Should the UN route have been abandoned?

Should the UN route have been abandoned?

The United States, Britain and Spain have withdrawn plans for a new UN Security Council resolution and President Bush gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to go into exile.

Should the UN route have been abandoned?

This is a second page of your comments

Click here to to return to the first page and send us your views

---

Your comments

As a veteran of the last gulf war, I feel we trusted Saddam to disarm peacefully

Darron, USA

I agree strongly. As a veteran of the last gulf war, I feel we trusted Saddam to disarm peacefully, and he's shown he won't.
Darron, USA

However hard Bush may try to make us believe in his justification in going to war, at the end of the day, it will be the innocent soldiers and citizens on both sides who will lose their lives - unleashing even more pain.
Sunil Wangnoo, India

How else is the world going to remove Saddam and his heirs? I find it very difficult to understand the outpouring of sympathy for Saddam and his regime and the large scale collective denial of the atrocities and cruelty he practices. Bush's action is the right thing to do at this time.
Patrick Sullivan, Canada

Exhaustion with Iraq? What about the 30 or so years of Resolution 242 to force Israel out of the occupied territories - there is no enforcement there!
Anon., England

Military action without a second UN sanction has no legitimacy

Renato Camarda, Italy

Mr Bush is wrong. Military action without a second UN sanction has no legitimacy. After the war there might be a short period of apparent stability followed by a very long period of international instability.
Renato Camarda, Italy

War is not a solution for any problem.
DPM, GERMANY

The world has to acknowledge that Saddam has had 12 years to disarm, and has consistently lied and obstructed UN mandates. Why should he be given more time? Hitler was stopped, Idi Amin was stopped, Baby Doc was stopped...Saddam's turn!
Sandy, USA

How can Bush and Blair to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis this week? Where is the democracy in governments where neither the Congress or the Parliament have any control over what the President and the Prime Minister do with the massive militaries and weapons of mass destruction of those countries?
Alex, USA

The overwhelming majority of people on this planet are for peaceful disarmament of Iraq

Mikhail, Russia

The hegemonic policies of US will have a long term sinister effects on world security. Bush has vehemently shown contempt and total disregard for UN Security Council mandate. The overwhelming majority of people on this planet are for peaceful disarmament of Iraq. History will be repeated, as the US adopts its illegitimate and cruel foreign policies on the poorer nations, as it has before, when US economic interests are more important than anything else, than lives of innocent Iraqi men, women & children.
Mikhail, Russia

If there is a war then it will lead to the fall in the world economy and this will lead to a decrease in standard of living and also the developing countries will suffer a lot and feel that peace is better than war SO hope that there is peace and the deadline should be taken further.
Jacinta D'Souza, India

Why didn't anyone protest when Bill Clinton bombed the Serbs and the Iraqis? Isn't it true that France has "dealings" with Iraq? Of course they don't want war. They'll be found out!
Chris, USA

Mr Bush should think more about the many innocent, helpless and unoffending people of Iraq

Mohammed A. Kaba, Liberia

I don't like Saddam but I also don't like George Bushes attitude. The deadline and the request are all too rash and foolhardy. Mr Bush should think more about the many innocent, helpless and unoffending people of Iraq, than the tyrannical leader and his cohorts!
Mohammed A. Kaba, Liberia

It is true that our government is responsible for Saddam being in power in the first place. Now that he no longer fits in with the government's best interest, they want to take him out. It has nothing to do with him being an awful dictator (which he is, but that's not why he is being targeted, it is just a convenient excuse to sell the public). This war is to serve the self-interest of the government PERIOD.
Ruth, USA

Good intentions are not enough to guarantee peace. The US position would have had far more support if not for the duplicitous game that France played. I admire Bush and Blair for taking a courageous decision based on principle, a decision that puts their political future at risk. I find it amazing that millions around the world question the motives of US and UK, but no mention is made of France's motives.
Ralph, Canada

We were all there for support when Bush said after the 9/11 attack that we won't tolerate these acts of terrorism, so why is everyone backing down now?
Mel, USA

President Bush has realized that waging war is what gets him re-elected. War against Terrorism has earned him some credit, so he needs a sequel. This is not about protecting anyone against terrorism - a long term fight against terror would mean undermining the foundation legitimating it and this would eventually involve treating people with respect and not forcing your own ideologies on everybody else. I am sorry Tony Blair supports George Bush - for whatever reasons, probably because he thinks it is more important economically to stay close to the US than to stick to any form of moral reasoning. Poor world.
Georg, Austria

I would believe Mr Bush IF AND ONLY IF he takes an oath in front of the world that he will not touch Iraq's OIL.
Suhail, USA

Bush is working hard to fulfil his position as commander in chief of the military

Beckie, USA

Bush is working hard to fulfil his position as commander in chief of the military. His first priority is to protect the American citizens, and I believe he has had to make many difficult decisions selecting the 'lesser of two evils' as Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes explains.
Beckie, USA

Bush is not the world's policeman. I don't agree with the way he has been dealing with this situation, and I think he has totally disrespected the UN and the countries that abide by its principles.
Gustavo Vazquez Lozano, Mexico

No, I do not agree with the deadline that does not have UN support. Nor has Bush backed up any of his statements about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Where are they?
Ravi Rajagopalan, USA

I wish the leader of my Country had the guts that Bush and Blair are displaying

Ryan, Canada

I wish the leader of my Country had the guts that Bush and Blair are displaying. I am ashamed of the Canadian government and their lack of support for our allies.
Ryan, Canada

Yes ... we have waited long enough for him to comply, he is a direct threat to the world's safety and he must go. God Bless America and our President.
Carmen, USA

This decision is long overdue. This action will start a revolution in the Middle East. Peace in Israel and Palestine will follow. I fully support the George Bush and the efforts of Tony Blair.
DAVID NYIRENDA, ZAMBIA

Why have the Palestinians been waiting 55 years for 72 UN resolutions to be enforced against Israel? You can't on the one hand complain that Iraq hasn't complied after 12 years and then ignore or defend Israel which has defied international norms for a longer time. You're all a bunch of hypocrites.
Bilal Patel, London, UK

As a US citizen who saw his mother country Yugoslavia bombed by NATO after the UN disagreed, I see history repeating itself

Vojislav, United States

As a US citizen who saw his mother country Yugoslavia bombed by NATO after the UN disagreed, I see history repeating itself. However, Yugoslavia was no threat to any one country! The US goal was the removal of "dictator", Milosevic. Are we going to continue "removals" and "regime changes" everywhere in the world? Yet, my main fear is that this will bring about more hate towards the average American, and feed the frenzy of fanatical terrorist.
Vojislav, United States

There were clear indications that Saddam Hussein, maybe reluctantly but surely, was disarming and we could wait a few weeks more and listen to the UN inspectors.
Galataud, Canada

No I do not back Bush and I am not for this war. He needs to chill out and get his priorities right.
Hannah, UK

Mr Bush is wrong to launch an illegimate unprovoked attack on another country
Haukur Thorgeirsson, Iceland

I don't support war. If Bush and Blair don't listen to the UN, then the rest of the world may neglect UN. If this happens, then what's the use of it?
Anil Krupakar, Sweden

Is the potential threat coming from Saddam's alleged weapons a justification for the certain killing thousands of innocent Iraqi people?
Vangelis Vassiliadis, Greece

We have to take the disarm Iraq by peaceful means

David, Singapore

If the USA starts war with Iraq without the support of UN, Russia, France, China and other countries, I think question the "Why do we need the UN?", will arise. Militarily strong nations like the US can destroy other small countries. We have to take the disarm Iraq by peaceful means - not with war which will kill innocent people.
David, Singapore

Disarming the Iraqi leader of weapons of mass destruction is justified through military conflict as all the options to disarm have failed.
Mr. Gautam Kantharia, India

I cannot begin to list the points of irony and selfishness in Mr. Bush's decision to go to war. It is ironic that he will be guilty of many of the things for which he accuses Saddam, and selfish in that he speaks of defending the USA's interests, as if no other country exists. As evil as Saddam may be, Bush risks tyranny himself. I (50% of my countrymen and women) do not support this war.
Joseph Price, USA

Iraq - where are the facts? Is war an option? Does anybody see the risks? This is not a new X-Box game which you can safely play on your couch at home Mr Bush. War cannot and will not be a solution, ever! If this is the new world order, then good luck to all!
Yuri, Austria

The president's idea of disarming Iraq makes sense but not the ultimatum

Sarat, USA

I do not back the US president in the war deadline. The president's idea of disarming Iraq makes sense but not the ultimatum. No one should act as world "police". President Bush should consider UN policies and stop another massacre in Baghdad.
Sarat, USA

The deadline is the right thing to do. The UN was leading nowhere. Saddam has been on probation since the last war, which never officially ended. He has broken the terms of his UN probation time and again, but the UN refuses to do anything about it.
Katherine Willsea, USA

Without a UN backing, this ultimatum is totally unjustified and bears no moral ground. Bush is going to push the world towards disaster and instability.This illegitimate war will kill thousands of innocent people and bring enormous economic problems for world countries.
Talat M, Toronto, Canada

Bush has given an ultimatum he knows will not even be considered by the Iraqi leader. It is an excuse for him to justify a war because the United Nations wouldn't do so. Since the first day of his administration Bush has sought to preserve his legacy.
Rashid Chowdhury, USA

I come from a staunch Republican background, but I am now horrified that the United States is the aggressor for the first time

Ann James Massey, France

My hometown in the States is in Texas, I come from a staunch Republican background, and I was completely behind the Gulf War. But now I am horrified that the United States is the aggressor for the first time, especially without UN backing, and against a well-contained enemy (granted, thanks to the US insistence). The possible consequences are most frightening: including needless deaths on all sides (no matter how minimal), destructions of property and historical treasures, increased terrorism from Muslims on the edge who might incorrectly view the war as a direct attack on Islam, and the burden of the rebuilding a "new order" in the Middle East.
Ann James Massey, France

I support Blair and Bush. Saddam has had 12 years to disarm and has he? No. That is the only question and answer relevant to this debate.
Iain McLaren, England

Bush's main objective should be to disarm Iraq; the problem is that Iraq is not disarming as fast as Bush wants; therefore, Bush has incorrectly opted to request Hussein and family to leave Iraq or face war. A more correct posture would be to give Iraq a deadline for total disarmament and if the deadline is not met, then disarm him by force. This action would be supported by France, Germany and China.
Arturo Saldana, Puerto Rico

I do not support war without UN authorisation, especially when the pretext is the fact that Iraq has not respected UN resolutions. What do we do? We show him that we are like him and disregard the UN altogether.
Sam, USA

This is not about oil, it's about security

Brad Yanek, USA

Yes I back President Bush. He is 100% correct. Saddam must go. This is not about oil, it's about security. The UN needs to back up its resolutions. Saddam has thumbed his nose at the free world for years.
Brad Yanek, USA

Blair tried to summon UN support but failed miserably because the US just was not interested in any compromise! They then blame the French for this failure. The UN is not a 'rubber stamp' for American foreign policy and has every right to stand up to aggressors even when they are American.
Tubbs, UK

With the collapse of Russia's military, the unravelling of international accords, and the contemptuous treatment of the United Nations, never before has the fruits of Cold War victory been so starkly evident for all to see - a world at the mercy of the last remaining superpower.
Jason Bennett, Ottawa, Canada

Saddam has not accepted a single UN resolution in 12 years

Krenzien, USA

Military action is justified because: (1) Saddam has violated the Desert Storm cease fire: that war never ended and we have the right to finish it (2) Saddam has not accepted a single UN resolution in 12 years. He has publicly defied every one. (3) Resolution 1441 passed unanimously and threatened "serious consequences". In the short term perhaps America will be vilified by many. But when Saddam attacks our troops or his people (again) with the chemical or biological weapons that he does not have, we will KNOW that voluntary disarmament was impossible.
Dennis Krenzien, USA

I am ashamed of my government. They have planned to attack Iraq all along. I believe they assumed the United Nations would go along with them and they were shocked when they didn't.
Meredith Hackett, USA

I do not condemn war; if Bush and Blair can get rid of Saddam - then sorting out our Asylum laws, hospitals, police force and education system should be a walk in the park for Blair when he finally returns to his own country's politics. Maybe Bush will help?
Karen, UK

I don't agree with this deadline. Saddam was given entirely too much time. When the Sheriff comes to evict you, you're only given 15 minutes.
Steve, USA

I think that Mr Bush is doing wrong. This will only make the Muslim militant groups even more dangerous, we will all be targets....
Peter Andersson, Sweden

The US should not risk lives enforcing UN resolutions that the UN clearly does not want enforced.
Brad, USA

The people of Iraq are going to suffer because of our moral poverty

Dave, USA

When 1441 passed, we were told that resolution was not an automatic trigger for war. Just a few nights ago Bush said he would call for a UN vote - no matter what. Well, both of those statements proved to be lies. What else is Bush lying about? The people of Iraq are going to suffer because of our moral poverty. I am ashamed of this whole mess.
Dave, USA

I find it disturbing that Bush should talk about restoring democracy to Iraq. The blatant hypocrisy of this stance set against the means by which he attained office is not lost on me. How different it would have been if Gore been in power. Then, Blair would never been backed into this corner in the first place and this war would not be taking place. Vive La France!!! NON, NIET, NEIN
Andy, UK

The one thing that everyone in the world is not talking about is France gains by backing Iraq. For the past 25 years, France has had a strong economic relationship with Iraq. If Saddam does leave Iraq, who then loses key economic oil contracts? It is a shame that people of the world cannot think and research the facts for themselves. There is clear motive for all countries involved that would include economic but also human.
Dan, USA

As an Iraqi I do strongly support the deadline given by Mr Bush

Hana, Australia

As an Iraqi I do strongly support the deadline given by Mr Bush to Iraq. Saddam is an evil man who never regrets his evil actions. God bless America.
Hana, Australia

Mr. Bush's deadline for a war is in utter contempt of the international public opinion, the United Nations and the will of the World to live in peace. This war is an open aggression as it lacks any legal and moral grounds. The UN inspections have clearly come to the conclusion that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq leaving no justifications for any military action.
Majid Qazi, Canada

A war without the backing of the UN cannot be justified. The way the American President heading for an attack on Iraq is itself a proof that his designs are nefarious. You can not justify any action if the rest of the world against it.
Abdul Basit Zafar, Pakistan

International cooperation is difficult and imperfect, but without it we are all at the mercy of the US foreign policy

Gabriella, Italy

We are being led into pure madness. Today is Saddam, and tomorrow? Hawks in the USA are already speaking about lessons for North Korea, Iran. International cooperation is difficult and imperfect, but without it we are all at the mercy of the US foreign policy.
Gabriella, Italy

Who is Bush to make such decisions about the World? He has failed to capture Bin Laden, so instead of confronting his failure, he confronts Iraq.
Srikant, India

48 hours is too long. Why this delay, doesn't the administration understand that 2 days is more than enough time for Saddam to start using his WMDs against America?
Si, US

100% behind Bush & Blair, it should have happened a long time ago; more resolutions by the left ain't gonna solve nothing
T.Riley, English /Australia

Why not spend this money helping African countries?

Rosana, Brazil

Is this about humanity? Why not spend this money helping African countries - where people live much more miserably than in Iraq - whose leaders would more than welcome "western" help?
Rosana, Brazil

I was expecting an ultimatum like: "Iraq give up your weapons of mass destruction, we are purging them from the Middle East". What I heard from Mr Bush is an ultimatum to the Hussein family. Is this a family feud or a just cause for war?
M. Noori, Iraq

I think the only solution is to issue an ultimatum and stick to it. It is in the interest of the Iraqi people to get rid of the Iraqi regime. Resolutions without resolve are all but empty.
Frédéric-Charles Petit, France

Am I missing something here? They say he is a threat, but they predict a swift war due to the state of the Iraqi army. They say it's not about oil and yet every major oil company is lining up to mop up the blood and start producing. They say they've got a moral majority and yet there were only 4 flags flying in the Azores. I will never support the current government (or their lap dogs the Conservatives) after this shameful episode. Until now I didn't support an independent Scotland but if it allows us to distance ourselves from the warmongers in Westminster then I would happily vote for it now.
Monty, Scotland

Now is the time for US politicians and citizens to rally around the troops

Carol, Florida, USA

There seems to be no win-win solution for a resolution. Why wait for another 9/11. Now is the time for US politicians and citizens to rally around the troops.
Carol, Florida, USA

No one doubts that Saddam Hussein is a threat. What is an infinitely greater threat to the world is the prospect of a unilateral pre-emptive strike against a sovereign state. Although I live in London which, due to the actions of the British government has been made a target for terrorism, I am not scared of Saddam Hussein. I am terrified of Bush, however, and the American corporate power he represents.
Andrew Dean, UK

This is what's known as endgame. Saddam has had 12 years to disarm and has spent that time sneering at Britain and America. The time has come to rectify the mistakes of the past and liberate Baghdad.
Anon., UK

The first resolution was the legal avenue which paved the way for disarming with military force. You can't give someone an ultimatum and then not keep your end of the deal. America has been patient and diplomatic and now it is time to take action. We cannot let terror go unanswered.
Charlene Shelton, USA

Time after time the USA has failed to convince the international community of the "threat" posed by Saddam. This is so shameful that one wonders if this is happening!
Dalas, Sweden

For all those wits asking who will 'deal with George Bush', the answer is simple - the American public. We know the voting system last time round had flaws, but the vote was open, able to be challenged and democratic. That is something which Iraq has not seen for a long time and never will unless Saddam is removed. Just make it quick and clinical and let's not have a desert Vietnam.
John, UK

Like many Americans, I question the real intentions of this war

Jason Cheek, USA

Like many Americans, I question the real intentions of this war. Unfortunately, I see it as a diversionary tactic to cover up a failing presidency and justify his occupation of the oval office; this deadline is unreasonable by design to ensure that military intervention will take place. It is no longer a "threat of force" but is now a certainty. It is a push in the wrong direction which will ruin good relations with other nations and damage the image of all Americans not just the few who are responsible.
Jason Cheek, USA

Robin Cook's resignation speech should be published in America; it was eloquent and to the point. The fact is that this war is unjustified and hypocritical. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of the dynamics of the World Order and of the Middle East.
Mark G-J, UK

People keeping talking about weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorist networks; why do I feel that I'm not clear on what these weapons are - there WAS no smoking gun, and no proven links - and without the UN weapons inspectors what will define 'disarmament'? If Saddam is gone, are there any guarantees we'll find these weapons then?
Anon., UK

On what grounds does the President purport to act for the UN?

William Benner, USA

If Iraq under Hussein has systematically ignored UN resolutions for twelve years as the evidence suggests, is not the UN the aggrieved party? On what grounds does the President purport to act for the UN? That the Security Council is unwilling to embrace war is convincing that the President's reliance upon Iraq's violations is transparent. On his second basis for war, the President has yet to link the terror of September 11 to Iraq. If he were sincere in his public pronouncements that this country will attack terrorists and those countries that support or harbour them, Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, would be the country in the President's gun sights!
William Benner, USA

Britain has withdrawn plans for a vote because France has threatened a veto? And the moon is made up of cheese? Why is Britain threatened by voting? By democracy? I think the numbers of Brits in the streets of London answers that question very clearly!
Dawn Smithers, USA

This is a perfect example of how power corrupts sanity.
Krishan Kumar, INDIA

At first I was against a war with Iraq due to my dislike of the current administration. Yet, due to the actions that have been taken by the Iraqi regime to rule the nation by fear, I feel that a military solution is the only solution. I will stand behind the troops of all nations that help in the tearing down of one of the worlds worst regimes.
Jack Reeves, US

We must be careful not to inflame further Middle East fundamentalism, it could cost the U.S. dearly

Kris, U.S.

Although I agree with the dangers posed by Iraq, I think that my country is going about it the wrong way. We must be careful not to inflame further Middle East fundamentalism, it could cost the U.S. dearly.
Kris, U.S.

How can anyone oppose war when we have spent 12 years trying to disarm Saddam peacefully? It isn't working, time for action.
Anthony, USA

Yes, a tyrant will soon be gone with the replacement of another backed up by the US government.
Yan, Hong Kong

It is unfortunate that the inspectors have not been given more time, as it seemed like the inspections were starting to produce results. Resolution 1441 does not specifically mention military action as a consequence; therefore a second resolution would be required for action to be taken legitimately. Saddam and his sons will not leave Iraq, I am sure of that, and I am afraid that war on Iraq would only bring about terrorist acts in the US and UK.
Adam, USA

It seems war is the only option and the only thing that Saddam Hussein understands

Harry Green, United States

Yes I do back Bush's war deadline. It's been over 12 years plenty of time for Iraq to disarm. It seems war is the only option and the only thing that Saddam Hussein understands.
Harry Green, United States

Bush's push for war is unwarranted, and has been a diplomatic catastrophe. Saddam is being contained. I agree with the French position. It's time to declare a victory, work with the UN inspectors, and bring our troops home.
Douglas R. Reynolds, USA

I believe that neither Hussein nor Bush have any compassion for ordinary people. Both are power mongers. I will be happy to see Hussein gone. I will pray that the democracy, Bush holds so dear, will rid us of the dangerous administration now in power.
Ted Thompson, Canada

Colin Powell's efforts at diplomacy were pointless

Elaine, USA

To tell you the truth, I believe that the use of diplomacy to solve this problem was never an option for Bush. It was a cover up to show the world that, "Look I'm trying everything I can to stop Iraq, but it's not working." Diplomacy is not a word in President Bush's vocabulary. Sadly, Colin Powell's efforts at diplomacy were pointless.
Elaine, USA

The UN clearly does not work in its current format, as only the US and UK ever seem to be prepared to back up the UN resolutions. Do the French really think that after 12 years asking Saddam to disarm that asking for another 12 years will actually work?
Andrew, UK

Bush, who are you to force people to get out from their own country. I don't think there is any right for you to do so.
Asha, Maldives

Absolutely not. But Bush and Blair decided they would go to war back in September. Diplomacy never stood a chance.
Tamar Francis, USA

The US and UK's defiance of the UN is undemocratic

Paul Stevens, UK

Was the diplomacy ever genuine? It's become obvious that Bush (and increasingly Blair too) is only in favour of democracy when the majority agree with him. The hypocrisy of damning other countries for using their veto when the US is reportedly responsible for 29% of all vetoes since the inception of the UN is astounding. The US and UK's defiance of the UN is unreasonable and undemocratic.
Paul Stevens, UK

France's decision to veto any resolution with even the threat of military action, will make anything passed by the UN completely obsolete. The inability of countries to commit to action has led to this long campaign of fruitless resolutions. It is now time to stop the evasion tactics and support out troops.
Jim Edge, UK

Diplomacy was over when the plans for toppling Saddam Hussein were hatched a long time ago. The Bush administration reluctantly agreed to the issue being debated in the Security Council. When that unexpectedly backfired, the US tried its best to coerce the uncommitted countries in the Security Council to get their support. That, too, failed. The issue has now reached the point of no return. We are in for a war.
Rana, USA

Maybe we should stop diplomacy and start action when Hussein drops his first nuclear bomb on Israel or Kuwait? No, I say the time is now! Thank you Messrs Bush, Blair and Aznar for standing up and saying enough is enough, Mr Hussein.
Roger Williams, USA

Inspection in the presence of a credible threat is working

Evan Rotner, USA

The resolution should not have been abandoned. Inspection in the presence of a credible threat is working. The risks of a war to Iraqi civilians, US and British troops; post-war reconstruction and stability in Iraq and a Middle Eastern peace settlement are too great. Bush wants to press ahead because as the high costs of war become evident, the Republican case for tax reductions becomes weaker.
Evan Rotner, USA

It is long past the time that the UN route should have been abandoned. Iraq has been in material breach of 1441 ever since they submitted their highly dubious weapons manifest last December. Many Americans have long believed the UN to be irrelevant, and the hand-wringing of late by the Security Council is proving it. I am thankful that George Bush and Tony Blair are exhibiting the leadership that they were elected to exercise.
Gary, USA

No! The UN IS the ONLY way. You cannot bypass the systems when it doesn't meet your needs. History will remember Bush and Blair as the two warmongers who plunged the world into turmoil!
Kaz, England

This is about the upholding the sanctity of human life!

Allison Lind, USA

As I sit here and read today's headlines, I simply want to cry for the future of the Iraqi people, who are to all of us our fellow citizens of the world. The fear and despair they must be feeling right now is incomprehensible to me in my sheltered American life. I only wish our world leaders realised that this is not about politics; this is about the upholding the sanctity of human life! We must work together as one unified world to peacefully solve this issue! I fear for all of us what will happen if we do not do so.
Allison Lind, USA

I have only glanced over the comments written here, but one in particular caught my eye. Thank you Allison Lind; as it happens, I did watch the news and cry today. Why I did - I really don't know. I don't think it was for the Iraqi people specifically, I think it was more down to all of us in general. I feel anger, despair, love, hope and uselessness all at once - and I have nothing I can do except cry. I never cry, so why am I doing so now? Confusion? I can't understand a world that has let 3 men - Bush, Blair & Aznar - steer our destiny.Though I loathe Hussein, I feel that Bush, in particluar, has done so much more damage already than Hussein ever could - he has taken all of humanity down a path that we can never turn back from. Neither peace nor war is the answer now, the damage has already been done. And so I carry on crying.
Oli, Spain

In every European country the majority of the population is against this war. In most of these countries the leaders agree with their people. The US Government responds to this with anger and threats. Where is the respect for democracy now?
Tomas Tomasson, Norway

No one talks about the 100,000 innocent people that are murdered, tortured and go missing in Iraq every year. Every day that is delayed in stopping Saddam is another day of death and torture to the Iraqi people. It is time we thought of them and stopped the killing that is going on today. Why don't people demonstrate against that?
Peter Sharpe, UK

Saddam must go

Pleurati, Kosova

Diplomacy should have ended a long time ago on the Iraq issue. Saddam must go in order to restore world order and stability in the UN.
Pleurati, Kosova

The war on Iraq has shown us, how democratic ideals can be pushed aside when it comes to the "national interests" of "nation states".
Burak Arikan, Turkey

I cannot express the sense of frustration and anger I'm feeling to what appears to be this inevitable act of naked and brutal aggression by the US and its subservient allies. There is no legitimate reason for this war.
Hani Malik, Saudi Arabia

Both sides are playing the world for fools

R. Algasr, Cairo, Egypt

Not only is diplomacy dead, but it also seems much easier to just go ahead and strike. In Egypt, no one is deluded by Saddam's defiance, and yet, no one is deluded by the US and UK's intentions. Both sides are playing the world for fools. Get on with the charade because I think most of us are sick of watching and would rather get on with our lives.
R. Algasr, Cairo, Egypt

When America says that France is undermining the power of the UN, I think we should remember that it was G.W. Bush that came out last year with the statement, "We will go to war, with or without the help of the UN". France, Russia, China and the other countries standing against immediate war in Iraq are the real ones who are trying to keep the UN's integrity by sticking to diplomacy and standing against this altruistic stance of America. I'm proud to be European!
A. Gagliardi, Italy

People, wake up!! Thanks God the US and UK are aware of the power and intentions of Saddam and decided to stop him. The world changed on 11 September 2001 because terrorists had been not treated as they should be.
Alex Benedek, Israel

The inspectors should have had the backing to carry out their work long ago when this saga started out. How can the inspectors ever convince anyone that they have found everything, when Saddam has had ample time to hide his resources? I do not believe in war, either way the people of Iraq will pay the price.
David Mallia, Malta

The war option is counterproductive

Aly Maher, Lebanon

Diplomacy never had a chance as the Bush administration chose war a long time ago. It seems so obvious that the war option is counterproductive that one feels that the decision makers are totally blind or act in total bad faith. This coming war is illegal, immoral, dangerous and stupid.
Aly Maher, Lebanon

How can diplomacy win when Bush says it is only my way and no other way?
B. Selvadurai, Malaysia

Please don't attack Iraq. Whatever your reasons it is not worth all the innocent blood that will be spilled. May God save Iraq and its people from these terrible people who want to kill them and rob them of their land and resources.
Asgar Fakhruddin, India

I want to advise the Iraqi President to comply with the UN resolution to save the lives of innocent civilians. My appeal to US President Bush is not to go to war with Saddam without UN Security Council approval. I have experienced war in my country Sierra Leone. It is more dangerous to lose than to win a battle.
Sulaiman Jalloh, Banjul, Gambia

Is this the style of democracy that he is intending to install in Iraq?

Ian Beecroft, Switzerland

How can Tony Blair justify taking the UK into a war without the clear support either of his own people or of the international community? Is this the style of democracy that he is intending to install in Iraq? If the USA and Tony have not managed to prove to us that their war is justified, then that is a failing in their political skills and they should not let others pay the price.
Ian Beecroft, Switzerland

For all those taking the firm stance, and yap-yapping on about inevitable war: have you considered grabbing a gun and fighting for world-wide democracy far from home yourself? High ideals, right? Be sure the remote doesn't slip from your fingers, as you "live" the war from the safety of your living room.
Marc Hutsebaut, Belgium

Diplomacy is over. It was redefined on September 11, 2001. The world is a different place today and the stakes are a lot higher. The old dictums of diplomacy must adapt. France hasn't come to that realisation yet.
Jerry, USA

People now know who they can and cannot trust

RWK Gardiner, Norway

Diplomacy cannot win. The allies are not going to listen to the French. There is a benefit to all this. People now know who they can and cannot trust.
RWK Gardiner, Norway

I believe that the time for diplomacy has ended. If the UN had voted for a second resolution there might be some hope.
Bill Jordan, USA

Yes, diplomacy is over. But is diplomacy a real option for George W Bush? Was it ever? He opted for war long before now!
JF Martinot, France

Are we deliberately trying to get Saddam to launch a pre-emptive strike? Saddam you've got 24 hours. The Azores summit statement relays that message.
Andy, Isle of Man

These are sad days. Let's face it boys and girls, we are heading for world war three. New world orders are about to be born.
Teemu Tuominen, Finland

From the beginning this alliance of terror (UK, US and Spain) has only demanded the UN to accept what they said and not to oppose it. It is this alliance which is a real threat to world peace. Shame on Bush, Blair and Aznar.
Paul, India

I think Bush and Blair would do well to listen to what Churchill said: "Jaw jaw is better than war war." Let the inspectors carry out their work, war will only unleash increased terror attacks. Democracy is the will of the majority, not what you gentlemen are proposing, which make you no better than Saddam.
Ray Wakelin, UK

It would indeed seem that diplomacy is over. War would appear inevitable at this point. Up until now I've not really been that concerned about the war, although I am vehemently opposed to it, even with a second resolution. I do now feel a sense of dread about it all.
Ilya Romaine, UK

I wish war wasn't going to happen

Blake, England

Diplomacy is over because of the combination of Saddam's evasive tactics, France's delusions of becoming Europe's main power, and Bush's utter lack of international diplomacy. If 12 years' non-compliance and evasion doesn't justify military disarmament and regime change, I do not know what does. I wish war wasn't going to happen, but because of the politics and power struggles in the UN, the only opportunity to effectively disarm Saddam is to act now. If the option to use military might is abandoned, the UN will become an ineffective constraint of tyrants and rouge states everywhere.
Blake, England

I guess so, a UN resolution seems unlikely at this stage. War is definitely inevitable.
Sanju Rajan, Bahrain

Diplomacy was over when the French declared a veto on any new resolution. Disgraceful behaviour to discount any action before it is presented. While I would prefer to see a peaceful resolution, the chances of this happening were destroyed by the French statement. Tony Blair now has my full support in his actions, the only route forward being that laid down by the Azores group. As they said, time for the world to stand and be counted.
Andrew, UK

It was pandering to politicians last time that put us in this mess

Kye, England

Diplomacy should have been over in the first Gulf War. If it wasn't for the Arab part of the coalition protesting against going in and getting Saddam then, then we wouldn't be in this position now. It was pandering to politicians last time that put us in this mess, and killed thousands more normal Iraqi people in the twelve years since.
Kye, England

Kye has it right on. Why is it that so many people do not understand that diplomacy is only effective if the carrots and sticks are big enough to get some attention? This is the problem with France, China and Russia's total lack of support for war. In Saddam's mind the stick didn't look very big and the carrots he was already getting were big enough to sustain him. I wish that the resolution would be voted on even if it were defeated.
Kevin, USA

The UN was set up to prevent countries 'going it alone', yet both the US and the UK seem determined to do just that. Their actions go directly against the UN and the Security Council and, as such, both countries should be expelled.
Carl Ball, UK

Mr Blair's moment of truth will only be the truth that he wants to hear. Diplomacy is over in this country and has been over in America ever since the undiplomatic rise to power of George Bush. The decisions made by him and our prime minister (who is supposed to be the voice of the people - the BRITISH people) make me embarrassed to be British and shocked that so much evil could be done in the name of good.
Sarah Armitage, England

It seems that it is over now. All the time there had been the suspicion that the US are only interested in the UN as long their actions are sanctioned - not as an independent organ to maintain world peace. This is evidently true. The question remains, why is Blair so adamantly behind Bush? Is he really so naive to believe that his support will grant him any influence in Washington over issues like Palestine?
Frank Schubert, UK

Democracy in the West has truly died

Vish, UK

It was interesting to see them talking about a "global alliance". Of the 160+ countries in this world only three leaders are part of this "alliance" and all three are defying the vast majority of their populace. Proof, if we did not have it before that democracy in the West has truly died.
Vish, UK

War is now inevitable. Diplomacy has had over 12 years and 17 resolutions to work and still Saddam has failed to comply. The time for talking with this callous dictator is over.
Wayland, UK

Finally all of this wrangling and diplomatic uncertainty can come to an end. We already know that France will veto anything at the Security Council. War is inevitable no matter what from day one.
Kevin Lance, USA

US and UK diplomacy has for the last 9 months been mere posturing

Robert Shawcross, Huddersfield, England

It should be clear to anyone with an ounce of common sense that US and UK diplomacy has for the last 9 months been mere posturing. They want war and merely need to sell it to the usually credulous public with horror stories about WMD and imminent genocide. Let us be in no doubt that it is UK and US interference and the region's reliance on oil exports over the last 85 years that have put Iraq in its current mess.
Robert Shawcross, Huddersfield, England

For once perhaps we should occasionally trust the leaders that we as a people voted in. Don't just assume that they're 'evil.' Whatever the situation with the weapons of mass destruction we must go in to liberate the people. And don't tell me that they don't want a war because I have friends in Iraq who have given me confirmation of the people's feelings.
James Jones, Great Britain

Diplomacy has always taken a back seat to military action. As Bush made clear last week he doesn't need 'anyone's permission' to bomb Iraq (or indeed do anything else he chooses in this new imperialist age). In Bush's eyes diplomacy has been an irrelevant distraction to be tolerated while the troops were put in place and to be discarded the moment it looks like it might interfere with his pre-ordained timetable.
Oliver White, London