understand a little better. Thanks to his friends UN continues to be defenceless against Saddam´s game. I can´t understand why a mass murderer must have any support at all? If it takes Tomahawks and B-52´s to deliver the message so be it. Strike was long overdue.
Kari L. Finland

Bombing Iraq is a bit like taking an aspirin for a brain tumour. The pain is relieved temporarily but it returns and the cause of the problem remains unresolved. In the mean time Iraqi civilians are dying and suffering due to this round of bombing and the ongoing sanctions. It does not surprise me that the Arab world is largely against this action, it is just another example of the arrogance of the US government. As for my own government, well they would do better to make their own decisions and form their own policies, rather than lamely following the US lead.
Carl Gardner, England

President Saddam Hussain has been agreed on the UN's term in 1991. He could have kept the promise. Every one in this world has to follow some kind of rules and regulation otherwise it would be chaotic place to live.
S Roy, USA

Like the old father in the story of Peter and the Wolf, I ask what would have happened if China and Russia had been the attackers?
Barry Gaunt, GB

Unfortunate but necessary action, Hussein's chemical arsenal needs to be dismantled and the peaceful routes to achieving this have been blocked and destroyed by Iraq.
Jacqueline Hampson, England

I ask any reader in Europe or Japan: when your country is taken over by a heinous, evil monster that kills its own and everybody else's, what's the most proven and effective way of getting rid of them and installing the kinds of democracies you have now?
T.J. Cassidy, U.S.A.

Considering Saddam's history of deploying weapons of mass destruction and willing to use it leaves the international community with little options. It is just, and vital to the whole world to stand up to this dictator that they will not stay inactive toward his efforts to take the whole world hostage. There are always casualties in wars; and this one is no exception. Regrettably, the world should face this sad trade off of minimal casualties of today over the risk of fatal destruction of a major metropolitan city and captivity of the whole world.
Najib Khan Houri, USA

What other options did they have? Wait for Iraqi stock piles to fill up and then engage in chemical warfare? I think not. Can anybody on this planet seriously offer a realistic solution? I doubt it!
TW, UK

The current Iraqi leadership has shown that it has no difficulty with using force against it's neighbours by invading Kuwait and then sending SCUD missiles into Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Israel when the International community acted to restore Kuwait's sovereignty. I personally experienced listening to the SCUDs missiles being intercepted (most of the time) by the defence systems as they arrived over Bahrain and wondering whether the next one would shower us with some bacteriological weapon. If Iraq has re-built its weapons base then we have a duty to act before they do.
Peter Smith, Canada

Saddam Hussein left unchallenged = risk of war
UK/USA airstrikes against Saddam = risk of war
Michael Ryman, United Kingdom

The USA and Great Britain were left with no other choice. If we did nothing then Iraq would continue to defy the United Nations.
Stuart Duncan, Scotland

I would like to ask everyone that how would you feel if your parents, children or relatives die on Christmas day. Don't kill innocent people to prove yourselves.
Harris Mohammed, USA

This seems to be a perpetuating personality clash between Saddam and Bill for which the world is paying through its nose.
Ameet Desai, India

It is just a blatant show of strength by the world's only superpower. It will set a dangerous precedent where America will bomb Governments which are not to it's liking. This time round, removal of Saddam has being said to be one of the aims of OP. Desert Fox. And all this under the guise of upholding the UN resolutions.
Mary Scrimgeour, UK

What is the UN doing in this crisis: Will sanctions be imposed against the USA for this attack. They, who have never experienced a modern day war on their own lands, sit back and sanctimoniously state that they are only targeting military installations. Have they told the bombs not to kill or maim civilians, women and children? I think not.
Harish Rai, India

I think that in the world with such a huge destructive potential it is too dangerous to demonstrate a force.
Alex, UK

The financial costs of the bombing operations will be massive. Those funds could have been used constructively to assassinate Saddam. Then to avoid destabilisation of the country, help should have been provided to establish a coalition government of the 15 or so opposition parties (the number of factions in Iraq has of course seriously weakened the opposition). Now we will have an embittered, starving population and an even more powerful dictator.
Ann Eastman, UK

It's funny how if someone bombs a place in the U.S., it totally unacceptable, but it is ok for the US to go bomb 100's of places in Iraq, and kill off many innocent people. It's nobody's business what Iraq does, the people who live there are against it themselves, they happen to like Saddam Hussein, it is just the Americans and British complaining. No Arab countries give support to these attacks. The UN sanctions have already killed millions of children. I think this is like what the Nazis did, except this is being done only to millions of innocent children. Why is it that no one acts against the U.S for having nuclear weapons? They think it is ok because they have the most power, and they think they can do whatever they want. I really don't think Americans would like it if Saddam Hussein said for Americans to get rid of all their nuclear weapons, and if they don't get rid of it he will attack with his so called weapons of mass destruction.
Sameera , United States

If there is any definite evidence of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction it is for the U.N to pass a resolution to take a joint military action to teach Iraq a lesson. In such a situation, the USA and UK can heavily contribute to the joint UN force to bring the desired result. Why should USA and UK take upon itself the role of the monitors of the world and unilaterally strike Iraq? It will be too naive to disbelieve that Clinton ordered military action just to divert the focus being directed on impeachment proceeding in USA. It will be equally naive to believe that Tony Blair resorted to military action just on merits and not to meekly play second fiddle to USA. The Iraqi ruler on his part should try to do good to its innocent people by arranging to lift the embargo by being more open to the UN inspectors. In any event military action is not justified at all.
Mohamed Jalaludeen, U.A.E

1) Oil for food allows the people of Iraq to purchase food, medicine and other material necessary for life.
2) Iraq at the end of the Gulf War agreed to allow the inspectors to destroy the Chemical, Biological and Ballistic Missile capabilities of Iraq.
3) Iraq under Saddam has used chemical weapons against his own people, people of other countries and soldiers of other countries.
4) The Iraqi people have NO say in the running of their own country.
The league of nations was not able to stop Hitler, Mussolini or the Japanese militarists because Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese militarists were simply unwilling to negotiate. When they did negotiate the did not keep their word. The United Nations are now facing the same problem that the League of Nations faced in 1931 when Japan invaded Manchuria. The League just talked and tried to reach an agreement between china and Japan. Meanwhile Japan just ignored the League and conquered Manchuria. If the US and UK had bombed Tokyo in 1931 Japan might have been stopped. Mussolini would then have not invaded Abbysinia in fear of the League response. Hitler would possibly not remilitarize the Rheinland for fear of the League of Nations.
Gudmundur Jonsson, Norway

Mr Clinton and Mr Blair disgust me. As do these gung ho fools who think bombing Baghdad will achieve something that was not achieved in 1991 Saddam is a dictator, yes no one argues otherwise, but he is no less civilised than the US who so far has attacked 3 sovereign nations (Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq) in the last 12 months that is more countries than even Saddam has attacked! which tyrant is worse?
Amagan Aram, UK

It is hypocritical of the US and British governments to attack Iraq when so many other countries have weapons of mass destruction and repeatedly break UN resolutions. The bombing has little strategic purpose, indeed it will make it more difficult to ensure in future the Iraqi's comply with UN demands: the objectives are purely political.
Adrian Money, UK

If Iraq does have weapons, then surely they are being given a good reason to use them! Being from UK and living in USA I am amazed by the general apathy and indifference over this military action. They are only a few dissenting voices in all the USA media where everything that comes out of Iraq is questioned and not legitimate. The USA is more concerned with the sex scandal surrounding Clinton than the fact that there troops are killing innocent civilians. This may not have been the intent but this is what is happening. With Christmas and Ramadan coming so close this year the whole thing and the reaction to it disgusts me. What has happened to the UN taking the lead? The US/UK should let them do their job.
Eliot Bamford, UK citizen resident in USA

US thinks they can rule the world. Why they want their citizens appointed as UN inspectors ? How reports as per guidelines given to them. Let there be independent inspectors from third world country and UN will come to know of a total different picture. The action of US & UK on the reporting of US inspectors (and not UN inspectors) are like a sadist who reacts negative to everything. First these people must learn to accommodate and do their job as an independent person and then report to UN. No one should appreciate this kind of intervention of any country. Now, decide is their any difference left between Iraq & US/UK. And now who should attack US/UK for this ?
PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA, India

The bombings are not justified as they are acting on their assumptions and the underlying factor for this act is something else.
Nazish, India

As before the US and UK have proven how 'effectively' they can bomb a defenceless 3rd world nation. The only thing achieved by this violent attack is an increase of dead innocent Iraqi people. When is the West finally going to stop murdering the population of Iraq, which has always and will continue to be powerless against the stronghold of their dictator Saddam.
Karim Jawad, Netherlands

I am a sailor in US Navy and am proud and stand by the president's decision. I wish its the end of Saddam. Like people say Iraq has no food and medicinal supplies its the price they are paying for being ruled by an arrogant and inconsiderate DICTATOR. This war might bring an end to their sufferings.
Joe, USA

I think we are right in bombing Iraq. People must realise that Saddam is an evil man who cares nothing for his people otherwise he would not let them live the way they do. We have allowed him to sell enough oil to feed and keep his people healthy but being the evil man he is he does not want to help them, he wants to keep them poor and surpressed so they are so busy keeping body and sole together on a daily basis they don't have the time or the will to overthrow him. A very clever and dangerous man who we cannot let build weapons which he will surely use to kill many innocent people.
Jackie Howse, England

Are the bombings just? "Just" with regards to what? Are the bombings the next logical necessary step, when taking all previous events as said and done? Yes. Will we look back in fifty years from now and say, it was the best solution? Probably not.
Ralf, Germany

I agree with Kofi Annan. These are truly sad days for the world and Iraq. A more senseless armed conflict I cannot remember. Clausewitz would rotate in his grave upon watching this grim travesty of war and its politics. War is politics by other means. But what are the politics behind this conflict? To dethrone Saddam? If so, why are USA and the UK reluctant to apply the appropriate means to do so - that is, full scale invasion and the capture of Saddam Hussein. Only then would Iraq be liberated. And why on earth didn't they do it in 91 when Iraq was full of "allied" troops? Because of their failure to recognise the most basic principle of war the people of Iraq has suffered horrendously for the last decade. On this basis I judge the bombings to be unjust because they serve no clear political purpose, apart from increase suffering amongst the Iraqi civilians. I determined will, followed by the appropriate means, to sack Saddam's regime would have my full support.
Thomas Sevenius Nilsen, Norway

Have the people on the receiving end of Iraq's chemical weapons - Iran and the Kurds - been asked how they feel about the bombings? One couldn't help noticing that another totalitarian dictatorship, China, was displeased with bombing; of course not, these regimes need to be free to oppress their own people and invade their neighbours (Tibet) ......
Ken, English, living in US

Very unfortunate that Blair follows Clinton like a dog follows his master.
Mark Kennedy, UK

If you think Saddam would not use his military toys once they were perfected, then you have your head is buried in the sand.
David M. Day, U S A

The bombings are just, in the short term, but the issues that brought us to this position in the first place are suspect. It is our fault that we allowed the situation to reach this impasse, but there was little else that could of been done. Let us hope that future dealings with Saddam Hussein are more decisive, and so ward of the need for military action.
Mathew Davies, UK

I left my country since 1982 because of Sadam. We like to see the day of Democracy in my country, when? I do not know. We are against military strikes because at the end Sadam will remain on the power and the Iraqi people will suffer more. If they (USA) said are going to destroy the destructive weapon now. What the expertise of examining of arms were doing before? Why they do not present Sadam to the international court as a Criminal of War. We paid the price of two wars. It is enough to play a game with us.
Dr Hussain, UK

I don't think that bombing them during this time of year was such a good thing... It's supposed to be a time of peace and joy.
Nadia Goraczkowski, US

What is the point of UN and NATO if the US are going to do what they want anyway?
Mark Cook, UK

It is a coward and baseless attempt. As UN was already discussing the matter who gives authority for this action? Moreover Iraq has co-operated on most occasions.
Vijay Kolhe, INDIA

Can someone enlighten me on how the US & UK governments can congratulate themselves last week on reaching 50 years of international human rights, and then this week bomb innocent civilians? Surely this is a violation of the fundamental human rights obligations of both nations under their receptive international treaties, and ultimately under the UN convention?
S.J.Ellis, United Kingdom

Saddam Hussein is a dictator who has killed more of his own citizens in the past year than the recent bombing campaign is likely to. The time for talking has been in the past few years. Saddam had his final ultimatum in November, and obviously was not prepared to co-operate. This bombing campaign is not about anything except a murderous dictator who is in control of hideous chemical and biological weapons. Other issues are secondary. The whole world has been aware of the ultimatum that was given to Saddam in November, and has had a month to complain about it.
Alex Popkin, UK

Killing people in Iraq over the last decade has mainly helped our defence contractors. What a Christian joy this time of year to watch the bombings live on TV, go Christmas shopping, and spend time with loved ones (who certainly should never be killed because they are more important people.)
David Elliott, USA

Yes,of course they are justified. How can we possibly ignore the huge threat which Sadam poses, whether it be directly to us, or others. HE is the one who has brought this upon himself. gave us no alternative but to remove his growing threat to the world, and impress upon him the need for co-operation What would the nay-sayers have us do? Stand by and watch him continue to torture his own people, and sell their relief aid for his military gain? It'll be too late to act once he's decided to use some of these vile weapons against someone. Finally, the idea that President Clinton orchestrated these attacks for his own ends, is the funniest idea I've heard since the inflatable dartboard. I'd like someone to point out to me what he had to gain from doing this apart from greatly angering the republicans? It's certainly not done him any favours.
Rob Siveter, England

I can't believe that Britain and the US feel that this is justifiable. Especially when so many UN countries disagree with the decision for air strikes. Does this mean that the US is to have sole authority in other situations? What about the innocent people? What about people like myself who have family in Iraq? I also liked the way in which one report said "thankfully there were no US or British casualties - the mission was successful....."
Helen Attisha, UK

If the U.S. want to stike Saddam down, they should attack him personally. I mean, right now all the U.S. has done is to disturb the whole Iraqi nation, killing innocent civiliens! The problem is Saddam and his allies. Of course there is no written law that can allow the U.S. or any other country to go in and arrest Saddam himself. But they still could do it! Right now they're waiting for another Gulf War. And, who knows Saddam might be pretty happy of the U.S. reaction; he probably doesn't care one bit for his people. He maybe wanted to upset the whole world and get everyone's attention. Then , he'll respond in favour to peace; and once more he'll be forgotten about. He'll have all the time in the world to work on his chemicals weapons!
Myrriam Vezina, Canada

When wise men become angry they become unwise.
Gullam, South Africa

US has history of telling half truth, we know that Iraq military is spent force and Muslim powers such as Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Syria can easily take care of Saddam Hussien. US supported Saddam Hussein and kept him in power, He only became a problem when he bit the hand that fed him. I US/UK leave the Middle East in peace may be just may be Arabs will also get Democratic Governments such as Pakistan and Iran, Note US has tried to make trouble between the two Muslim brothers, yet the have lived in peace with each other, and have not taken the bait set by US. MR. Clinton stop your shameful act and stop degrading people of US. Let them live with Honour, One day you to may be tried as a Terrorist. Please know this the child survivors of your bombings will hate every American. Please do not condemn your people being hated by 1.5 billion citizens of this planet.
S.A.KHAN, United Kingdom

Would the numerous people who condemn the air strikes outrightly, care to offer an alternative approach? Due to the prior behaviour of the current regime, Iraq cannot be allowed to possess certain categories of weaponry. I would hope that no person here could be naive and foolish enough to claim otherwise. Given this axiomatic requirement, if UN access to possible arms manufacturing installations is denied how else can we be confident that Iraq does not possess such weapons if not through forceful means? Diplomacy has been tried again and again and the Iraqi government has clearly ignored all efforts for a peaceful resolution. We can be confident that further diplomatic efforts would continue to meet with the same evasive tactics encountered thus far. As to the inevitable civilian casualties, surely the responsibility for this lies with the Iraqi government who have consistently and repeatedly refused to comply with the terms of surrender of the war that they themselves initiated. If a head of state drags it's country into an unprovoked conflict then surely the responsibility for the damage inflicted by retributive action lies solely upon the initiator of that conflict.
M.Moran, UK

It's not necessary to send missiles, it could be solved by talking. The people of Iraq are suffering already enough of hunger. think the problem will be solved by get rid of the economic embargo.
Ahmet Temel, The Netherlands

Damaging a country that' already bleeding. Sack Saddam himself for he is the Arabian incarnation of the devil, not the people of Iraq.
Ed, UK

This is Operation Monica at work. Nothing else! Humair Ishtiaq, Pakistan

What is the point of drawing a line in the sand (which has been ratified by the UN) if this mad megalomaniac can keep crossing it without being punished? History has shown so many times that appeasement of dictators such as Saddam does not work. Where would Europe be today if the Nazis had not been opposed, or more recently in the Balkens?
Neil, UK

No! No amount of sophistry and rationalisation can justify this act of terrorism. If the West cares for the safety of its own citizenry so much, that it wishes to destroy invisible weapons of mass destruction, we, the rest of the world, should also stand up and be counted defending the rights of ordinary Iraqis. Clinton is a pathetic example of the 'great democracy' coming unstuck and as for Blair - Blair who?
Nasrin, India

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