President Bush's 48 hour deadline to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq or face war has passed.
US-led combat troops are now in position for an invasion of Iraq.
Iraq has dismissed the ultimatum, and Saddam said if Iraq was attacked the battle would be "wherever there is sky, land and water in the entire world".
Is Mr Bush right to put Iraq on notice of war? Is military action legitimate without a second UN resolution? What will be the global consequences if war is declared by Mr Bush and his allies?
This debate is now closed. The following comments reflect the balance of views we received:
At some point in time, I believed that the era of cold, calculated war was over. Bush has proven me wrong, however, with his clear disregard for the lives of millions of innocent Iraqis. Bush only seems to be after oil and "American pride", not the general good, as he states. I pray for the people that will be sacrificed to further boost the man's ego.
Agnieszka Kotowska, Edmonton, Canada
I, along with many other people am saddened by the fact that the UN's inability to act due to the French decision to veto any resolution that authorises the use of force.
Saddam Hussain is a brutal tyrant who should be dealt with immediately. I have nothing but admiration for Mr. Blair & Mr. Bush for having the courage of their convictions
I guess that whatever is said now war is inevitable. Let's hope and pray that the job is done quickly with a minimal amount of casualty to innocent peace loving humans.
Let's hope and pray that the job is done quickly
Stephen James Roberts, Victoria, Canada
Stephen James Roberts, Victoria, Canada
I firmly support the deadline. Hussein had 12 years to comply and failed. He just kept playing the world for fools, and the fools in my country and elsewhere let him do it. It's time Saddam was taught a lesson that when the world said disarm immediately, they meant it. Regardless of the naysayers, the world will be a better place without Saddam. And to say the president is worse than Saddam is ludicrous, but just shows the anti-war movement is really anti-Bush for the most part.
Total Agreement. The consequences of this war is that the Iraqi people will be free from oppression for the first time in 25 years. Kofi Annan, out of touch with the suffering of millions of oppressed worldwide, speaks of the 'plight of Iraqi people' - hypocritical when you think that the UN has done absolutely nothing to enforce its decisions. The global consequence is that the world's oppressors have been put on notice - and about time no thanks to the UN.
David Narbutas, Australia
In spite of no evidence being found, Bush is waging a war and fooling the people of America and the world, the fact is he just wants oil! Will Bush destroy his own weapons and what other countries in the future is he going to attack? The very fact that so many people are going to die in a war waged by Bush makes him no less than a warmonger.
The second Gulf War has been started, not by the US, but by Iraq's non-compliance with the terms of the ceasefire ending the first Gulf War. This deadline shows, once again, that Bush is not just after blood. He has placed the responsibility of the war clearly in Saddam's hands.
I support President Bush's decision 100%. The international community has given Saddam Hussein twelve years to disarm. Saddam Hussein not only failed to disarm but also succeed in making a joke out of the United Nations. Since diplomacy failed, it is time to forcefully disarm and eliminate a menace to society.
Saddam Hussein not only failed to disarm but also succeeded in making a joke out of the United Nations
Mark Doan, USA
America is making a grave mistake in attacking Iraq. George Bush does not know of the consequences after the war. He does not care of the innocent people who will die in the war. Most people around the world are against the war and the Bush administration should realize that. Most people in America are ashamed of their president.
I grew up in the Military - lived in Germany, Washington D.C. and Seoul, Korea among other places. I abhor the idea that the US is leading the charge to war - if we are truly the "leaders of the free world" then why can we not find a new answer to these age old struggles?
I think that Bush has NO idea of the true consequences of his actions and he has doomed us to years of rebuilding the reputation of America as a true and just nation.
For months I have been reading articles and commentaries about the impending Iraq war, yet in the end I feel a great sense of ambivalence. War is a dreadful thing, and the thought of death and destruction is depressing, but I could not take much comfort in averting war while leaving the "Butcher of Baghdad" in power. It remains to be seen how it will all turn out. I pray there will be fewer casualties than some predict.
I fully support the deadline and think it actually long overdue. The U.N. has proven itself to be a totally impotent organization from which the United States need not ask permission for anything. Were it not for the actions of the United States, the world as we know it would not exist and it is safe to say that the world would be much worse off. So either back us or get the hell out of the way. We have work to do.
Frankly, I'm torn between disgust over squandered relationships with old allies and our refusal to support international efforts like the Kyoto accords, and approval of a just battle fought for the wrong reasons.
I do favour shaking up the status quo in the Middle East, and creating a federalist, democratic Iraq is a good, first step, as far as I'm concerned.
Howard G. Brown, USA
Many Americans are saddened and dismayed by the actions of our government. Few would argue that the current Iraqi regime is moral, but most of my peers feel that the course set by Bush and his inner circle is arrogant, premature, and foolish.
I think President Bush is right, Mr Saddam and his sons
are criminals. I happen to know many Iraqis that will rejoice when they are taken out. I just hope that innocent lives are not lost in the process, I hope the Iraqi military surrenders to make it as painless as possible fort the people of Iraq.
This ultimatum makes the whole diplomacy process insignificant. A little less conversation, a little more action, that's what US seems to be trying to tell to the world. No matter what circumstances now, Saddam must go. The US president has an unwritten right to remove him.
The president of the United States is now four hours away from setting a precedent that will give the green light to every nation with a chip on its shoulder to strike first and ask questions later. In this light, George W Bush is vastly more dangerous to world stability than Saddam Hussein ever was.
Phil Gallos, USA
Yes I do support the deadline. We've given Saddam enough chances. We're at risk of becoming a Toothless Tiger and Saddam knows it. If we don't do anything we'll suffer the consequences.
We've given Saddam enough chances
From viewing these opinions, one would surmise that "Peace in Our Time" is alive and well in Old Europe. I support this action 100%. Onto Baghdad.
Los Angeles, CA, USA
I think this is a disgrace. Who gives them the power - they should listen to the people and the UN. It just shows how undemocratic democracies are.
Kate Irvine, UK
I think Bush is making a huge mistake. He is giving Saddam Hussein more and more time to prepare.
Amanda Mitchell, Scotland
As distasteful as war is, sometimes it is the only option. Iraq has defied the UN resolutions that were passed since Desert Storm and then they again defied the UN's more recent resolution. Currently, I am very proud to call myself an American, and I am honoured to have such a leader as George W Bush.
Seong Cheol Kim, USA
On what legal basis does the US judge Saddam Hussein, when the US has refused to sign the agreement on the International Court on War Crimes? Why is a war against Iraq seen as justified when all now recognise that the invasion of Hungary to export socialism and the Vietnam war to export democracy have were unjust?
On what legal basis does the US judge Saddam Hussein?
Riccardo Cappellin, Italy
Riccardo Cappellin, Italy
The global consequences could be catastrophic, but the President will save face by getting even for his father, who failed to dispose of Saddam (who is indeed a dictatorial tyrant) during the last war. The voters will be made to forget the Enron scandal.
Having served in a Military Intelligence unit in the early '70's, I know that Bush cannot show us the proof he said he has of Saddam's WMD. But, I also know that politicians hide behind the fact that they cannot divulge information without putting our intelligence "assets" at risk; this enables them to lie and say they have "proof" when they really do not. This is how I see it.
I have spoken to many people in Switzerland, and nobody here wants this war.
Tony Blair has shown principles and moral strength in his stand. He and our troops deserve our support. President Bush has had the courage to defend us and the free World. We should all support him. Thank God it is the USA who are the only super power and not someone else.
Thank God it is the USA who are the only super power and not someone else
Richard George, UK
One thing says a lot about Bush: his idea about "us and them". As a leader of the most powerful nation he does not seem to have a balanced view of the world. It's clear he is not concerned about the thousands of innocent Iraqis who will bear the onslaught of his military machine. He does not even listen to the Pope who advised him against this action.
Yes Saddam is bad but in a way Bush seems more dangerous to the world right now. He destroyed Afghanistan (without success) and left, who says he will rebuild Iraq?
Yes I support Messrs Bush and Blair and offer my best wishes to the young troops who must go in and do it for us. There comes a time when you simply have to fight to win, or else you lose.
Mr. Bush is completing this unfinished business left by his father. I am curious what the outcome will be. Will his actions draw great applause or will they be the source of much international criticism?
Nigel Wong, Hong Kong
Despite the criticism of France and Germany, I am proud of my country's thirst for action in the war against tyranny and terror. The firm stance of Bush, Blair and Aznar will save lives tomorrow that otherwise would be threatened by the terrorists of today.
I am proud of my country's thirst for action
María Obregón, Spain
Who is Bush to issue a deadline to a sovereign country's President?
Why have Britain and the US not explored the possibility of sending a UN force to Iraq to supervise continued weapons inspections and a balanced distribution of food and medicine to the Iraqi people? Why go straight for (illegal) regime change?
This is not a war. It is an invasion designed to show the world the USA is in charge and the world's strongest military and economic power. If human lives were the main concern here, Bush's government would allow inspectors to continue their work and drop aid not bombs on the Iraqi people. It gets harder every hour to stomach the suffering this attack will cause.
After 12 years of playing cat and mouse it's time to take action (while not forgetting 9/11)
Nunzio N Sorrentino, Netherlands
The UK and US were among the countries who supported Saddam during the war with Iran. Who armed him with WMD weapons?? It was justified to use them against Iranians? Killing more than 1 million? Have the policies (moralities) of UK and US governments changed? This war will kill a lot of civilians and won't make the world a safer place.
The UK and US were among the countries who supported Saddam during the war with Iran
Kourosh Odouli, Iran
History has shown that if you do not take action against an evil regime at an early date many more innocent people will die. History will show that the right decision was made.
I agree with Mr Bush's decision to oust Saddam. Remember! "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing."
Colin Agonia, Papua New Guinea
I can't help but feel that none of us are fully enough informed to pass comment on Bush or Blair and as our leaders I feel we should put our trust in them. We voted for them; now let them do their jobs.
Carys Divall, England
The US administration has gravely overestimated its ability to sway the UN, and has fallen back on a questionable moral legitimacy. Having initially called on the authority of the UN it now shows its contempt for that very same authority by acting unilaterally.
The US administration has gravely overestimated its ability to sway the UN
Albert de Vries,
Albert de Vries,
Few people want, like or agree with war, but it is sometimes necessary as the lesser of two evils in order to keep the peace and secure democracy. I am concerned that the naive attitude of many of our "peace" protestors is actually assisting the cause of Hussein and his like.
Janet Barlow, England
Most of people in Poland are against war on Iraq because we live in old Europe and our history is the best proof that we should give peace a chance once more.
Jack and Joanna,
Although I didn't vote for Bush, he has my support. We have the right to vote out our elected officials if we do not agree with them - this is a something the Iraqi people are tortured and murdered for. Right now, our troops need our support.
Although I didn't vote for Bush, he has my support
A lot of people say that they would like to see Saddam removed from power, but are against war. How else do they propose that we sort the matter out? We've tried diplomacy, sanctions, etc, but it hasn't worked. Let's get on with forcibly removing him and at the same time send a message to other despots around the world.
Steve Tinsley, UK
This is the type of behaviour that creates anti-US terrorism. How many young Muslims do you think will decide on terrorism as a result of Bush's actions lately? The answer is more than you think.
Neil, Dublin, Ireland
Well, if Bush sees himself as an enforcer of resolutions, he should pursue Israel next. The world knows that Israel is in violation of UN resolutions. If forcing Iraqi compliance is right, then I expect the same with Israel. If this happens, Bush has my full backing.
If Bush sees himself as an enforcer of resolutions, he should pursue Israel next
The mentality of the USA people is binary - democrat or republican, win or lose, etc. The "conservatives" of the USA need this war to ensure the win for history. Their morality serves this purpose; all else is peripheral.
Gordon Leeuwrik, USA
How can we support governments that have no respect for law? How can we believe that they are willing to install democracy in Middle East when they refuse to debate in their own countries and force a war? So far, we have seen just hate and lies in their arguments.
Eric Petitfils, France
No, I do not back Bush´s war (deadline), however much I detest Saddam Hussein and want to see him overthrown. This war is illegal.
Only the Security Council can authorize a war, and in this case there is no resolution authorising war. Bush and Blair can, and should, be impeached for war crime.
I think the US needs to look address the root cause of the current problem, and should be setting deadlines accordingly.
Protestors say it is wrong to endanger civilian lives in Iraq - yet this is what Saddam has been doing since he has been in power.
Darren Coxon, England
George Bush decided months ago that he was going to war. Nothing is going to stop him. Supposedly, we live in a democracy. If that's true then why is Tony Blair ignoring the obvious fact that a lot of the population don't want to go to war?
George Bush decided months ago that he was going to war
Alice Darnell, UK
After bypassing the UN, the US will naturally loose its right to exert non-proliferation treaties on other countries (who would come forward to sign a treaty, which is to be bypassed?)
In a desperate attempt to justify his attack, Bush is relying on false evidence and old, pre-Desert Storm, UN resolutions.
If Bush really thinks that relying on old UN resolutions is OK, then shouldn't he attack Israel first?
After all, Israel has nuclear weapons, and has been in breach of UN resolution 242 for more than 30 years.
As a Deputy Head teacher, I would liken the UN to many of the parents I meet who express a desire to discipline their unruly children.
Unfortunately, they have neither the skills nor determination to follow it through.
The children know this and play upon the weakness of their parents.
To merely tell an unruly child to behave and listen is not enough. Words MUST be followed by defined consequences.
Richard Slade, England
Saddam has to be stopped but War is not the answer. It would have been easier to avoid the war and settle the issue peacefully. I feel bad for the innocent people of Iraq.
By waging war, the US govt. falls prey to the evil terrorist spirit of harming innocent lives, which is what the infectious terror spirit wants to promote, thus losing its war against terrorism. "The path needs as much attention as the result". The US war may disarm Iraq, but an attack will rekindle the spirit that motivates terrorism.
I believe that the Iraqis have cynically exploited the divisions in the western nations, and have been given more than enough time to disarm.
Phillip Davies, Wales
I am an American living in Hertfordshire for the year, and I can say what I hear other Americans saying, that I do not know a single American who backs this war. There are protests every day in cities all over the US, some big, some small, but they are largely ignored b! y the media and completely ignored by the government. I am at a loss to explain what is happening. I hope the people of Great Britain know that Americans don't agree with what our government is doing any more than they do.
I do not know a single American who backs this war
Jemilah Magnusson, USA
Ultimately it is the Iraqi people who will decide on the morality and wisdom of the deadline and invasion. As for me, I admire and respect PM Blair's and President Bush's courage and judgment. 9/11 changed America forever and she must defend herself with or without UN sanction.
Wes R, US
I think most people would say "no", if asked: "Do you want war". But if asked: "Do you support a war against a Tyrant who destroys his own people" and it certainly gets my vote. 12 Years of sanctions and inspectors has returned nothing; why do these anti-war protestors think things are going to change now?
I cannot understand why the world has found a problem with Iraq so quickly. Is it right to waste the lives of tens of thousands of people just for finding weapons that may or may not exist, and may or may not be used?
Farris Ashraf, Pakistan / UK
I'm 13 years old and I think a war is necessary. Saddam has killed his own people. Sweden is weak - they won't help.
I'm 13 years old and I think a war is necessary
The international community should not allow America to bully other countries. An American attack will show that it is the US who promotes terrorism.
B Mutiti, Zimbabwe
We have international organisations that were set up to defend of allied countries, and to prevent conflicts and humanitarian crises. A decision on war or on the continuation of inspections should have been conducted through these legal channels: the UN, NATO, EU. It is a war between two non-democratically elected presidents.
The majority is often wrong. It takes courage to walk an unpopular line such as the one Bush and Blair have chosen. The Iraqi peoples 30 year nightmare will soon be over.
Al Chorney, Canada
George Bush only went through the motions of "going the U.N. route" in order to give himself time for American troops to be put in place. Despite the spin and rhetoric, it has always been his intention to go ahead with this war.
Bush has admitted that even if Saddam and his sons leave Iraq, he will order an attack. President Bush is attacking Iraq for economic gain. I don't think dictatorship is a good thing; Saddam is a bad man. But imperialistic capitalism is no better, and I object to my government's actions. Twelve years of sanctions have created a huge humanitarian problem in Iraq. As many as sixty percent of Iraqis suffer from malnutrition, and my government's sanctions are what caused this.
I object to my government's actions
David Whelan, USA
People who think that Iraq is not a threat are either naive or blind. Do they not hear the testimonies of Iraqis who have left? Do they not read the reports of the torture and rape camps set up by Saddam? Do they not care that he has killed thousands of his own people? And lastly, were they in a coma for the last 12 years when Saddam ignored 18 previous resolutions calling for Iraq to disarm, but instead Saddam continued to develop and hide weapons of mass destruction?
I believe the US administration is far more concerned with the security of its economic interests than with the interests of the peoples of these nations. How can the US be so arrogant than to cast its view of the culture upon a region who does not endorse this path nor does it ultimately feel the threat of the Iraqi regime. I do not endorse courses of action that only stand to emphasize the human frailty of our inability to communicate meaningfully.
18 broken resolutions, endless deceptions, irreversible human rights abuses - now that the war is all but inevitable it's time the public rallied round Mr. Blair's determination to overthrow Saddam.
I despair at their righteous enthusiasm for a violent solution. Have we learned nothing? Now, like previous generations, we must wait for the horrifying and unpredictable consequences of war.
When Saddam releases Chemicals that he claims he does not have, France and Germany will confess to their error.
Bob Graves, USA
No, I do not back Bush's war deadline since there is no solid proof of any Iraqi violation. I do not believe that war is the only way solution to the world's problems in the 21st century. Hasn't history taught anything?
Nicolás Bustamante, Perú
The message from Mr. Bush is: the UN must act in accordance with US wishes or it is irrelevant. It is wrong to go to war without UN second resolution. Only the participating countries are saying that this is legal. The rest of the World (including Mr Kofi Anan) say it is illegal.
What about other tyrants? What about other countries that torture their own people? Why not attack half the World?
I think the answer is simple:
They do not have oil.
What about other countries that torture their own people?
War is not a necessity, and it does not ease tension - it doubles it.
The US/UK are so eager to launch an attack on Iraq (and not Saudi Arabia / North Korea for instance) because it's an easy target - Iraq's military capacity is only half of what it was in the last gulf war. How then does this fit in with the US/UK claim that Iraq is a "serious threat"?
Rick Lange, UK
The lack of democracy in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia doesn't seem to pose a problem and neither does Israel's failure to comply with a number of UN resolutions. How can this not be called hypocrisy?
Economic sanctions have taken the food out of the mouths of ordinary Iraqis and medicines out of Iraqi hospitals (while not hurting Saddam personally at all except maybe his pride); now bombs are going to be dropped on the Iraqi people - to me, this does not doesn't seem to be the best solution.
The world in general knows Saddam will not disarm, so God be with both British and American troops out their and lets hope they're all home safe sooner rather than later.
The world in general knows Saddam will not disarm
I think the process utilized to date has undermined the UN's authority and alienated other communities around the world. And lastly, the dictum for Saddam and family to leave has the appearance of being contrived to allow "Bush's War" to get underway and has no basis in logic, compassion, or supporting hard evidence.
Certainly, Bush is not in a position to give anyone in the world a moral lecture about WMD, given the country's track record. Yet, he emphasizes the importance of his mission by reserving the right to use them once again, in a "pre-emptive tactical warfare", which in my opinion equals genocide. And there is absolutely nothing I can do to stop this.
Mr. Bush is totally wrong. Going to War without a UN resolution is illegitimate. It will divide the world religiously and cause unending war.
I believe the USA is overacting by invading Iraq. The decision of the UN Security Council should be respected. The road for diplomacy never ends. The war can still can be avoided according to the UN Secretary General; war is catastrophic. It can be avoided now.
Of course some civilians will be killed and injured, but these will be few. No one will have any doubt that after this brief war the Iraq people and the world at large will be far better off. Very clearly the other nation states of the UN lack the foresight, wisdom and courage to see that they must uphold freedom for all against oppression. Human social evolution is so slow only because of the fence sitters that stand in the way of progress. None of the worlds greatest leaders were fence sitters, Bush and Blair included.
Grahame Shadbolt, England
Now that war is due to start, the world should unite behind the US and the UK in order to achieve the objective of a quick liberation of Iraq. More feuding will not be beneficial to anyone - especially for the Iraqi people.
Erik Pott, Netherlands
Saddam Hussein has been uncooperative, and has played cat and mouse for over a decade. He is a dictator who should be dealt with sooner rather than later before a disaster occurs. War is now the only answer, as long as it remains justified.
War is now the only answer
Anon, United Kingdom
With this war USA has hammered the last nail into the UN and civilisation's coffin. Every nation is invited to enjoy the war game.
Whatever happens, may the good Lord bless and take good care of us all. May He have mercy on all our lives and forgive those who are wrong, for who are we to judge but God himself?
We, the United Nations, have a morale obligation to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein, if not for our purpose, but to liberate and protect the Iraqi people. It cannot be right for a leader to gas his own people and expect the rest of the world to sit back and do nothing. The decision to attack Iraq is justified, and I think it's disgraceful that so many MP's are not backing their Prime Minister at a time where we need to be stronger than ever.
Jason Ivey, UK
The English speaking peoples are doing the right thing. As an American citizen I didn't vote for Anan or the Security Council. Why would a freedom loving individual entrust their liberties to this group?
To quote the trite expression "The reason history repeats itself is because people didn't listen the first time"...just what will it take for the anti-war brigade to realise what Saddam is really like? A chemical attack on Tel Aviv, followed by a retaliatory nuke on Baghdad and the subsequent immolation of the Middle East? Most of the current protest is crude anti-Americanism, in any case - one wonders what the reaction would have been if Saddam were an avowed right-wing fascist?
Hasn't Tony Blair got the message that England doesn't want to be involved. Does he need the whole of his cabinet to resign before he finally gets the picture? America does not need England. Just because we're an ally country it doesn't mean we have to fight for them. Think about who is going to die and suffer the most in this tragedy. When they start to draft out men, is Tony Blair going to send his son? I don't think so!
Sophie, aged 16, England
12 years is long enough, 12 years do not count as pre-emptive. How many more days, months and years must we give this guy. The problem with the anti-war camp is its anti-American full stop.
The problem with the anti-war camp is its anti-American full stop
Gareth Syrgey, Scotland
The forces are right to attack Iraq. What do the protestors want? A 9/11 style attack before anything is done? The protestors would have been out in force if three years ago we had been told we had good reason to attack Afghanistan
Jon Spencer, United Kingdom
Attacking a country that has never threatened us, not in my name.
Alex Evans, UK
The US has always done what it wants - from WW2 onwards, it has only ever looked after number 1 and changes friendships as it suits them.
Why should we be surprised at what they have done, they have no respect for the UN or for countries that take an opposing position.
If it is so keen on upholding the UN, why isn't the US on the West Bank right now enforcing UN resolutions against Israel?
The US has only ever looked after number 1 and changes friendships as it suits them
Marc Thomas, Cayman Islands
Marc Thomas, Cayman Islands
This war will be a springboard for further terrorist activities. "The out right abuse of another man's honour is the beginning of all evils", says Leo Tolstoy. I am an ordinary man and I don't believe that he is right. Honourable President you please check your conscience once more before you embark on this adventure.
Joseph Kurien, India
Bush and Blair are in the right. Saddam should leave and allow his countrymen the chance of a civilized life, that we take for granted.
Although Saddam is a brutal dictator, unilateral action by the US and UK is in contravention of the UN Charter and undermines the international rule of law. This is a far more serious threat to world peace than Iraq has ever been. Bush has discarded the mantle of "leader of the free world".
Andrew Roos, South Africa
I am far more scared of George Bush and the damage he is currently doing, than I ever have been of Saddam Hussein. Bush is in danger of becoming the very thing he claims to be ridding the world of.
Bush is in danger of becoming the very thing he claims to be ridding the world of
Mark, Dubai, UAE
I want those Americans who are supporting their leader to look at war through the eyes of Iraqi women and children who will soon be under the devastating bombings of US and British military forces.
Saddam has the next few hours to decide between war and peace. As one of the conditions for his exile, the UN should agree to lead the way for the setting up of a democratic government in Iraq. This will alleviate the doubts regarding US intervention. I believe if this is agreed upon by the members of the UN Security Council and proposed to Saddam, there is a better chance to prevent war.
Dinesh Hurreeram, Mauritius
I support the US position on Iraq. Not only has Iraq failed to fulfil its ceasefire obligations from the last Gulf war, Saddam Hussein continues to ignore any attempts to forge a peaceful solution. If we do not enforce the UN mandate by military means we might as well forget the UN as anything other than a talking shop.
Saddam Hussein continues to ignore any attempts to forge a peaceful solution
I'd love to see all those wanting a war to switch places with all those oppose to it in Iraq - then we'll see if they want war. I suggest Bush and Blair sit together on the front line.
Bush himself has inaugurated his world leadership by opposing UN's second proposal for an inspection and diplomacy. The UN-inspectors have not found the alleged amount of illegal weapons claimed by the so called "Intelligent Sources" of the U.S., so there is another Norway
Maybe the USA is right or maybe it is wrong - but surely Saddam Hussein is wrong. What must be done must be done.
This is nothing to do with Iraq, this is a show of force - to all countries: if you don't behave according to American values then we will intervene, replace your government, lend you money you can't ever afford to repay, and dictate virtually everything you do. Grow up world, it's called imperialism; I'm British - we know all about it.
David Newark, South Africa
I think that George Bush is only after the oil; he also wants to protect us (Israelis). He has no right to go to war without the backing of the UN.
Bush has no right to go to war without the backing of the UN
Saddam is a treat to world peace. He is a Dictator.
For all of those that support Bush's actions on the grounds that the UN must enforce its resolutions, would you support the same tough stance against Israel? Surely UN resolutions must be adhered to - especially when they are 30 years old.
Jeremy Cedenio, UK
The conflict between Iraq and USA has to be resolved by force, like the way China always says it will use military force to invade Taiwan. All big nations now have the right to attack small countries, right?
Arthurphere Huang, Taiwan
I back Tony Blair who is doing the best job he has ever done as Prime Minister. We now know who our friends are! We are not following America we just agree with them. I do not know anyone who does not support war now. They have had enough warning and are a very real threat. We tried everything else.
We are not following America we just agree with them
The United States and the United Kingdom say that they are invading Iraq because of their WMDs. If they really mean that, why they are supporting Pakistan? This act of clearly exposes the double standards practiced by the United States.
The truth of international affairs will often be masked by sophistic words; discussion of alternative options is unnecessary as final decisions reflect the will of powerful countries. The war against Iraq will be over soon, but who will be next?
De Leer, The Netherlands
Talk of appeasement seems very apt, but the subject is wrong. Bush is the one who is making territorial demands and has made it clear that this is not his last. He said himself that this is not a matter of authority, but of will.
Bob Studholme, UAE
I love the American people and feel that the majority of them cannot be in favour of this. Finish sorting out Afghanistan first.
Adele, London U.K.
This war is not about religion, or nationality, but the rights of the citizens of the world to live their lives without tyrannical oppression. Finally, please can we see a similar level of resolve to end the Israel/Palestine conflict, the chance of a better future for those living in that part of the world and the removal of an excuse for terrorism.
Please can we see a similar level of resolve to end the Israel/Palestine conflict
Mark, Brit in India
Is there any consideration for the opinions of the Iraqi people? This war seems like a personal feud: Bush wants to accomplish what his father failed to, and Hussein is backed by his sons. May God's peace spread throughout the world.
No-one argues that something needs to be done about Saddam Hussein - along with many other world leaders. But the countries who have argued since the start for war must recognise that they have done - ignored the UN and real democracy (not the US version). When thousands of people are dead they should spare us all the crocodile tears and spin.
I back Bush's action as Saddam is not a reliable leader. He invaded Kuwait and has used chemical weapons before. Getting rid of Saddam is good for the world and good for the Iraqi people.
We back any effort to remove this dictatorial regime but we, at the same time, are afraid of an invasion. So if the US removes the regime but leaves the country in one piece, it will be great.
If the US removes the regime but leaves the country in one piece, it will be great
In my view, Mr Bush has placed international democracy at risk. If he is saying that countries like France and Russia as well as many others are not allowed to have an opinion on a world issue that is different from that of the US, then that is not democracy.
While the exact reasons for the invasion of Iraq at this time remain unclear, I fully support the use of Military action against Saddam's tyrannical regime and hope that a swift end to the conflict can be achieved with minimal casualties on both sides.
Steve Reade, UK
From this side of the world, I greatly admire the courageous stand Tony Blair has taken in the face of such opposition. He sees beyond today and should be fully supported by all of his own party
I greatly admire the courageous stand Tony Blair has taken in the face of such opposition
Peter Atkins, Australia
I feel Saddam should leave the country ASAP and save the life of his country people and save Iraq.
Kamal, Hong Kong
I don't agree with war BUT Saddam needs to be put in his place. I don't understand why it was left so long - Saddam has had 12 years to get disarm. Why didn't they go in before? All I can say is good luck to all the troops, my heart is with all of you.
Joanne Driver, England
Let's get on with this war and put a stop to Saddam and start backing our troops.
Lesley Hathaway, UK
I am totally against war. If Bush goes to war, it will kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
Saadat A. Siddiqui, Saudi Arabia
Who trained Iraq to produce weapons of mass destruction? The CIA. Whose formulae have the Iraqis been using to produce biological and chemical weapons? Who taught the Iraqis to produce nuclear weapons? Where were the Americans when these weapons of mass destruction were being used against the Kurds and Iranians? Why should the rest of the world assist them in cleaning up the mess thy have created?
Where were the Americans when WMDs were being used against the Kurds and Iranians?
Kinya Peter, Kenya
Its time for Saddam to be dealt with, and for the Iraqi people to be freed.
Rob Darling, USA
It is a sheer hypocrisy to issue this ultimatum when the military action against Iraq had been planned well in the past.
It's about time our soldiers earned their money. Saddam Hussein needs to be stopped now before he kills more innocent Iraqis.
Now every country has the right to pre-emptive strike. As US government is willing to strike first, perhaps other countries threatened by US government and allies should carry out pre-emptive strike against US government.
Bush's phone call to John Howard asking him to back him up was not a request but an order. John Howard is a tag-along and is influenced by peer pressure, so he agreed. If one country should disarm, so should the others. Bush should lay down his weapons.
We are a split country, I'm sick of the rest of the world thinking that everyone in the United States blindly follows the choices of the current president. Bush's war is his war, and I don't want my name associated with it.
"Bush's war is his war, and I don't want my name associated with it"
Daniel Barone, United States
Daniel Barone, United States
This to us is madness; an act that is clearly anathema to world peace, freedom and democracy; the obvious result of what a warmonger's mind can inflict on his own military and people; and the world at large.
NO...I do not support this illegal action. I am ashamed and embarrassed as an American to be associated with this "war".
It feels as if we're taking a huge gamble and pray God it ends quickly. What would be more risky would be to do nothing.
What would be more risky would be to do nothing
Saddam has treated his own people abominably and he must be stopped, but I don't believe that liberating Iraq by killing its people is a logical or moral manouvre. I would feel happier that all the options had been considered if the UN were behind this war.
I don't agree with Bush; I'm only 12.
He knows that Saddam Hussein will not leave his home in Iraq. I do not support war
Kevin , England
I definitely support Bush. We have seen what Saddam has done to his own people, we would be stupid to believe that he wouldn't do worse to the rest of us.
Neil, South Africa
I really don't understand why the US and its allies want to go into war without the full support of the international community. Does Mr. Bush realize that if he attacks Iraq the United States of America, which is taken as a model of democratic institutions and governance, will be viewed as number one world order de-stabiliser? Surely America and Americans will be troublemakers and will have to pay the price for it.
Sawi Solomon, Eritrea
Mr. Solomon from Eritrea, we must not fall into the trap of accusing Americans of being trouble makers. Mr. Bush is doing what he wants to do, and is not voicing the concerns of his own people.
Although the almost certainty of war worries me, I back the Bush deadline, because I don't believe there is another solution. Perhaps if, going back a few months, all the countries who have criticised the US and the UK, had instead aligned themselves with the US, the second resolution would have been passed, and there would have been the possibility of a war without international condemnation. With the threat of a legal war, there would have been a greater probability of a peacefully negotiated solution. France, Russia's (and other countries') condemnation of the US and UK has only served to give Saddam more reason to prevaricate, and thus removed the hope of a peaceful end.
The inspectors were doing fine. The world population has rejected war. There are many peaceful ways to disarm Hussein now that the will is there. The US is starting something which could last for years inside the US and in the Arab countries and makes all Americans targets. Why to Americans accept such stupidity dressed up to look macho and "keep the peace". Because the regime has no interest in life or people, only its own little political game. This will go down as a great unilateral crime and the perpetrators will be punished by their own people, too late for the unfortunate dying, wounded and planet Earth, our dishonoured home. The General Assembly of the UN could meet and vote the US illegal, even after the invasion.
The inspectors were doing fine
John Duffel, USA
For too long the world has stood back whilst stories of atrocities against oppressed people have been allowed to continue. If we cannot trust the judgement of our leaders, whose do we trust? Saddam's? The world needs to go into Iraq, if only to establish contact/relieve the plight of these repressed people - our fellow humans, from whom we need to hear, without a gun barrel at their heads.
I am a Canadian, from a country that at least usually stands for peace. At the moment though I am in Cambodia a country that has been torn apart by years of war in which the US played a big role in kicking off. A war is not over when one side wins, it goes on for generations as the people left injured or forced to flee have to pick up the pieces and re-build their lives. The personnel fighting the war suffer as well - the toll is just too high. Yes, terrorism can not be tolerated, but another terrorist act such as war is not the answer.
No matter what, the west should make a stand for peace and show the world that we do not need war to solve conflicts. The US itself has many deadly weapons so the excuse that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and therefore we should fight them, just makes no sense. I cannot predict what will happen if we do not go to war, however, I do not think we should kill and injure thousands just because Saddam is a potential threat.
It is ludicrous that the UN did nothing more before now. If Britain and America had not kept up the pressure Saddam would be proliferating WMD and continuing his murderous ways. What is also true is that this is a war of liberation which should have come years ago. It is coming too late for the people of Halabja. An earlier willing coalition would have had the effect of relieving the effects on the poor Iraqi people of sanctions, which have been distorted by Saddam's corruption.
It is ludicrous that the UN did nothing more before now.
Steve Sharp, US
Now that the UK parliament have voted for war against Iraq and the US have stated it's aim is to get rid of the Saddam Hussein regime; and their weapons of mass destruction; can the war get rid of the regime without many civilian casualties? Or will it be just bomb everyone? Also, will post war Iraq be like Germany and Japan after World War 2; restricted in their military capacity. Or will the west then rearm Iraq and make more money out of arms for oil deals.
Karl Miller, UK
No. The war should begin at once. The sooner this is over with, the better it will be for everyone. And what good would it do if Saddam did leave now? His goons would still be there, running Iraq. A clean sweep is the only solution.
It is the right thing to do. The moral duty of the US and Britain to utilise the means at their disposal to face up to this threat and to deal with it, for the peace and security of the world and to enforce the previous resolutions of the UN
David Swarbrick, England
An ultimatum is certainly required when dealing with Saddam Hussein. However, it shouldn't be the US delivering this message, that is the role of the United Nations, reflecting a united will.
It shouldn't be the US delivering this message
I think the Bush Administration is making a mistake and that Americans will pay the price for this mistake in an increase in domestic attacks. Containment was working. No one is talking about regime change in Cuba or North. Let's be honest - the real reason for this war is to burnish the historical legacy of Bush Senior. And to get access to Iraq's oil.
Susan Blesener, USA
I support the deadline 100%. For those of you that are against the war, why don't you move to Iraq for a few months and see the suffering of the Iraqi people. Iraq has chemical weapons, it may or may not have relations with al Qaeda, and they are led by a man who has no value for freedom or human life. For me, the mere chance of negotiation between terrorists and a madman like Saddam is enough justification to take action.