US President George Bush has given Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war.
Is Mr Bush right to put Iraq on notice of war? Is military action legitimate without a second UN resolution?
This is a second page of your comments
Saddam has brought this war upon himself. His failure to agree to the ultimatum proves that he cares more for himself and his dictatorship than his own people. God is the only one who will grant him mercy now.
Saddam has brought this war upon himself.
This deadline was long overdue. Saddam Hussein has invaded Iran and Kuwait, bombed Saudi Arabia and Israel, and murdered countless of his own countrymen in the most horrible ways possible (including use of chemical weapons). No other tyrant alive today has such a gruesome record. Further appeasement is not going to make him change his way. The world should be thankful to the USA for its willingness to take on this tyrant.
Although I am not excited about the idea of war, I believe President Bush has made the right decision in issuing an ultimatum. If not for a strict timetable, Iraq would continue to defy the world. Saddam has been succeeding in his mission to create political turmoil within the US / Britain and our allies. As long as the solution to this problem stays tabled in the UN Saddam will have more and more time to hide, manipulate and deceive his people and the world. I commend President Bush and Prime Minister Blair for their tenacious efforts and I hope for a quick and decisive victory.
United States of America
I would actually like to see Saddam step down. Bush made his ultimatum with the full expectation that Saddam would stay put. If he actually did leave, I am extremely curious to know what the US would do. It's certain that they would not simply say "Mission accomplished" and walk away.
I would actually like to see Saddam step down.
Dave Coyle, USA
I completely back Bush. The longer we wait to attack the worse its going to get. Bush has taken every measure possible to peacefully end the conflict. Even if I did not agree with him he still is the President of my Country and I respect his stances and his position.
Brian Jarrett, USA
I support the current operations in the Gulf. There are far to many examples in the recent past where inaction has lead to great suffering and death. As for the UN, if this body will allow its voice to go unheard for 12+ years then why speak at all?
Ruben Garnica, USA
The casual dismissal of the UN and those disagreeing with the proposed war on Iraq together with the branding of those who oppose it as un-American, send a chilling message to the world. Namely, here is an administration which has no regard for international law or diplomacy and views force as the greatest decider. God save us all.
Here is an administration which has no regard for international law or diplomacy a
Yes - I back President Bush's deadline. I believe his offer is gracious to say the least. Bush has played the UN game and adhered to 1441 while dealing with the France/German conflict of interest. I solute Bush for following through with his stance on Iraq. The talk is over, the day of reckoning is upon us all, and we are now all speaking the common language that outlaw states and terrorist groups clearly understand: brutal, overwhelming force.
Ryan Loesch, USA
I do support Bush. I voted for him and stand by him now. Americans who are against the war are definitely the loud minority. I do fear for the Iraqis, Israelites, and the perception that this is a war on Islam which is most certainly not. I think it is embarrassing to the U.N.
that they set sanctions in 1991 and are afraid to enforce their own rules. A sanction is worthless
if the organization will not back up its words.
I absolutely support President Bush and the deadline. I certainly hope all of the other little dictators in the world watch closely and take notes. If you threaten the United States you will be replaced. You can't run, you can't hide and we don't care what the rest of the world thinks.
You can't run, you can't hide and we don't care what the rest of the world thinks.
Chris Wilkins, USA
President Bush made his decision to attack Iraq long before the matter was ever brought to the UN. I believe that it was only because of the influence of Tony Blair, Colin Powell, and other less hawkish figures that this matter was ever brought before the UN. Throughout the UN discussions and the inspections, the Bush Administration never stopped talking about the upcoming war. It was never treated as anything less than inevitable. And without any proof that there are Weapons of Mass Destruction currently in Iraq, the goal of disarmament seems nothing more than a pretence.
I support President Bush. It has been said many times that the right thing to do is not always the easiest thing to do, and is often the difficult path. Terrorists attacked us as a nation on 9/11/01. They killed over 3,000 innocent people. My wife and I personally know some of those victims. Our economy and psyche was ravaged and our view of the world forever changed. On that day a sleeping giant was again awakened, the same way it was with Pearl Harbor and I am not apologizing for it. We cannot afford to have our innocent citizens and innocent citizens in other parts of the world similarly attacked, when we can potentially weaken or destroy the enemy.
B. Martin ,
Bush is wrong, just plain wrong. If the UN isn't united, there is no justification for war. The only thing Al Qaeda and Iraq have in common is a 'q'. Nothing else. Bin Laden says Saddam is a heretic; Saddam doesn't like bin Laden. The 'nuke' docs were forged. The aluminium tubes couldn't be used for anything nuclear. Saddam's son in law in charge of a weapons program said that Iraq had no WMDs. Americans who follow Bush blindly are no better than cult members.
The only thing Al Qaeda and Iraq have in common is a 'q'
The UN has had a resolution for Iraq to disarm since 1991. How much time does the Iraq gov't need? Another 4 months is not going to make any difference. Saddam's son has threatened to use chemical weapons again on the Kurds if they support the US. What more proof is needed of Iraq's intentions?
Lani Leino, US
I fully support President Bush, although I wish he had done a better job of convincing Americans and the rest of the world why this war is necessary. The anti-war crowd bemoans the fate of Iraqi civilians who might die because of US military action. Is it any better that they die due to starvation or torture at the hands of Saddam's thugs? I heard an estimate (from a UN human rights group, I believe) that more civilians die in Iraq each month than were killed in the 1991 conflict. I guess this doesn't worry the war protesters.
I wish he had done a better job of convincing Americans and the rest of the world why this war is necessary.
I fully support my President and I've never been more proud to be an American. It is easy to make the popular decisions, but to make the unpopular decision and stand by it, that is a Leader, that is President George Bush! God Bless!
Todd Fike, USA
I am disgusted by the people who compare George W. Bush to a scumbag like Saddam. Saddam is a man who has plans to have his soldiers dress up in US Army uniforms and kill his own beloved citizens in order to inflame world opinion against the US. How long does the rest of the world need to see that Saddam will never disarm? It's a good thing that after so many years the US finally has a president willing to take a stance against this tyrant.
I do not back Bush's war deadline. War should be a last resort, and we clearly have not reached the point of exhausting other options in this crisis. It has been all too clear from the beginning that Bush was determined to go to war no matter what, and I am afraid that the consequences of this war will be tragic for all concerned.
President Bush appears determined to wage war on Iraq despite the world's opposition, despite the progress of UN weapons inspectors, despite the likelihood that an unprovoked war will foment, rather than eliminate, terrorism. The Bush Administration has threatened to attack Iraq even without the authority of the UN Security Council. This constitutes both a threat to world peace and to the very integrity of the UN as an institution dedicated to "the maintenance of international peace and security." Time is running short. This disastrous war must be prevented.
Intesar Ramley, Canada, Vancouver
Bush and Blair are great leaders and have to make difficult decisions based on the information and intelligence that they have. We (the public) do not have all the facts and will not have it due to the safety of our people and military. Support your leaders because they are supporting you!
Support your leaders because they are supporting you!
I think if we had a better understanding of the real political reasons behind what is going on we might be more sympathetic to Bush's ultimatum. The media coverage seems to be giving out a fair degree of political propaganda and the real motivations for this war seem particularly unclear. War on terrorism OK but Iraq is far from being the only country supporting terrorists - take the examples of Israel, Palestine, North Korea or Pakistan. Why are they not receiving peace-keeping ultimatums and why are we not all trying to make this world a better and more harmonious place to live in!
No, I do not think we should be going to war without the UN. I am ashamed of the reckless behaviour of the Bush administration. His speech was powerful, but based on many false assumptions. In the end, we have to stick to facts when we are dealing with so many innocent lives.
His speech was powerful, but based on many false assumptions.
Jane Marie Law, USA
I voted for Bush and I certainly regret that I did. What he's embarking on is an insane adventure. If he really cared about preservation of world security, peace, and human rights, why wouldn't he go after regimes that have harboured, trained and directed terrorists. It is obvious that Syria and Iran make Saddam look like a "schoolboy" in contrast.
I agree with the Bush deadline. Inspections would never work. Any one who thinks they will work should consider that the only reason Saddam is showing the tip of the iceberg now is because there are 300,00 troops on his border. Inspections should work without any troops to threaten Saddam if they are to be genuine. I wish Bush could remove the troops for 90 days and then let the world see how much the inspections can work.
Tim Floyd, UK
I support the presidents decision. I feel all our diplomacy was a waste of time. It's unfortunate that we're going for war without full UN backing. Other countries obviously do not care enough about the Iraqi threat. I just hope that we succeed in getting rid of Saddam and his supporters.
I feel all our diplomacy was a waste of time
Christopher Mercer, U.S.
I absolutely back and support Bush's deadline for Saddam to depart Iraq. I am just saddened that it has gone on this long and the innocent Iraqi people have suffered all these years. Thank God for Bush, Blair and other leaders with leadership and a moral compass not often seen in today's world of passiveness.
It's a sad and very frightening day for the world when the non-elected leader of the world's only superpower chooses to ignore the voice of reason. Military options short of war were on the table, stood a high probability of successfully disarming Iraq, and had the full backing of the world community (yes, even France). America is without a doubt the most powerful nation in the history of the planet; with this ultimatum, we have now relinquished any claim we once had on also being a great nation.
JPS, Florida, USA
Whether Bush is right or wrong is irrelevant now. Bush is wielding what he, as a fundamentalist, considers to be a sword of righteousness - the US military - and that makes him very dangerous. All sane people must oppose him.
Pete Spina, USA
Mr. Bush knows that Saddam will not leave Iraq. It is not appropriate to put this kind of pressure on the citizens of Iraq who have proven in the past that they are unable to get rid of Saddam.
Mr. Bush knows that Saddam will not leave Iraq.
Hatim Zaghloul, Canada
This President and his Congress has managed to erode all of the international support and sympathy for the events of September 11. His mishandling of this affair is a stunning example of ignorance. His, and America's, credibility can be revived if, and only if, the US Forces find the 'smoking gun' in the course of the operation. That will be the only mitigating factor.
Simon P, United States of America
The US has demonstrated absolutely no respect for the international community. When he decides to attack Iraq, without considering the UN's opinion, he doesn't just go over that dictator (he should be taken out by other methods), he goes over the civilians in that country, and over everyone else in the world.
The responsibility of being a super power in a global world often leaves us with grim duties. If we don't stop this man who readily kills his own people, who will? I stand behind my president because the safety of, not only the Iraqi people, but the entire world is at stake.
If we don't stop this man who readily kills his own people, who will?
Tori Steinmetz, USA
They ought to just get on with it now. The decision has been made and the longer they stall, the more time they give Hussein to prepare his hidden arsenal. Our top men are not fools, we should back them even when there is dirty work to be done.
Carol Richards, England
I agree with President Bush. Except for ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism, and Communism, war has never solved anything.
I admire the courage of those leaders, who stand up for what is right, even in the face of political pressure.
Clay A., USA - via the Netherlands
Absolutely not. The Bush Administration is ignoring the input and opinions of not only the people they are supposed to represent, but also those of the free world. It is sad that men and women will fight and die in an unsupported war. I have no faith in our government or the handling of this crisis.
I have no faith in our government or the handling of this crisis.
I support Bush, although the loss of innocent lives is deeply troubling.
Relax all you war weary people of the world.
At the moment of this writing there can be no war by the U.S. Military since our current President's ultimatum is not only a violation of the U.N. Charter but also a violation of our own Constitution, and thus carries no weight with our Military.
Our Constitution clearly sets forth the decision-making process for war. WAR is a decision to be made exclusively by the representatives of the people, namely our CONGRESS. Only Congress is authorized to declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make the rules for these armed forces.
I am embarrassed by the fact that George Bush, a man who came into power under questionable circumstances, is now taking my nation into an expensive and questionable war. I do not deny that Saddam is a tyrant - possibly even an evil man - but it is horrifying to realize that George Bush is dragging this country and the world into a war which seems to serve no purpose but to fulfil his own personal grudge.
I apologize to my fellow citizens of the world for this man's behaviour.
I apologize to my fellow citizens of the world for this man's behaviour.
Brian W, USA
I'm proud of our president, and I am equally proud of Tony Blair and all the other allies who are willing to do what has to be done. Saddam Hussein should have been taken care of 12 years ago. Enough diplomacy, tyrants do not deserve it.
Joe S, USA
Of course not. This is a serious precedent of an international law violation. UN kept the world reasonably stable and peaceful since the World War II. This is a terrible start into the 21st century.
I totally agree with the ultimatum. Saddam is a tyrant. Our world is degraded by these people and he has had enough time to arrange an orderly retirement. Now is the time for action.
I support Bush's deadline and believe that enough is enough. I am glad that Bush has realized that the invasion of Iraq and removal by force is the only option left. The only thing left to say is "it's about time."
Kyle Rutter, USA
Again Bush has proven to the world that he is not a cannibal, and that he is not an enemy to the Arab world, as many will put it, so can a tyrant like Saddam do what is good to avoid war? So if Saddam loves his people and has a conscience then he should better serve his people by going to exile, and by then war will be avoided. So I strongly agree with Bush's deadline to Saddam.
if Saddam loves his people and has a conscience then he should better serve his people by going to exile
Louis Amboteh, Bamenda, Cameroon
Louis Amboteh, Bamenda, Cameroon
Saddam and his regime are the worst solution for the Iraqi people, but what we would say if we lived in Iraq, waiting for the bombing? Do you think that Iraqi people have chosen to live there? No, I believe that war is the worst way to build peace.
Bush is right. Saddam got opportunities to collaborate and this is the last one for him to avoid war. The ball is in his court, he decides if he wants war or peace.
War is not, as I heard one commentator say, the natural end of diplomacy. It is the failure of diplomacy, and the failure of civilisation. The coming conflict, which is being conducted in spite of having no clear UN authority, may signal the end of nearly 60 years of unprecedented international cooperation. And all because George 'lost patience' with Saddam.
Millions of peoples' lives are at stake here from atomic power. We are liberating Iraq. Why do people say war is not the answer? Twelve years of "other means of resolve" have not worked. You know from the past, the longer we appease tyrannical dictators, the worse the final war shall be.
Jakob Marley, UK
I agree with Bush and Blair! I am proud to be an American, and ashamed of those Americans not supporting our President. Where would the world be if Britain and America had not stopped Hitler?
L Lyles, USA
No, going to war without UN support makes the USA and UK as morally indefensible as Iraq
Paul Frisby, UK
The American President's undermining of UN authority is unacceptable. It arrests the development of international law with unpredictable consequences.
If a ruler's mindset (hatred of America) or weapons of mass destruction were the criteria to justify use of force, then so many other countries are better contenders for an attack. George Bush is making a grave mistake. Hopefully the American people who have protested will not be blamed for this madness.
Abid Siddiq, Canada
I totally support President Bush's decision. People forget that we are fighting for freedom of terrorism. It's selfish to not want that for your children, just as our fathers and grandfathers fought for what we believe in, all of the rights we now enjoy today, is because people like President Bush was not afraid to make it happen.
I think that America is wrong to go to war without the backing of the Security Council and I think that Tony Blair has shown extreme arrogance in ignoring the wishes of his voters but also many within his own party. This war is unnecessary and will be a complete disaster. The blame will lie at the feet of Bush and Blair.
This war is unnecessary and will be a complete disaster
I think if the attitude is not to listen to the UN, there will never be peace in this world. Leaders like Mugabe triumph on issues like this. Bush should have shown some respect for the UN and smaller nations might learn from that. If the law of the jungle applies, then what's next? Why have the UN to start with? Why waste resources and time?
Saddam is a threat not only to America, but, to the world. I support President Bush 100%.
Sergio Cuevas, USA
I totally disagree with Bush. Bush/America do not have any right to kill innocent people in Iraq and the US/UK soldiers.
Philip Thankachan, India
It is pointless the UN making any resolutions if it fails to back them up.
This has the effect of deeming the UN a waste of time and money.
I back President Bush a 110%. I know that I wouldn't want his job! We can't allow those terrorists to get away with murder. We need to fight for our country and we need to fight for what's right. Let's get this over with so that we can get our men home.
Holly Vance, USA
It's just a way to give Iraq a "yes or no" question to war but with the "no" taken away.
Aaron, Canadian in France
It is not right to bring despair to the Middle East people time and time again. We need a leader here who does not just promise hope but delivers a just and lasting end result. No more mass killing of life by leaders of countries.
A Bashir, UK
God Bless you Mr Bush. Finally someone is siding with the Iraqi people rather than dealing with Despotic butcher in Baghdad. It's time to get rid of the plague that killed the Iraqi people alive.
Arabs and Muslims never heard us, nor helped us, you are the one man to speak the truth and stand behind principles of liberty and freedom. God Bless You.
Ashraf Alanjjar, United States
Democracy has to win but a peaceful solution is the best way to go about things; if military action is needed then the people of Iraq should be allowed to step aside and not get killed.
A war without any backing of UN can not be justified. The way the American President is heading for an attack on Iraq is itself proof that his designs are nefarious. You can not justify any action that the whole world is crying against.
You can not justify any action that the whole world is crying against
Abdul Basit Zafar, Pakistan
Abdul Basit Zafar, Pakistan
I support President Bush's war deadline, it is overdue by about 25 years.
Alistair Beaton, Canada
I am completely against this action in Iraq. We have no business telling another country who their leader can be. We certainly can't tell another country to dispose of their weapons unless we have first disposed of ours.
CJ Shank, USA
With deep regret I disagree with the Bush's war deadline. Attack on Iraq may serve the interest of USA, but for sure it will further increase the suffering of innocent Iraqi people.
I totally support President Bush with his decision. I support the USA and coalition. The whole world should come together against Iraq and terrorism. It is sad that some countries (like France and others) are against this war on terrorism.
Gentian Meta, Albania
How much longer will it take for the UN to disarm Saddam and his evil empire? Twelve more years?
Gene Rhinehart, USA
This is the right thing done for the wrong reasons. For the good of Iraq, the Middle East and the rest of the world the Iraqi regime should go. The UN has shown its effectiveness can be completely suppressed by a few nations looking out for their own interests. So here, for once, the sword seems mightier than the pen.
G Barrow, UK
By going to war without a UN resolution Mr Bush is undermining the only system of international law we have. Military conflict, at this point, is not the only option. Mr Bush is clearly ploughing ahead on his own agenda, and if he succeeds he will be the real dictator - with chemical, biological, and nuclear capabilities unlike anyone else in the world.
Kathryn Simpson, Canada
I think it is about time a final deadline is set. Then it will give Saddam a clear ultimatum. I would like to see Iraq come to a peaceful end and maybe this deadline may prompt Saddam to make the right choice and leave, without the need for thousands of innocent people to be killed.
maybe this deadline may prompt Saddam to make the right choice and leave
J Tyler, Wales
I support the deadline. The Bush government has made it plain that the decision to attack was made months ago and any dissenting opinion will be ignored. They should hurry up and get it over with so the world's economies can all start rebuilding themselves.
I support Bush 100%, I feel bad for those people in Iraq that don't have the right to say how they feel about their leaders and can't live a decent life.
Alex Gonzalez, Puerto Rico
How can anyone oppose war when we have spent 12 years trying to disarm Saddam peacefully? It isn't working, time for action.
Yes, the notice of war is right, the previous UN resolutions have already stated that without a full disarmament Iraq would "face the consequences". We need to get it over with and rebuild Iraq as a free state.
Hello, I just wanted to say that war is getting closer and it is very sad to see innocent people die but we must all face what is going to happen. God bless to all.
This is an act of unparalleled stupidity. Attacking Iraq now will simply turn every Islamic country in the world towards terrorism.
The war is about the control of oil, nothing more.
President Bush is totally in the right by putting Saddam Hussein on notice. Saddam is a killer. Every human has the right for liberty. I believe that it is right to fight for people's freedom no matter who they are, and I am not afraid to do so.
Adam, United States of America
Yes, I agree with the 48 hrs ultimatum. The tension has been there for the past 10 years, and this time it has to be finished once and for all so our lives here in Kuwait will be back to normal again.
Isabelito Adarne, Kuwait
This hasty action by President Bush will only grow the gap between the Arabs and the West. Extremism and Terrorism stem from a feeling of hopelessness and injustice. President Bush has just increased those feelings in millions of Arabs and Moslems all over the world.
What exactly is the definition of tyranny? According to my dictionary it's 'the cruel and arbitrary use of authority'. Undoubtedly Saddam is cruel, but he has never proposed an arbitrary attack in the way that Bush and Co. have done today.
It's interesting to note that free elections in Iraq would most probably lead to a radical Islamic government. After a war such a government would hardly be very pro-west. Is that a desirable alternative?
Niall Davis, Germany
Time has come to end the talking and start taking action. The UN has totally failed to prove its credibility, whilst Blair has shown outstanding leadership in the most difficult of circumstances. People should now get behind our troops and hope and pray for a swift end to the war.
I strongly back Bush's war deadline and support whatever he wants to do for the sake of not only the Iraqi people but also for all people in Middle East. I hope this will result in democracy in the Middle East.
I disagree with President Bush's ultimatum. I feel that this war will bring more terrorism not only here in America but all over the world. Innocent lives will be lost and it is not worth this war. I do feel there are others ways around this war to spare the lives of both the soldiers and the civilians. Saddam must be stopped but war is not the answer.
Saddam must be stopped but war is not the answer
I totally agree with Bush. In fact I think it should have happened when Saddam gassed thousands of his own people. This man is an everyday danger to everybody in the world and he has to be stopped. He is not interested in World peace, dictators like him never are. They are evil, egotistical, sadistic tyrants and people like that should not have stores of chemical and Nuclear weapons capable of causing mass destruction and loss of millions of lives.
The Bush administration is not only attacking Iraq but the UN itself. The police in our democratic country is backed by our citizens - how could Bush declare that America is the worlds police? Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator but who really believes that we can stop terrorism with terror and that bombs will bring peace into the Middle East?
I totally back Bush's deadline. However, I'm an African American male and I heard an interesting point on the radio this morning: Why doesn't the US do something to all the brutal dictators in Africa as well (Goodness knows some of them are as and others more evil than Saddam). Is it because Africa has no oil?
No, I disagree with the president, and like others I feel that the consequence of this war will outlive both President Bush and Saddam Hussein.
History teaches that dictators unchecked kill first within their borders then outside of their borders. I believe the coalition is right in acting as soon as possible.
Eric Smith, USA
Only time will tell what will be the extent and result that will result from a war with Iraq. It was Martin Luther King who said "violence breeds violence"; there are other ways to deal with situations such as these, all it takes is intelligent politicians with flare and imagination. Until the world learns that war is never the way, wars will continue, and will get worse and more sophisticated.
Glenn Berg, UK
Shame on all of us for not getting rid of Saddam 12 years ago. What he has done to his people and what we have let him do is a disgrace. I agree with President Bush. The UK should be proud to have Tony Blair as PM.
I do not agree with Bush's war deadline; there is no need for war. Saddam has not posed a threat to us recently, and there is no point in going to war with him without a proper incentive to do so, and if we do go to war I fear that the UK State of economy will collapse.
Niall, Shropshire, UK
It is absolutely correct and justified that any dictator should be removed from power by people who believe in democracy and freedom. Therefore, I am fully backing the Allies actions on Iraq. The Allies will surely win this war, but the true battle will be to win the peace.
Bush makes me ashamed to be American. This push for war is the act of a schoolyard bully. It will create more of those who hate us, and seriously destabilize the region. These acts are not the America I was brought up to believe in.
Al Stone, USA
Time for appeasement is over. We need to learn from our history and remember that diplomacy with tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin Gadaffi and Bin Laden "WILL NOT WORK." They must be removed!
Thank god we have a leadership and allies (not France or the UN) that are prepared to walk the talk!
No I don't agree with Bush's deadline. It is an aggression against a helpless country and its innocent people. Moreover there is no UN resolution to back this unjustified war.
Amir Saghir, Canada
All civilized people want peace, but some forget that dictators do not remain contained with only the soft gloves of diplomacy.
William F Anderson, US
Bush has no other options but to get Saddam out. How can we as a democracy sit and watch while one man kills innocent people? After September 11th the world is never going to be the same but we can do something now which will make the world a better and safer place to live.
How can we as a democracy sit and watch while one man kills innocent people?
Leslie Carter, UK
They face political ruin if they are wrong, they may even lose if they are right, yet both these men have the courage to stand by what they believe, and i agree with them; it's legal, moral, expensive, risky, and long overdue.
No one can say Bush & Blair did not try the diplomatic route, for 12 years before and many months after 1441 they tried to give the UN enough backbone to stand up to Iraq, only to be blocked by the French.
Fortunately when the UN fails, there are nations and leaders prepared to go it alone to do what needs to be done.
Absolutely not! I do not support this war! Violence only begets
I strongly endorse The Bush deadline. Enough is enough. Saddam must go.
Gary Parfit, USA
Mr Bush should learn from history. Saddam Hussein became a tyrant under the support of the United States. The US is responsible to resolve this conflict by peaceful way.
If the war was justified, the world would be dominated by selfish ideas of the United States.
I support President Bush's decisions and actions regarding the need for removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, and it is apparent that invasion of Iraq and removal by force is the only option left to the US and our allies. Thank you.
it is apparent that invasion of Iraq and removal by force is the only option left to the US and our allies
Nancy Lang, USA
Yes. But this deadline should pass for all the nations engaged in investing in weapons of mass destructions, including USA.
Upul Herath, Sri Lanka
Mr Bush has no right to start war; there are peaceful means to solve the problem.
In short, I have but three words for the world, 'It's about time'. How long do you have to tell someone if they don't "do what they are told, there will be consequences to there actions"? If you are to leave any credibility with oneself and the people around yourself, it must be with the words that you speak are the truth and say what you mean!
Yes it is high time that this man is taken out of power!
Alice Taylor, USA
The United States is truly making a mockery of the United Nations and the Security Council. There is no legitimate reason to go to war; the President simply gave up too soon on diplomacy. Nothing but heinous and terrible things will come from a war. The United States have proved they are no better than the "rogue" states they wish to control.
Bush has no legal and moral authority to ask Saddam to leave Iraq. It should be the UN who decide.
Jawad Ali, Norway
By attacking Iraq in the absence of an act of aggression by that nation, all those involved in ordering the attack become war criminals. This is true regardless of whether or not there is a second UN resolution. In the absence of active violent aggression, war is illegal. If we, as citizens, co-operate with this war, support our governments in war efforts, then we too are war criminals.
Michael Westerfield, USA
Why is it that the whims of our leaders must be paid by countless hosts of innocent people? Why should we subscribe to the "ruler of the world's" decision to strike no matter what? NO TO WAR is the only cry that should be raised the world over. Let us oppose any type of abuse of power!
I do not support George bushes war deadline, he and the American military know that Saddam Hussein will never leave Iraq! I am in total support of the majority of the UN Security Council who would not give their support for military action.
This is a bad day for the peace of the world, if nations ignore the will of the majority, this can only dilute the diplomatic power of the UN and the way of peace.
We, the American people do not elect tyrants to the office of the President. Although we do like to put a gun slinging cowboy into office now and then. Those who have declared that they will attack American and British interest around the world are our enemies, they will be defeated, and some day my daughters will not have to live in fear of terrorism. America did not invent terrorism, but we will defeat it!
Casey Keenan, USA
There is never a good time for war, and we cannot achieve peace merely by expressing a desire for it.
Saddam Hussein's first language appears to be violence; I believe the time has come when we need to speak to him in his native tongue.
Richard Moore, UK
I've backed Bush and Blair from the beginning and support Bush's deadline. What I find strange is when people say that Saddam is an evil dictator, killing his own people, but in the next breath say that war is immoral and unjustified. Everyone knows about Saddam's brutal regime and generally agrees that what he is doing is evil and that Iraq would be better off without him. So why is the world in such an uproar when Bush declares a deadline for war in order to see Saddam out of Iraq?
I think Bush's decision is motivated by fear. It is important that we not be threatened, but I think are. We cannot suspend international rules, and act in advance of sufficient evidence. I would feel better if the UN was leading a worldwide coalition against Iraq, and not just the US, UK, and Spain.
We cannot suspend international rules, and act in advance of sufficient evidence
Twelve UN resolutions later, and still Iraq are not disarming. Saddam is toying with diplomatic countries who seek peace, which is something contrary to his goals. Otherwise he wouldn't need what we are going to disarm. I support my president.
Ben Thullen, USA
If we go to war we should have more support. Why do we feel we have the right to decide the fate for so many?
John Verrell, US
I believe the war is necessary, although we should have really removed Saddam from power during the last Gulf war. Tony Blair has my full support. I agree that war is an awful thing, but what most protesters don't realise is that sometimes we must do difficult things to help and protect others, denying this can only be referred to as cowardice.
If we, the public, looked at all the facts and all the history, we would reason differently. If weapons inspectors have to go into the same Regime every three to four years to get rid of their threat, you should consider eliminating that regime. The USA always has helped any country who was threatened by war, and now who stands by them, the deadline IS fair!
President Bush is right in all he and company are doing in disarming Iraq either by force or persuasion. I believe the price of inaction will be great. I fail to figure out what is in the minds of those opposed to war particularly the US and UK citizens; have they forgotten what happened in 9/11?
I disagree with the ultimatum and find the doctrine of pre-emptive war on which it is based to be a terrible step backward for international law and the geopolitical balance of power. Amid all the awful consequences of this reckless decision there is one healthy side-benefit: Europeans are massively coming to question the sway of American interests, both political and economic, over their own social, economic and cultural traditions.
It's a bit pointless, as going to war is the lesser of two evils, at this stage it better to get on with and get it over with as soon as possible. Then, hopefully less people will suffer.
Andrew Wallace, Sweden
I back Bush's deadline. Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator with weapons of mass destruction. It is time Saddam was stopped. If he uses weapons against us or any other country people will be asking why nothing was done to stop him. He has had time to give up his weapons and disarm, but he has refused. The more time bush sits back and waits for the UN to sort out this situation out the more time Saddam is concealing weapons. It's definitely time we went alone and get rid of this evil man.
If he uses weapons against us or any other country people will be asking why nothing was done to stop him
Whoever says that this is a pre-emptive war is wrong. At the end of the 1991 Gulf War conflict the Allies did not sign a Peace Treaty; we signed a Cease Fire Agreement. Iraq's regime has failed to disarm according the agreement, therefore this is NOT a new war it is a continuation of the previous war.
James Light, England
No. I am totally against this administrations policy of pre-emptive war. I am fearful of the repercussions.
Erika DeGrave, USA
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Bush's ultimatum for Saddam and his followers. I also look forward to the day all the protestors and cabinet ministers who have opposed action are proved wrong. No action just extends Saddam Hussein's license to kill innocent Iraqis.
Mark Stephenson, Scotland
The president is doing what he can to help the world. Thank God for men who care enough for the people of the world that they will take a stand to do what has to be done for our safety in this troubled world.
Ren Rutledge, USA
Yes. The barbaric leaders of Iraq should face a war crimes tribunal. However, to save lives by avoiding a war this tyrant should be let go.
Patrick Taylor, Canada
I think the American President should listen to the UN Security Council and the world. Saddam should be disarmed peacefully. So NO I don't back him.
People cannot whimper about evils in former Yugoslavia, South Africa, and others through the years and then suddenly puff out their chests and bluster against the removal of Saddam. This action is just and prudent.
L. Dean, USA
The history of the world for the last 100 years has been the USA standing up to tyrants.
I applaud and admire President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and the presidents of Spain and Portugal for having the courage to stand by their beliefs and move against Iraq at the risk of their political careers. I am horribly disappointed in the self-serving, divisive attitude of France.
Not all of the American people feel that the best defence is offence. But all Americans must wonder if we will continue to sell chemical weapons to the new appointed leaders of Iraq?
I believe that if Saddam is serious about compliance with UN resolutions he would have complied already.
I also believe that France is taking the stance it has taken because of its desire to increase and/or maintain its influence in the region, which would be greatly diminished if a war was to take place.
Yes, I believe President Bush is right to demand that Hussein leave. We in America appreciate Mr Blair's intestinal fortitude in standing with us. He realizes that Great Britain could experience its own 9/11 if terrorism and those who support it are not stopped. We salute you, Mr Blair and are praying for you!
Tommy Christopherson, USA
I think Bush should revaluate his position. We are losing all of our allies. All these people are going to lose their lives in vain and I can not accept this. It breaks my heart!
I think Bush should revaluate his position. We are losing all of our allies.
Mr Bush is right in what he is doing. He is the democratically elected leader of his country, and perceives a clear and present danger to his nation. And Tony Blair is right too. Why wait for chemical or biological weapons to be used against the West before acting? And most importantly, it seems that a majority of Iraqis want America to invade and liberate them. Do we really believe that our and America's foreign policy is only morally right if the UN declares it to be?
I am a British citizen living in Holland. I am ex-RAF and I believe that Bush is right to go into Iraq. But this time do not stop until Saddam is wiped out as this should have happened in the last gulf war.
There is no UN incentive to deal with human rights issues in Iraq. Saddam Hussein needs to be removed. The ultimate consequence of weapons inspections and endless UN dwindling can only be that Iraq would be disarmed. The ultimate consequence of action by Bush and Blair would be a Saddam-free Iraq. A humane Iraq.
David, 13, UK
When the Twin Towers were attacked by the terrorists on 9/11 the world came to a standstill and united to help rebuild the USA any way they could. It affected the world. From that unity, President Bush is breeding a new range of hatred, fear and anger amongst the people of the world. A world that was finally starting to work as one. This just goes to show how much influence one person has.
Take a look around. We have just lost the ideals of democracy. The best of times are now gone and the worst is about to start. Shame on the most ignorant generation of Americans that have ever been for letting this travesty happen. It's the ignorant led by the stupid.
Les Marti, USA
Any decision now is better than the uncertainty of the last weeks, and avoids more divisions between EU partners. The weapons inspectors could never have forced Saddam's regime to leave the country, which is the goal of this crisis; disarm Saddam and get rid of him, the last can not be done without violence given the nature of Saddam and his oppressive regime.
I have honestly never fully understood the politics behind the situation, but I feel it is now time to concentrate all of our efforts on supporting our current leaders, and of course the armed forces preparing for battle - they are the one's who need our words of encouragement and not our criticisms. Here's to the soldiers...
It is now time to concentrate all of our efforts on supporting our current leaders
It is very difficult for people not to be sceptical about a US led invasion. People are becoming more and more aware of US foreign policy and how it always seems to have an economic motive. The current military invasion will only serve to increase this awareness and to create anti-US sentiment.
John Ferguson, Scotland
Isn't it plain to see who is really against the interest of the Nationwide? The one that wants to bring others a packet of democracy has just willingly lost his own. This Deadline is going to be a real deadline between love and hate, it is unacceptable!
Adebayo John, Germany
"The Tyrant will soon be gone", was Bush referring to himself and Blair, when they loose their jobs over this?
It is time for the tyrant to be gone! We must finish with Saddam as soon as possible, Iraq deserve a better future!
John Nick, Greece
Saddam has to be stopped now we have waited 12 long years, please do it now and get it over fast. Let the people of Iraq live again in peace without Saddam.
Nick Bafiadis, UK
I don't back this deadline at all; there is no doubt that Saddam is an evil dictator! But there are a lot of Saddams all over the world especially in the Arab world. So, will the Bush's administration follow the same path with them? I don't think so, because they are allies to US!
I don't back his deadline or stance. I don't understand the rush to war which makes America look arrogant for defying the international community.
I don't understand the rush to war
No, definitely not. And for those of you who think Saddam should go, a lot many more now think that Bush should go as well.
I am concerned it will turn into a blood bath, but Saddam must be stopped, he should have been taken out years ago.
Way to go Bush, I'm backing him. It's about time he ditched the UN and just went it alone.
Erin Freeman, UK
Bush is just finishing off what the previous George Bush failed to do. It has nothing to do with the "threat", it is just a cover to allow him to justify his actions. He is nothing but a warmonger and the world is at more risk from Bush than the whole of the Middle East put together.
Philip Edwards, Scotland
I wish I could see the world in the same black and white that George Bush sees it. Then maybe I could leave my moral conscience aside, and approve of an unprovoked attack - despite the damning consequences to world stability, and general world disapproval.
I wish I could see the world in the same black and white that George Bush sees it
John Snelson, UK
Bush should have continued to work through the UN and let the inspections work. This arrogant and reckless foreign policy merely dooms the US and the "willing" to decades of more terrorism and world hatred.
There might be some valid arguments for potential ways to disarm the regime, but at this very moment when the war is really getting started, let's all stand by the reality to help the committed forces to complete the task the soonest which is the best everyone can do now no matter pro or against the war. Anyway, the regime is one of the worst in the world. I'm backing decision.
No. Painfully slow progress is better than war. Bush is a zealot and pre-emtive warfare could be catastrophic for the world.
Painfully slow progress is better than war
Derek Reid, New Zealand
His address to the nation was one untruth after another. If he is so concerned with bringing down the tyrants of the world, then he needs to bring Ariel Sharon down for his
war crimes. Bush's ultimatum is built on double standards. He is giving me a bad name as an American. Military Action without a US resolution will only set an example to other nations - break the rules kids, because we did ! After the war is over, I will be ashamed to call myself an American when I visit other countries .
Ista, NYC, USA
There is no denying that Saddam is a dangerous dictator... but he is not a direct threat to the US, nor have I seen any evidence that he has strong ties to terrorists or Islamic fundamentalist groups. In fact I imagine he would have no intention of sharing power with Islamic clerics. It is also a bit disengenuous to remind the Iraqi army that they can be held responsible for war crimes when the US has exampted itself from being tried.
The Bush Administration's desire to seek revenge for 9/11 by using Iraq as a scapegoat is wrong, particularly in wake of growing international opposition and without a UNSC resolution. In doing so, Bush isolates the US and does more than Hussien to weaken the UN. I am in the unusual position of siding with France.
Daniel Hardy, Canada
I do back President Bush. I don't believe we should have asked "permission" from the Security Council in the first place. It is absurd to put one's security concerns in the hands of a council that can vote not on the legitimacy of the threat but on each member's own economic or political interests. France followed its own economic interest on Iraq. It's irrelevance is now patent.
Bill, Florida, USA
Now the world has a new dictator! Who will bring this one under control?
Gordon, An African in Canada
Exactly who gave Bush and the US the right to tell other countries what to do? Who's the bigger threat here - a tin pot dictator in a third world country or the guy with his finger on the button of the largest collection of nukes and real WMDs?
I know who I'm afraid of.
So the goalposts move again. Destruction of weapons of mass destruction is now ignored and a simple regime change is now demanded under the threat of attack. Clearly defined objectives are supposed to be essential when conducting agression of this nature. Obviously the United Nations, British government and the rest of the world have been deceived. How many other lies have been told?
Saddam has to go. Continuing to wait will only prolong the pain when he is finally disarmed. Bush's speech was not overly inspiring, but it served the purpose. An attempt for second resolution is fruitless, the French have guaranteed that. Although I'm sure the French will be the first in line looking for oil contracts when this is all done.
Continuing to wait will only prolong the pain when he is finally disarmed
Bjorn Sundstrom, USA
The decision must be made. Sooner they attack the war will be over and Iraq can rebuild itself with help of international communities. Big Bravo for PM Blair.
Ralph Zamoyski, Canada