The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has confirmed he will send a team to Iraq to judge whether or not elections can be held.
The visit was requested after widespread opposition to the Coalition's plans to transfer power without a general election.
The US-led coalition has been resisting pressure from Shia Muslims to hold direct elections before it transfers power to Iraqi leaders in June.
The announcement came as the US administration said it was reviewing the intelligence it was using to justify the war.
Should there be elections in Iraq? When should power be handed over? Will WMD be found? Send us your comments.
The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:
I don't think that it is our decision whether Iraq should hold elections. If we believe in democracy then we should demonstrate this by leaving the decisions to the Iraqis. Ask them. Let them decide and wish them well.
Francine Last, UK
As a 16 year old Iraqi girl I think the Iraqi people should have the right to vote. First of all if America really wants to free us and to give us our rights then they should let us choose whom we want to be our president.
I have noticed that a lot of people are against the election of a religious leader. This position is very ethnocentric: just because our ideal of government is secular does not mean that it is the best. I may work just fine for Iraqis (after all, Hussein's government was secular). They should be able to elect who they want and as soon as possible.
As an American I am all for free elections "when the time is right". The majority of people on this site seem to be overlooking certain vital issues that must be addressed before a fair, legitimate election can be held. First and foremost Policing ballot boxes to insure against the same people voting several times, insuring that all voters remain anonymous as to avoid persecution for there decision, and insuring security at voting locations. With out these basic needs being met you can't even begin to address all the other important issues of an election.
John, Texas, US
There should be elections in Iraq, but only once the country is in a better state. We should not let a religious leader rule Iraq. Also we should not bow to pressure from weak hypocrite countries whose ideas of protecting the world is by sticking there heads in the sand and pretending that there is no threat. As for the WMDs I don't believe they are in Iraq now, Saddam already had them moved out of the country. He had 12 years!
It's totally ridiculous. How can you plan an election while people are still being killed?
Alvin Gahimbaze, Bristol
There should be elections in Iraq as soon as it can be shown they will be fair and open to all. International monitors are needed to ensure the people are not forced to vote for any one person or party. Also the monitors need to ensure the votes are counted fairly. The Iraqis need to take control of their country and have a say in who leads it as soon as possible. For all the decades the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam and had no voice, it's understandable they want to exercise their right to freely vote as soon as possible. Voting will help the Iraqis put the past behind them as they take part in building a new Iraq.
Chris Josephson, Boston, MA; USA
The key point is that the new Iraqi government should not be led by a religion leader. The early election may cause this happen. If the 'majority win' formula is applied to an election under religious influence, suppression to minorities may occur.
Miao, Brisbane, Australia
There should be elections in Iraq, as it is the best alternative. People can not change themselves but only by themselves. Whether it be for the better or for the worse, lessons should be learned. Committing the same mistake is stupidity. So for those who are non-Iraqis, please I beg on you, set them free.
Jun Radam, Cotabato City, Philippines
I think there should be an election in Iraq. When we criticize dictatorship and talk about democracy, we should at least show some means that leads to real democracy in Iraq. At least to cover our mistakes over there.
May Alamiri, Los Angeles, US
Elections now would reflect the wish of the majority of the population and that for sure cannot be accepted in Bush version of democracy outside US. Hardly even in Blair's "Labour" democracy. So no elections. They would only disturb the plans and intentions of the occupiers. Otherwise as we all understand, elections are very nice things to have, when possible.
Vitsin Murja-Sen, Vientiane, Laos
The US and British occupation has rendered any process illegal and premature; first the invaders should leave Iraq; let the Iraqis sort their problems. The UN has lost credibility, at least when it comes to Iraq; they should stay out.
Aristides Garcia, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
I think the best solution is to divide the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds, and have three elections. Create something like the EU, or the old city-states of ancient Greece. And let the people all have a stake in the profits of the oil.
Ferry Rouw, The Hague, the Netherlands
After WWII how long did it take before Germany and Japan had elections? The delay was not to deny the people of those nations democracy, but to prevent those that had sympathized and longed for the old and evil ways from regaining control. Same applies here in Iraq. Have elections too soon, and we will have gone to war for nothing. Then again, that might be exactly the motivation of many of those calling for these early elections, so they can point and say: "You see it was a bad idea". Lets not give these horrible people who would rather see people of the Middle East continue to suffer simply so they can claim they were right.
Alex L, Harford, CT, USA
No, I don't think now is the right time. UN should be there to take full control of the country until Iraqis are certain which type of democracy they wish to follow. US should stay out of the process and I believe British should assist.
Wayne, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Yes. Otherwise we become no better than the people we removed. It is the least we can now do - then let the Iraqis decide their own future no matter what that is.
Elections are a must in Iraq and the sooner the better. What I wonder is: what will the US do if a leader is elected who has links to, or similar policies to, the last Iraqi leader?
C F, Cambridge, UK
Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been demonstrating on the streets over the past few weeks for immediate free elections. Ignoring them exposes the utter hypocrisy of the US/UK governments. No WMD, no democracy; what was the war about again?
Ben Drake, York, UK
Direct elections are a must for real democracy, freedom, and the future of democracy in the Middle East.
Tomi, Islamabad, Pakistan
Elections now would produce an anti-occupation government in Iraq, whereas the invaders have openly stated that the new government is going to "invite" them to stay occupying Iraq for years. Just like the WMD "big lie", the invaders' alleged concern for Iraqi democracy is shown to be a sham and a fraud.
Brendan Tuohy, Te Whanganui-a-Tara, Aotearoa
I believe that any election at this stage will be a big mistake. The Iraqi people were suffering for along time under Saddam. We don't have full knowledge about real democracy yet. I'm sure if my people have two years of intensive learning about democracy we will elect the right representative leaders.
Ali Saood, Baghdad, Iraq
It will take decades before the legacy of the Iraq war can be assessed. So-called WMD, or whether elections are this year or next, are forgettable details. A progressive, democratic, Muslim, Iraq could transform the world for the better in ways that few here seem capable of imagining.
Yes there should be elections in Iraq but not directed/conducted by US/UK forces and their governments, but by the people. How would Tony Blair feel if polls in the UK were to be supervised, and candidates approved by a foreign government via foreign troops?
Roslyn O'Cionnaith, Kirkcaldy, Scotland
No election. Far better to appoint a friendly dictator who can supply us with oil. In return we can sell him arms to ensure he maintains his position of power. It worked before didn't it?
Yes there should be elections in Iraq, but there should be no American influence in any way shape or form. The USA needs to get out of Iraq, they have already done Israel a huge favour by bombing the only threat Israel had in the region, now they should get out quick.
This mess must be sorted out. Why? Apart from the Iraq situation sooner or later one of the bad guys is going to develop WMDs. When they do our authorities have to be credible in taking action. Today it will just be taken as crying 'Wolf' again.
B Essada, UK
The world 'talks' while the leaders 'act'. The question of WMD is silly and not the main issue. A better question would be "Is democracy possible in the middle east right now and why?"
Craig Traylor, Houston, Texas
Yes, the media did emphasize WMDs as the selling point of going to war. However, Bush and Blair did nothing to change this and now are scrambling for scapegoats. They would look more respectable in my eyes if a) there was tangible evidence of WMDs or b) they emphasized different reasons for the war.
Michael Chen, Cincinnati, USA
I would not have bet my life before the war on that there were no WMD in Iraq. Now in hindsight everyone seems to be so quick to accuse Bush and Blair of going to war on false premises.
Difficult not to sympathise with Blair. WMD not found so it is assumed by many that they don't exist. But, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Look at the anthrax episode in the US - it takes little to create these weapons - just will and capability - and Saddam Hussein had both! I still believe he was trying!
The US are now admitting that the WMD didn't exist in Iraq so why the question about will they be found? The question is, will Blair survive, seeing as he used his insistence on their existence as the reason to persuade Parliament to back the US invasion?
John Farmer, Henley-on-Thames, UK
Unlikely but many more mass graves will be found.
Graeme Stewart, Kinross, UK
WMD were in production as seen in use on Kurdish villages in the past, proving that he was both capable of procuring and deploying them. The Saddam administration stalled for months on allowing the Inspectors back into Iraq - ample time for them to be shipped abroad or buried in desert. These people were accomplished at moving them around and always one step ahead of the Weapons Inspectors. In case you hadn't noticed, Iraq is a pretty big place and finding them was never going to be easy.
Tim, Notts, UK
I am pleased and relieved to see that so many people can see through the smokescreen of the media-induced fascination with WMD, and the British government's mistake in making this seem the key in its presentation. The war was justified because Saddam's regime was in contravention of numerous UN resolutions. Even if he had no WMD, he was obliged to open up and prove it.
I accept that Blair et al believed the intelligence that they received justified war. They appear to have been wrong. The question is not whether or not they lied, but should they be trusted to make a decision of this magnitude again.
Paul Brooks, Tervuren, Belgium
PM Tony Blair has asked people to be patient. Why wasn't he patient then to allow UN Hans Blix's team to finish their job?
To Joseph, Malaysia: Regarding being patient. UN Weapons Inspectors dealt with Saddam for 12 years. The UN and the US were more than patient. Now we have not even been searching for WMD for one year and you are claiming we should call off the search?
Jason, Detroit, USA
It seems super-duper unlikely. In fact, are we not all surprised that the US did not go to some effort to manufacture such a find? It's a tribute to the power of the press that they did not.
Alexa, New York, USA
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and there never were. I'm disappointed with Jack Straw that he is still trying to lie to the British public, and that Britain is still spending billions fighting America's imperial wars.
Jonathan McIver, London, UK
What other steps could US and UK have taken, maybe the French method of surrender at all costs.
Mike Olinger, USA
Bush and Blair want more time to find WMD in Iraq...They are asking the world for the same thing the world, through the U.N asked from them before they arrogantly invaded a poor country - and Jack Frost said the war was worth it because it eliminated a tyrant. Okay, what about other tyrant leaders in the world?
Azuka, Wendell, NC, U.S.A
It has been made quite clear by a number of reliable sources that WMD no longer exist in Iraq. To continue a search that is not only in vain, but disrupting a huge portion of this planet socially and economically is criminal. We must get out of Iraq before any further damage is done, and leave things to the UN unless we are requested to assist by the UN and the Iraqis.
S. Nicole Houston, Tucson, AZ USA
Why shouldn't Iraq have WMD if it wants? After all the UK has them
Tim, Bath, England
The money spent on searching for WMD would be better spent on getting intelligence information correct.
In this regard it makes no difference whether the war was justified or not. The point is that major countries made decisions based on what has turned out to be incorrect information.
We ought to want a serious effort to get information right. Or perhaps we don't worry because we know this was just a case of people developing their careers by providing the information the politicians wanted to hear.
John, Fleet, UK
Hopefully they will, but even if they don't find them, the world will be a better place without Saddam.
Matt, Dublin, Ireland
So Straw is "disappointed" is he? Not as disappointed as little armless Ali, or the thousands who have died for the sake of one tyrant's capture. Some argue that Labour is becoming less and less a party of the left. I disagree, the current policy of do what we want and to hell with the consequences and the thousands of innocent lives lost is quite Stalinist.
NM, United Kingdom
Does it really matter; the object of the exercise was to get rid of the dictator. I believe there are WMD and when they have been found, who will be first to apologise to the government.
Brian Smith, Liverpool UK
Finding WMDs were 'the reason' we went to war, it was even the basis for the legal argument. We now know what many people suspected at the time, there were no WMDs and thus we were sent to war on at best woefully inaccurate intelligence, at worst a blatant lie. Regardless of any post-event justification, I cannot think of a more serious betrayal of the public's trust.
Mark Wakeling, Nottingham
WMDs? They have found it. It is now sitting in a prison cell somewhere out of harms way and neutralised. Stop looking backwards. Anyone can find fault and blame, it now takes brains and vision to find a way forward.
D Routledge, UK
The real reason was regime change. But the American people fell for a very old trick: just keep repeating your story whether it's true or not, people will buy it! Indeed regime change, that's what we need...but in Washington;
Blair and Bush should take part in a lie detector test. How interesting would that be?
I disagree with the constant insistence that the war in Iraq was solely based on WMDs. If anyone has any memory at all they will remember that the justification for war was that Saddam did not adhere to UN resolutions, and that Iraq was a threat to its own people, its neighbours and the rest of the world. Each of these reasons still holds true. It is only the liberal media, and anti-war protestors that want to make this WMD sore fester as long as possible.
The US Administration never made the WMD argument the one and only reason for invading Iraq. The American public can, therefore, accept that the end result (the removal of Saddam) justifies the means of achieving it, regardless of the legalities. Tony Blair has no such comfort blanket and can only insist that he honestly believes the WMD are out there somewhere. He will continue doing so long after he has left office. He chooses not to admit that he was mistaken and dare not admit that he resorted to deception. No WMD will be found, Bush will move on to repair his bridges with the UN and Europe and Blair's self appointed role as "honest broker", which never really existed anyway, will be forgotten.
For those who said we did not have a right to "violate a sovereign nation". Iraq lost its unofficial sovereignty as soon as it invaded Kuwait, and refused multiple UN sanctions. The second war was just completing the job that the first Gulf War failed to finish. However, I agree with many people that WMDs should have never been the focal point. We should have taken action for humanitarian and openly discussed strategic reasons. Even though much of the world would have been just as opposed to the war, at least the US's credibility would be somewhat intact.
Peter, New York, USA
As long as we have a weak UN, such mistakes of going to war will be repeated.
Hasan Mohiuddin, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
I believe there are no WMDs. This was the justification to go to war otherwise how else would they have gone to war? Democracy for Iraq? The Shia population have called their bluff and they are at pains to explain why a democratic vote cannot occur.
Dan, Sydney, Australia
If they are found or now is not important. At the end of the day, the world is a better place with Saddam behind bars and the road to democracy starting in Iraq. Does it really matter if they are found? those who are so concerned about WMD are missing the bigger picture.
Bjorn Sundstrom, USA
Of course there were no WMDs. Bush and Blair knew the war was necessary but an ineffective and lame UN would prevent them from granting freedom to millions of Iraqis without a more "convincing" reason.
The US Administration knows fine well if there are or are not, any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. How can they know? Because it was the US who supplied their (at the time) ally Saddam Hussein with ammunition and chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war. The amount of current manipulation of so called "facts" displayed by the US and UK governments is sickening.
Gavin, Glasgow, Scotland
I do not believe there are any there. Tony Blair and George Bush have gone so far trying to convince others that they've made themselves think they really are there.
Christopher Wotton, London, UK
I believe that Mr. Blair is so blatantly convinced that he is right, and the British public are wrong, that he will not admit this until every grain of sand in Iraq has been turned. He can spin, jibe, and throw statistics at us all he wants, but I doubt anything now will make the public believe him. He wanted this war to etch his name into the history books. Let's just hope this backfires, and Mr Blair goes down in history as a UK war criminal!
This petty bickering about WMD just seems to go on and on. Saddam had plenty of time to hide them or bury them deep. It only seems to be important to those who did not support the ousting of Saddam and his murderous henchmen.
It is painfully obvious to everyone except Tony Blair that there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. There was a good reason why the Inspectors found nothing in the run up to War - there was nothing to find.
Tom Kibasi, Cambridge, UK
The US and British governments are now making such confident predictions and the new head of the US Survey Team has gone so silent since being appointed that perhaps WMD will be found in Iraq. If so, after all the contrary expert opinions, I shall know they have been planted.
We knew that the US was in it for the oil. We knew Blair wanted to get a powerful ally. But what was the sense in making an enemy of the rest of the world to do it?
Lee Taylor, Guildford, UK
WMD was Saddam's bluff, to counter threats from Iran and Israel. If he had them he would have been used as the Scuds were used in Gulf1. I have more respect for a PM that admits failure than a one who manipulates the truth.
Dave, Newcastle, UK
How can you find something that was never there? Yes it is time to call it off and for Tony Blair to tell the truth, for once in his life.
Julia Balmer, Hertfordshire, England
How many times has this question been asked? How long will it take before those who perpetrated the war admit they were wrong? I hope this won't drag on for years and years. It is becoming a farce. Everyone knows there are no weapons, why not just admit it?
James K., Exeter / UK
No, there probably aren't operational WMD in Iraq; that was the administration's flawed argument for war. But WMD should never have been the central issue. The world failed in its responsibility to confront a repressive Iraqi regime that threatened its neighbours and defied international law. Saddam clearly demonstrated the intent to acquire and use WMD in the past. It is foolish to believe those programs would not have resumed once inspections ended and sanctions were lifted.
There are certain people who will never admit to being wrong. Let's forget the past and get on with the job of pacifying the country. I do not think that the WMD existed only in the deranged mind of Saddam Hussein
Charles Bruce, Bolivia
The real question is were we right to violate a sovereign nation, kill over 6000 innocent people, interfere with their government system, and take all their oil, if the only reason we could Legally go to war turns out not to exist
Phil Davids, London
Is Iraq better off without Saddam? Depends who you ask, obviously Saddam would disagree, though quite what those who were collateral damage, then and ongoing might think is an interesting point. Quite how has the average Iraqi really seen their life improve? How many Iraqis are dead that might not have been, is the average Iraqi really going to see an improvement of economic circumstances? Not for a hell of a long time. A better Iraq could have been transitioned by a certain swallowing of pride and dealing with Saddam as well as containing him.
Barry B, UK
I know there are no WMD in Iraq and I think every one knows that but people than say regime change in Iraq was the real goal but was it worth so many lives I don't think so
Saima Bajwa, Houston, USA
That which does not exist can never be found. The world knows why America was bent on attacking Iraq. WMD was just a smoke screen. Bush was actually after Iraq's oil. We should not be surprised if Bush now claims Saddam had numerous genii, the spirits with magical powers that are common in stories from Arabian Nights, under his command and they have hidden the WMD.
M. Bashir Bharadia, Mombasa, Kenya.
t does not matter if WMD are found or not. It's time to move on, people. Regime change in Iraq was the real goal. The question should be: Is Iraq better off with Saddam or without Saddam?
The resignation of David Kay puts paid to the theory about WMD being the cause for the invasion of Iraq. The Kelly report may also be revealing in some respects. The official positions seem to be also shifting ever so often with more realistic findings. The reasons for the war without Security Council approval will always remain speculative from regime change to oil. Meanwhile people continue to suffer and die from all sides in Iraq. The sooner it is sorted out with viable democratic governance change the better for Iraq and its peoples.
Just when will the UK and US accept the overwhelming evidence against the existence of WMD? How much patience is required? Who deems that the search has gone on long enough? Both Governments are guilty of fabricating evidence to placate a disillusioned public. From a westerner's perspective, I feel duped and embarrassed.
Rod Park, Wanganui, New Zealand
I suspect that the only way WMD will be found in Iraq is if Bush's election campaign starts to falter - I won't be surprised if, at some opportune moment, they simply 'turn up'
James McEnaney, Glasgow, Scotland
There is no point to continue searching for WMD in Iraq. Now, it can be safely concluded that both Mr Bush and Mr Blair have cheated their people outright. Morally, they should not hesitate to resign immediately in order not to make mockery of their govt. and administration. And they still want to find ways to drag the final outcome of the search which they have already known the results just to safe their position.
Obviously the quest for WMDs has turned out to be a simple WGC (wild goose chase).
Carl Kennedy, Vilanna, Spain
They won't be found because they don't exist. We have just illegally invaded a country resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of people and making the world a more dangerous place. Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist but so too are Bush and Blair. We need to remove them all from there positions of power to ensure our safety in the future.
Rob, Liverpool, UK
In view of Saddam's refusal to comply with several UN Resolutions, and the fact that he had already used WMDs against the Kurds and the Iranians, Messrs Bush and Blair had every reason to believe that he might possess such weapons. In face of that presumed danger they were entirely justified in going to war. Moreover the removal of the Saddam regime and the impact of his fall on other countries gives reason for Messrs Bush and Blair to be commended for their statesmanlike decision.
Frederick Lees, Rye UK
The reason for pre-empting the UN weapons inspectors was because our leaders were confident that these things existed. They could have waited, but they wouldn't because they were so sure. But the didn't exist. So now it's resignation time. Bush, Blair, it's time to make the world a safer place for democracy. Get out!
Simon Richardson, London, UK
If no WMDs are found in Iraq, does that mean that Bush and Blair are guilty of war crimes? The people killed on both sides during the conflict would surely think them as guilty of murder as Saddam himself.
David, Glasgow, UK
WMDs will never be found. Bush and his poodle, Blair, know this and they will reap the rewards come election time.
Michael Stewart, Luton
WMDs have already been found: Saddam and his two sons are three WMDs. The entire Ba'athist criminal organization has/had thousands more.
Richard Hicks, Amarillo, Texas USA
Bush is now referring to the WMDs they said they knew existed to WMD related programs. We cannot expect this arrogant administration to admit that they misled the nation with claims of imminent danger. It now seems like people like Tariq Aziz of the Saddam regime were right in denying that there were any WMDs to be found.
Roseanne S., Princeton, USA
Saddam had no WMDs, the question is, will Tony (or the Whitehouse) try to 'make' them exist, or will Tony have to admit that he was wrong, say sorry, and try to forget it?
Alfred, Hemel Hempstead, England
This war was on the sole basis that Saddam was capable of delivering WMD. Since there are NO traces of such weapons then can the government please justify their actions, apart from going on, repeatedly, about the "ifs" and "buts".
Khalil, England, Luton
The fact that WMDs existed in Iraq in the 90's is inconsequential unless such weapons were available for offence or defence by the Iraqi army last March. Our pre-emptive war was a case of preconceived conclusions. This war has a clear geopolitical purposes and the utilization of the regions oil deposits through oversight, control and distribution.
Bob Cheak, Burgin, KY
Weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. Even if this administration has to import them.
Tom Winkle, DeKalb, Illinois, USA
The WMDs that posed the immediate threat that we were all warned of, surely will not be found now. It's about time Mr. Blair acknowledged his mistake here. Look what it took to make him admit an error over Ken Livingstone - it was the prospect of Labour losing an important election! The Prime Minister should begin to realise many people no longer trust what he says. Without trust in our government our democracy suffers. So come clean, earn our trust... or resign.
Nigel, Berkshire, UK
They've searched under Saddam's bed. I think that it is time to call it quit and admit that the war was very wrong. Now, how are they going to deal with Saddam?
Vincent Fedele, Australia
WMD never existed in Iraq. They will never be found in Iraq. But the US could plant them anywhere in Iraq and when the elections are at the door, they will announce the great NEWS. The WMD are found at last. And this will guarantee Bush's election and Blair will stay in power. The US and Blair's lies will never stop.
There is only one reason why the hunt for WMDs still continues: to delay the eventual announcement that no weapons existed, until it is politically expedient to do. That is after the US elections.
Arob Deng, Kenana, Sudan
I think the better question is if its time to hold those who dragged the world into war under false pretences accountable for their actions. The majority of the world never believed there were WMD in the first place...why would there be any now. It's sad that war is so easily waged on emotion rather than hard evidence. Mr. Bush should apologize to world and focus on terror, not old grievances.
Tim, Vancouver, Canada
A better question would have been: how much more embarrassment the US can go through before admitting there are no WMD in Iraq?
What was the quote? Saddam exits but where is he? Well they found him, but where are the WMD? Saddam may have been evil but it seems he was honest too. I think we are at a point were we can expect never to find WMD in Iraq. But there is no harm in continuing the search for a few more years. Having said that, what happened to the idea on the War on Terror? We just bombed a nation that wasn't a threat? And where is Osama? Why aren't these questions been raised any more in the White House?
Bill Tsoukalas, Australia, Sydney
WMD? Certainly not! Hasn't Blair dragged this on long enough? I wonder for how long he expects the great WMD hunting charade to continue? I guess as long as they keep searching for until he leaves office, he'll never have to admit his mistakes!
Sarah Mctaggert, Aberdeen
90% of the weapons in Iraq still await inventory. The US Army is not McDonald's and they don't have everything hot and ready. This takes time. If you doubt the existence of such weapons, talk to the three million dead from Iran, the 1 million dead Kurds, or the 22 UN 'resolutions' that address this issue. The United States is not responsible for proving this.
Scott USA has yet again lapsed into his tired propagandist spin...The 3 million? Dead Iranians were killed by conventional weapons and the USA's then administration turned a blind eye. And the Kurds have been persecuted for centuries partly because Kurdistan is split between Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Armenia. The Iraqis are by no means the first to persecute them. That would be the US's allies Turkey.
Kristian, Calgary, Canada
Since 1998, no WMD were left in Iraq. It was all destroyed, otherwise why Saddam didn't use them (if they existed) against the Americans? It is just another American lie to justify the invasion.
Vincent, Paris, France