Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has said that about 1,200 extra British troops will be sent to Iraq in the coming weeks.
There are already more than 10,000 British soldiers in Iraq but the extra numbers are needed because the security situation in the south of the country has worsened.
The American president, George W Bush has already appealed for international help to resolve Iraq's security problems.
And the US has presented a draft resolution to the UN Security Council to secure a multinational force for the country.
Should the world become more involved in helping to resolve the crisis in Iraq and send more troops?
This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:
Yes, we have to send more troops to Iraq especially near the border of Pakistan and Iran to get rid of terrorists. The additional troops should sweep the borders. And to stabilize the new Iraq government so the people will start to enjoy their lives.
Art Galvey, USA
Sending more troops while command remains the US, which has shown poor planning and leadership is no solution. Vision and co-operation are needed from the US leadership with discipline and communication from the troops on the ground. Who wants to send their troops only to have them killed by confused and nervous US forces?
Barry B, UK
Sending troops from other countries to be killed and kill in order to help George Bush's election campaign and increase the risk America will attack another country for no good reason isn't really that tempting an offer for the people Bush and Blair were insulting a few months ago. US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was keen to boast America could and would go it alone: that's his bed made, let him lie in it.
Robbie Bow, England
The US, UK and Australia should bear the cost of construction in Iraq, after all they where the ones who bombed the Iraqis infrastructure. So they and they alone should be responsible for the reconstruction.
Laurie Spiteri, Australia
It would be foolish for any other countries to send troops to Iraq under the present dangerous circumstances. The US and UK should pull out; the UN (after re-locating to a neutral country) should make Iraq a protectorate with the approval of the Iraqi governing council. Iraq has already disrupted into a civil war.
Nancy Kenney, Missouri, USA
No, not a single soldier should be sent by any country to Iraq. The US should see every one of their soldiers die one by one. Maybe this way their own people will open their eyes and see the mess they have put the world into.
Areeb Masood, Canada
The US and UK should not be able to call on troops from other countries in an attempt to bail them out of this mess. If all troops withdraw there will be a period of severe uncertainly, but if they remain there will be decades of guerrilla warfare and acts of resistance in response to repression. The only solution to the Iraq question is to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.
Yes, more troops should be sent. If the "world community" refuses to assist the coalition then the US and Britain will have to send as many troops as it takes. The world cannot afford to see Iraq plunged into decades of bloody civil war.
Surrender reconstruction to the Iraqis with the help and supervision of the UN. Then and only then ask for other countries, preferably pro-western Muslim, to contribute to restoring law and order.
Kassem, A E, USA
It is extraordinary that the American people and the UK government refuse point-blank to learn from history. They seem to be living in some sort of PR fantasy land: Invading other people's countries and then regularly shooting civilians is not a policy that is going to improve anything. Grow up and get over it.
Absolutely no more troops!
And bring back everyone that we have sent already.
The less involvement the US has the better. Their troops seem incapable of rebuilding the country and a UN or other multinational force may have better results. The British forces are meeting resistance but the tactics they have adopted, similar to the ones used in Northern Ireland, seem to be producing less of a backlash than the US approach.
David O'Connor, England
Some contributors are arguing we mustn't pull out or it will be anarchy. This seems to rest on an assumption that Iraqis for some reason can't govern themselves. Would we accept that logic if our countries were under occupation?
What good are our troops really doing? Sometimes it seems as if the UK and US troops are really only causing more tension in Iraq. I understand the need to express your views about religion and what you feel is right or wrong, but surely in any mind the killing of innocent people is WRONG? Sometimes I just despair of the world and feel like screaming out "Why can't everybody just agree to disagree and just get along?!" Fair enough if people don't have the same beliefs, practices or whatever as other people, but killing people and causing the kind of destruction that is being caused in Iraq is just.... wrong!
Clare Edwards, UK
No, Bush and Blair wanted this war, so let them get on with it, why should other countries get involved in something that is no concern of theirs. All the current problems should have been foreseen, so much for in and out inside three months, more like three years, if not more.
Lester Stenner, UK
The fact is that huge numbers of people don't believe the coalition should be in Iraq. They don't believe that Saddam's Iraq had a thirty year history of war, repression and WMD use/development. The same people don't feel that Iraq had to comply with 1441 (or the 21 other UN resolutions). They don't think that Saddam coveted hegemony in the Middle East. So, really, to please these people, the US should reinstate Saddam. Problem solved.
Why should we send more troops to Iraq? In my opinion we shouldn't have been there in the first place. If more troops ARE sent then it would only be to bale the USA out of the mess their egotistic leaders created. For once, Britain should stand up to America and stop holding their hand every time they want to start a war.
Mike Neill, UK
Blair should not be sending yet more troops to Iraq, but should be working with the UN to rebuild Iraq into a democratic society, and not turning it into the 51st state. Blair should also be sorting out the problems here in the UK, such as the Railways, NHS and the Education system. The extra troops are not needed in Iraq, and, even if they were needed, it's Bush's problem if his troops keep being attacked by Iraqis, not Britons!
J Chambers, UK
No, I do not think European countries have any obligation whatsoever. George Bush wanted to "go it alone", so let him and the USA drown in adversity. The Iraqi people are survivors and will come out smelling like a rose.
Lyndell L. Rogers, USA
I always amazed that the underlying sentiment on these message boards actually hopes and encourages the rebuilding efforts in Iraq fail miserably. Why? Because I was against the war and so now I want the US to fail and suffer the consequences of their actions. My friends, if you don't get over your anger and move on, then the people of Iraq will be the ones that will ultimately suffer even more than they already are. It's time to get behind the rebuilding efforts, clean up the mess, and let bygones be bygones. I really think that people on both sides of this conflict learned valuable lessons that they probably don't want to admit, so let's apply what we've learned to the future and let go of the past.
WHY is it taking so long to give the Iraqis back their basic requirements of power and water? This should have been a priority. The situation has collapsed totally as there were no post-war plans, other than to seek out Saddam himself. It is now more difficult than ever to give Iraqis back their rights to such basics. Perhaps teams of construction workers rather than soldiers would have been more beneficial in the early days post-war but now the country's structure is spiralling into complete breakdown. IF more troops are to go in, America (and UK) should be seen to take a back seat as they are obviously no longer welcomed by the Iraqis. The Iraqis do not have confidence in them any more.
By increasing the English and American forces in Iraq it would improve its security and the occupation situation. But it would not stop increasing numbers of casualties or in influencing the mood of the soldiers, waging a war they are not convinced of. One thing is to defeat the enemy, and the other maintaining a presence not welcome by the Muslim world.
Joe Nigrin, Guatemala
Sadly we now have little choice but to send more troops. If we pull out now we will be leaving the Iraqi people far worse off than they we're before. Not to mention, left in a state of total anarchy such as that we have created it will become a breeding ground for terrorists from all over the region. This leaves us having to reinforce the troops we've already sent in or leave them swinging in the wind. I also see no reason why the UN members who opposed this war should suddenly have a duty to join it, this mess was caused by George Bush, Tony Blair and they're supporters and now the US and UK citizens myself included are going to have to clean up this mess. Or hand all authority over to the UN and then ask them politely to clean up our mess.
This particular debate cannot help but remind me of the sheer irony inherent in the "War on Terror" and its pursuit of evil regimes. Take a look at the two hit so far, Afghanistan and Iraq, the evil governments both helped into control of their nations by Americans intelligence operations. It seems less the "War on Terror" and more, "Cleaning up the mess we made". I just feel sorry that the UK has been dragged in alongside them into this enterprise.
As a British-Iraqi, I think USA and UK should be responsible for their acts. The war was illegal and immoral. When the USA and UK created the mess Iraq now in, it's their responsibility to put everything in order.
Naseer Nuaman, UK
What is the war on terrorism meant to achieve? Is America (and now the UK) trying to kill all the terrorists? Surely killing people who believe in their cause will just alienate others and possibly inspire them to become terrorists. And invading Afghanistan and Iraq surely will alienate the indigenous populations. How would we feel about Russian "peacekeepers" on the streets of Britain, or America? I would think that a policy of sanctions against countries who support terrorists with harsh penalties for those we catch would be better. A "war on terrorism" is a fallacy, and we all know it!
Nick Hughes, UK
Being ex-forces myself I find it hard to understand why other countries are dragged into battles that they did not instigate. I also find it appalling that more of our troops are being sent into this hostile area when so many (too many) have been killed already.
Prior to the war Bush and Blair were adamant that come what may they will go to war. Now they have discovered that they miscalculated the consequences of the war after Saddam was toppled.
How about diverting the so much needed soldiers to Liberia where people desperately need help?
Bongani, South Africa
George Bush described Iraq now as the front line on terrorism, that's probably true as what the "Allies" have done is give Islamic fundamentalists (and there is no shortage of them anywhere in the Middle East) a battle ground on which to directly engage US and UK troops. The country is still awash with weapons and as time goes by the opposition will become more organised and dangerous. There is no easy quick fix - a few more troops may help in the short term but for Britain it's unsustainable for very long, and nobody so far seems to be looking too far ahead.
It is important for the world and especially the Iraqi people and the Arab world to understand that, it is in their own interest to help rebuild Iraq. If America fails to finish their goal, it will lead to an unstable Middle East, which is going to affect all the region,. It should not be a big problem for the Arab League to help and support the people they having been failing to help for centuries.
Despite being opposed to the war in Iraq I think it is imperative that more troops be sent in. This is a country where many factions see democracy as a danger to their interests and will go to great lengths to halt the democratic process. It seems naive to think that under such conditions the Iraqi people would have even a chance to determine the future of their country, unless protected by a significant foreign military presence.
The world must become involved to save the Iraqi people from being sacrificed by the US for selfish reasons. But all occupying forces must leave and be replaced by peacekeeping forces to make clear the distinction, of course under a UN mandate, with full control by the UN over every aspect and with a speedy road to a self governing Iraq.
Ulf Bethke, Liechtenstein
No, because America and Britain have already sent theirs, and as they think they are having more power over every country around the world; they should continue with their fight and peacekeeping in Iraq. No country has power in the world than America, so continue America and Britain with your work - maybe at the end you will succeed. Let's hope for the best for America and Britain's troops.
The USA and the UK governments got into this mess, and now expect the world to bail them out after defying the will of the UN Security Council. As a UK citizen and taxpayer, I am certainly not happy to have to foot the bill for the mistakes of our Government but we voted Blair in and now must pay the price for his madness. I fully understand the reluctance of many other countries to contribute. Mr Blair and Mr Bush may end up paying the price at the next elections.
Tony Haworth, UK
Yes -we must support our troops who are already under pressure. We must support our staunch ally the USA. We must confront militant anti-western/anti-democratic sentiment which is promoted by radical Islam and by selfish dictators in North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. If we do not tackle these threats robustly to peace and freedom we will have anarchy globally.
No more troops to Iraq. Foreign troops are the cause of the trouble. All non-Iraqi's should leave the country immediately. We can at best help them to elect a council of their own. But America must reimburse financially for the material damage and compensate something towards the losses.
Roy Farquharson, England
Yes, for humanitarian reasons and the fact that there are people who do need help but the bill should be sent to the White House and No 10.
Toni Haimi, England
A major reason Saddam Hussein was NOT removed "peacefully" was the lack of clear resolve and backing by Europe to make it clear that he had to go. There is an absolute need to create a viable economic and politically working country in Iraq and a safe country. If the UN and/or other countries in Europe decide NOT to participate in this, what is the use of the UN going forward? They will have abdicated their position of leadership, as will member states who decide to risk mayhem in a post-war Iraq. Make no mistake the USA and the UK have a commitment here and WILL stay the course.
We cannot afford the cost of fighting America's war. The billions already spent should have gone on our public services.
No. Neither the UK nor the world should send troops to Iraq. And the British troops already there should be withdrawn. NOW.
Sian Morgan, UK
I am fed up with people bickering about how the problem started. The problem now exists and needs resolving, surely the sooner this happens the better that will be for everyone. I think more troops will be required and should be provided by the UN and that the UN should also be at the forefront of the administration until the country is back on it's feet as the US is obviously not up to the task on their own.
The US and UK have made a costly investment on the behalf of the Iraqi people, while our soldiers continue to die everyday. The US and UK should refine their post-war strategy and do whatever it takes to get the job done. We should not, however, allow those countries; who opposed the war, who did not send troops to fight, who did not pay the price in lives or otherwise. We should not relinquish command. This is the main issue here. If the rest of the world really cared about the Iraqi people they would send their troops gladly.
J Boehm, USA
The crisis started by sending troops to Iraq and will not stop by sending more.
Peter Marien, Belgium
Clearly more troops are required in Iraq. The issue of whether they should be American and British troops or from other countries relates back to attitudes towards the UN and the wider world community before the war. Had the US and Britain been more cooperative before the war then other countries would most likely be showing a greater willingness to cooperate now. The US and Britain must be made to pay a price for the actions they took or else they will forever be expecting the rest of the world to clear up the mess they make.
John Wallace, UK
After George Bush Jnr's press conference statement yesterday, he now seems to think that Iraq is the front line in terrorism. Can I remind him that the only reason that there are terrorist attacks in Iraq at present is because of the amount of foreign troops/ targets there?
Craig Morris, UK
To Richard T Ketchum:
It was your government under Reagan that kept Saddam in power in the first place, as well as supplying him with conventional and chemical weaponry.
Your country also armed the Taleban when it was convenient to do so and regularly support corrupt administrations as a matter of policy.
The US doesn't create all of the problems of the world but it certainly creates quite a few when it is in it's interests to do so, politically or financially.
Dan M, UK
Why should the world send more troops to Iraq?
Britain and the US wanted to invade Iraq, so let them bear the responsibility.
After the war the UN wanted a major role in the rebuilding of Iraq, but the US denied the UN such a role.
Yes, but only if the U.S. agrees to share authority. The US has opened a Pandora's Box of terrorist supporters. The world can't leave now but neither should Bush and his Administration be rewarded for their arrogance. The UN should insist on a clear sharing of power before sending assistance.
Pat Young, USA
The western governments supported the undemocratic Saudi regimes to gain security of stable oil prices. The rise of fundamentalism was and is a direct response to such pro-western corrupt governments in these oil reach Middle East countries. The war on terror is being fought on the wrong front. Afghanistan and Iraq are only symptoms of the disease and not the cause. Until the time western countries have a foreign policy that is not based purely on selfish gains, we will never have peace in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Democracy has always been the first victim in such countries, if people had a say in their own government I'm sure they would demand a lot more for their oil. Anyone with any foresight will have seen 9/11 coming along time ago. You can not put out a fire by spraying it with gas. Sending in a few more troops will not solve this problem. The hardest pill to swallow is the admission of past mistakes.
We brought about the situation by removing an evil and dangerous tyrant who terrorised his people and flouted the will of the United Nations. Why are so few countries able to commit to enforcing the resolutions? More troops are needed to protect those we liberated but they should come from other nations. Membership of the international community has to include a responsibility to act as well as a right to complain.
No. The only reason US is asking for more troops from other countries like India is because its own soldiers are being killed. I do not want Indian troops in Iraq where a recent independent Indian(NDTV) media survey found that most of the public opinion is against occupiers and it would turn against Indians if they came. We have enough terrorism at home which our soldiers are dealing with bravely. Sadly, the American public seems not to care about the lives of citizens of other countries.
Many thousands of Iraqi civilians reportedly died in the US led bombings in the early days of the war but all the comments I read on the online American newspapers was that it had been a bloodless war - meaning very few casualties on their side! Now that their casualty rate has crossed 300 or so, suddenly they are talking of UN troops and bringing their own troops home. If the US is so committed, why does it not send more troops of its own?
Absolutely no way. Let the full burden of this war go on George Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Tony Blair and Campbell - the hot-heads who sought the war option with unprecedented passion. They rudely sidelined the UN. So let them suffer the consequences. For the religious out there, consider this scripture from Proverbs Chapter 6. "Never rescue a fool, because if you do, you will have to do it again".
Chris K Ralph, New Zealand
Should the world send more troops to Iraq? Ask the Iraqis - it's their country. I say the US and UK failed at what they attempted to do (which was to kill Saddam) and they need to pull out now. How many more lives (Iraqis and others) need to be lost in this senseless war before we "get it"?
This is not about America, right or wrong. This is not about the relevance of the UN. This is not about France and Germany having or not having the right to rebuke the US. This is not about spin or ideology. Right now this crisis is about the people of Iraq. Whatever caring people anywhere can do to help should be done. If that is bringing in more troops, great. Someone needs to figure out the whole puzzle, prioritize needs, develop a plan to meet those needs, and implement the plan.
Pam, LA. USA
Yes! If only to protect those that are still there, but most importantly to do a Job that needs to be done. Let us not screw it up like we did in Ireland - and Aden and elsewhere. If there is a job to do then do it, but do it properly and to a Plan - and it may be nice to let the people that you are helping know that here is a Plan, and what, in broad context, that it may be.
The appropriate way to end this mess is to first send the US and UK legislators who voted to go to war as well as the US President and UK Prime Minister for a tour of duty as a front-line soldier in Iraq. Believe me when I say we (in the US) could live without their daily "attention" to the needs of the citizenry. Once they serve their assignments in Iraq, then and only then should other countries be asked to send their sons and daughters into the region.
John, Arizona, USA
I have always been of the opinion that Bush should never have gone into Iraq to begin with. His little adventure has done nothing but cause pain, misery and strife. Because of this, I think the UN has to come in and take control.
Sending more troops hardly inspires the confidence of most people. It tends to show lack of foresight in planning, as no one appears to have considered the after war situation. I must say, I also consider this the mother of all foul ups and to date only serves as a historical mistake that will ripple through the world for a long time yet. As for the UK, why on earth we venture on missions we can ill afford I'll never know!
Richard Sweetman, England
No: it has already cost some solders their lives. It has cost the British taxpayers money, which should be spent on making Britain a better place to live in. I think that the Government in power is hypercritical for a few reasons. One of these are; Tony Blair has stated the money from the oil in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq, but gives the British tax payers money away to the world, whilst using some of it to fight a war.
Yes, the world must send troops to Iraq, but only if the United States hands over power to the United Nations. Iraq must be declared a UN protectorate, and the multi-national force be used for peace keeping, policing and training Iraqis in maintaining peace and security.
Shollo Phetlhu, Botswana
What is the real reason for bolstering our forces in Iraq with reinforcements? We can't afford to ignore the admittedly tacit scenario where Iraq is used as a launch pad for Western operations against other so-called 'Axis of Evil' countries. Our governments should come clean about their long-term game plan.
It's obvious more troops are needed, but it's a bit rich to ask the nations that opposed the war in the first place to put their servicemen at risk and to accrue the costs involved. Surely it's up to the US and UK to sort out the mess they started.
We should be pulling out not sending more in. The UN must take over to police the area. The main reason it is so unstable is because we are there.
Tyrone Hopes, England
There is clearly need of more troops in Iraq but they need to come from a wider group of countries including the Arab states in order that the force is seen as a reconstruction force, and not an army of occupation.
The UN needs to keep out of the politics and accept that rebuilding, peacekeeping and restoring power to the Iraqis is its role. Whining about it is simply delaying the inevitable while people die needlessly.
This war has been waged on Iraq without the consent of the United Nations by US and UK alone. They should be held responsible for whatever the consequences. The world opinion in this regard has been very clear....people have expressed themselves on the roads, in all the countries, everywhere. Let Bush and Blair face it!
Khan, Saudi Arabia
The continuing instability in Iraq is completely down to the occupation of it by the coalition. Iraq will not stabilise with foreign troops present as the Iraqis simply do not want them there. Besides which, the US has shown it is incapable of providing stability as there is still no electricity or water after five months. Why allow them to stay and mess things up even further? There really is no reason for the coalition to still be in Iraq.
Daley, Sheffield, UK
Prior to the war and subsequently, the US has declared the UN, its Security Council members and world opinion irrelevant.
While diplomats may conveniently suffer short-term memory loss, the world does not. The UN was and is THE only relevant organisation for humanitarian aid, reconstruction and progress to world peace.
More troops may well be necessary in Iraq. Their duties should be confined to maintaining civil order and protecting those providing humanitarian aid and reconstruction.
Grow up America, the world is tired of your tantrums.
I think to clean up this mess, the help of other countries is necessary, but do not force them to help you in the way that you think is correct. Let them help by showing us the way out.
No more troops should be sent to Iraq.
It should all be controlled and run by the now free Iraqis and policed by the military until the new police force is established. the military aim has been achieved now, so let the people run their own country, It is their country!!! the military should provide protection and find the remnants of the old regime and eliminate the terror problems they pose.
The USA and the UK should solve the huge mess that they have initiated by invading a sovereign country without provocation. Thus, they should bear all of the cost of the current post-invasion crisis. No other countries should send any of their own troops.
Albert, Phoenix, USA
Whether one supported the war or not, the sending of extra troops is surely an issue that merits serious consideration. For the hawks, more military muscle may be the only means by which to throttle rising disruption. And if those who opposed the war, like myself, really hold true to their humanitarian and legal pretensions, then this is a time when help is needed, irrespective of what we thought of the coalition's initial invasion.
I do not see how sending in more troops will resolve the situation. The Iraqi people do not want an occupying force present. Instead of putting more innocent soldiers in the line of fire the US should seek other methods. They need to rebuild Iraq and they should ask for help from the neighbouring Arab countries as they will understand the needs of the Iraqi people better than US generals.
Why should the rest of the world pay to have their soldiers killed to protect US commercial interests and secure the election of Bush? Let him send his daughters to Iraq.
Bockari Otot, UK
International troops should be sent, alongside a broad and clear cut decision to transfer political power to the Iraqis, within a clear cut time frame. An international force command SHOULD be under international control, within a resolution drafted by UN members...with consultation and support from the Iraqis themselves.
Munir El-Kadi, Iraqi in the UAE
No British soldiers should have been sent to Iraq in the first place. This is Bush's war, and no-one else's. All British soldiers should have been recalled long ago.
Should more troops be sent to Iraq? No, not until Bush gets up in front of the UN and the world says he is sorry, he messed up and needs the UN to bail the US out. He should also admit the real reason behind the invasion and hand over all power to the UN.
Helen, Hong Kong
Although I don't necessarily support the reasons behind the war, I fully support and admire the men and women of the armed forces who are simply doing their job by being there. By refusing them aid and assistance we are punishing them instead of the politicians. My husband is in the Gulf and I would hate to think that he was at greater risk because people were too pig headed to admit that supporting them is the sensible thing to do.
No need for more troops. Just send Blair, Hoon, Straw and Campbell. These men were so keen to start the war why don't they deal with it personally?
Imperialism is always doomed to failure in the long term, if not sooner. The coalition should withdraw from Iraq. Sooner or later they will have to because this is a war they cannot win. They should have the good sense to withdraw before the defeat becomes too obviously humiliating. Additional troops will only compound the original error.
Dava Gabond, UK
Why don't Iraq's neighbours and fellow Muslims send some of their troops to help out? If the Iraqis are objecting to non-Muslim occupying forces who don't understand their culture, then surely they can't object to another Muslim force?
Other nations should only send troops on the strict understanding that FULL control of Iraq is handed over to the UN until the country can stand on its own two feet.
The UN should only get involved if the international force is led by a Muslim country with the US troops under its command. That would go quite a way to allaying the suspicion about US aims and objectives. But could Bush swallow his mammoth pride enough to allow that?
France and Germany are criticising the US plan? No way. What a surprise. Chirac and Schroeder have been waiting months to have an "I told you so" moment. They would love to call the war a failure. I guess it's easy to behave this way when it isn't your country that is the primary target of international terrorism.
I am against the war in Iraq, but right now more troops are the only and best solution for more stability. The UN must intervene with a large peace force to rebuild the country. The US can't destroy a country and leave the ruins when it gets difficult.
The US and UK were presenting photos to the UN of where the massive destruction weapons are, they ignored the UN, the US were announcing that the UN is not an efficient organization, the US and UK did not want to share the pie during the first days they occupied Iraq, and the US took measures against countries such as France that did not support the war. So, why should we help now with cleaning the mess they created?
The world should not send more troops. Bush and Blair shunned the reservations of other countries and acted alone. They are now in a mess and should be left in it for the interest of making them think more responsibly when acting unilaterally again. Perhaps the problems they now have will be a lesson for them in future?
Michael Freer, England
I have small children. I say to them "I really wouldn't do that if I were you". But they think they know better. They then go ahead and do it anyway. Then they say "Dad, help me, please!" So, I help them. I am going to make sure they grow out of that. You never know, they might become president of the United States one day.
No, no more troops... spend the money on skilled personnel to get their electricity up and running and to help repair the damage our dinosaur leaders have wrought. Just who do we think we are...how about sending some compassionate help?
Gael Bage, UK
As long as the US is occupied trying to manage Iraq, it will be unable to attack other countries on its hit list. So for the sake of world peace, other countries should keep out.
Catherine Wykes, UK
I do not think that anymore troops should be sent to Iraq until the US relinquishes all power to the UN Security Council. Since the US created a bigger problem on the pretext of WMD (which we know that none ever existed), they should foot the total bill for this exercise.
Roy Chooi, Malaysia
We cannot withdraw our troops now and leave the Iraqis in an even worse position than before. Whatever the rights and wrongs of going into the war, we must now find a solution to stop the violence. International participation and co-operation is the only way. What is happening in Iraq could affect us all.
Remove all foreign occupying troops and their political stooges from Iraq. They serve only US and British oil interests, not popular democracy or freedom. That can never be achieved by conquest or occupation, only by the Iraqi people themselves. No more troops. Bring them all home now.
No! Get out - we have no business there. And as for a multi-national force - no way. My country invaded Iraq against international law with the US. Nobody should help us. We created this illegal and catastrophic chaos - we should sort it out.
Tom, UK: So the so-called anti war movement has now become a ‘troops out’ movement? First they wanted to leave Saddam alone to get on with his torture and murder, now they want to leave Iraq to collapse into anarchy!
I don't understand why people like Tom charge the US and UK with breaking international law. Surely by deposing a dictator who has gassed women and children, invaded a neighbouring state, and killed up to 1m of his own people we are merely enforcing international law?!
Other European nations knew it would have been a highly risky task to occupy a Muslim nation with non-Muslim forces. We should send an international Muslim force... but is it possible? Otherwise I think the UN should have full control over the reconstruction or nothing.
No. The UN should not get involved in peacekeeping Iraq. The US and the UK declared the UN irrelevant before the war. Why should it become relevant after the war to help clean out the mess created by the US and UK?
Tony, Edmonton, Canada
More troops for Iraq doesn't make sense, as there is no army or military force to combat. To restore law and order recruit Iraq citizens into a police militia.
To all those who are calling for an immediate withdrawal of our troops, I must say that it would be wholly disgraceful for us to overthrow a regime and leave a country in chaos, rather than doing something to bring law, order and stability to the country.
If the situation demands it, we should send more troops.
Dr Duncan Campbell, UK