A year ago, on 20 March the air strikes began on Baghdad.
It's estimated 25,000 protesters took to the streets of London on Saturday to mark the anniversary.
Two anti-war protesters breached security at the Houses of Parliament and scaled Big Ben.
Madrid and New York were among cities around the world that held similar protests against the war and the continuing "occupation" of Iraq.
Has your view of the war changed in the past 12 months? Send us your comments.
Did you attend any of the anti-war protests? If so, send your photos to email@example.com
This debate is now closed.
I opposed the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning. Now, one year later, not a single weapon of mass destruction has been found. I still firmly believe the USA adopts an imperialistic foreign policy aimed especially at small and poor countries.
Abdel Karim Salim Sharif, Jerusalem, Israel
If the "War on Terror" is the new justification for the war in Iraq then all Iraqis are terrorists. I don't think so!
Pat, Ilford, England
The world has become a decidedly more dangerous place since the onset of the war in Iraq one year ago. We were deflected from, what I feel, should have been our first priority in fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, from helping to rebuild that country as promised, to waging war in Iraq under false pretences.
If lies proved to be the ultimate undoing of the Popular Party in Spain, I hope this will be the case for the Republicans in November. Then the world will be a safer place.
We still are diverting resources that should be put toward catching Bin Laden and his crew, we've run up a budget deficit of enormous proportions here in the States, and terror attacks are still happening around the globe. The war was a farce so that the oil would be secured and somebody could obtain a measure of revenge for plotting against his daddy.
The most depressing thing of all is that the average US citizen is still seemingly too dense to realize that Saddam and his administration had nothing to do with 9/1l.
If parliament and the public are "conned into war" by the government then why would anyone wish to change their mind, unless it was for financial gain! This war will go down in history as the "biggest spin of all time"! Nobody disputes that Saddam needed to go and the people of Iraq needed to be freed of Saddam's personal rule of terror but that was not the basis on which Blair sold Britain on the "urgent" need to go to war.
Jock, London, UK
No. I did not agree 18 months ago. It was obvious that it was all cooked up by the friends of Bush. It was obvious that it was wrong morally and legally.
Simon, Berkhamsted, UK
"There is a dividing line in our world, separating two visions of justice and the value of life" (GW Bush)...so we will inflict ours on them, bomb them into submission, invade & occupy their lands, subjugate their peoples and no-one will dare question us.
Pat, Ilford, England
If you were against the war then you were in favour of all that Saddam did and stood for. Period!
Mike, Bognor, England
What do these protestors want? To turn back time and still have Saddam in power? You cant have it both ways, you simply either want him in power or you don't. War was the only way the Iraqi people were ever going to be free of this menace, fact.
Andrew, London, UK
George W. Bush has damaged America's reputation and international credibility to such an extent that it will take decades to repair. If any country is in need of "regime change," it's the USA.
Kevin, Asheville, NC USA
While no one is truly 'in favour' of war removal of Saddam was the right thing to do. As for the world being a safer place, had nothing been done and the West had been shown to dither then the tyrants and terrorists would have won. The attacks a killings happening now would probably still have happened and could possibly have been more widespread. Whingeing about a fait accompli is a bit pathetic, better to channel all that energy into helping Iraq move into the 21st century and setting an example for the rest of the Arab world.
Bill M., Glasgow, Scotland
I was strongly against the war in Iraq, but I have changed my mind since the Iraqi poll. My convictions against the war were based upon the idea that bombs and bullets can never solve anything, and the ones that would suffer were the Iraqis. It was for the Iraqis that I was against the war. Now, I see that the Iraqi people are happier after the war, and I have no choice but to conclude that bombs and bullets have helped the Iraqi people be happier and more hopeful for the future.
David, Oxford, England
I was against the war then, and remain so now. Saddam had to go, but we knew that 28 years ago. I'd like the world leaders to look around and see what positive steps they can take now to prevent another Saddam, Mugabe or alike from turning up later. But I fear that, as with Iraq, they want to exploit difficult situations for their own political gain first.
Alister McClure, London, UK
The world's trapped between two right wing ideologies - corporate capitalism and religious fundamentalism. There's no one who can call themselves 'free' any more, and we only ever will be when the whole world unites against the ideologues.
I think that the anti-war protests in London are in very bad taste. On the anniversary of the war that freed millions of Iraqis from an evil dictator, some people are still protesting. Would they rather Saddam was back in power and thousands of Iraqis were being tortured and murdered every year?
Had the job been done properly 10 years ago and Iraq put under proper control 11/9 would never have happened. Our best form of defence against terrorists is attack. I am ashamed of these protestors, my father fought for their freedom and they are risking my safety.
No, no, no. This was an illegal, morally unjustified war that has made the world a more risky place. What did it have to do with the war on terror or with WMD?
Mic, Northwich UK
How can any view of anyone change. The entirety of the world is waiting for Washington to pull its troops out, and reconsider its unattainable imperialistic desire.
As the wife off a soldier in the first Gulf War, I believe we should have carried on and finished the job then. Rather than have risked lives this time. Although we did the right thing for the wrong reasons. At the end off the day it is the Iraqi peoples opinion that matters and not ours.
Louise Corley, Wigan, England
No change in view. A war on terrorism cannot be won by military "shock and awe." It is won by understanding the reasons why terrorism flourishes, and sincerely trying to alleviate those reasons (for instance, the plight of the Palestinians). Intelligence and covert action can make a difference; witness the cold war success with that strategy. If only my country had followed through with supplying the anti-Iraq government with arms, as promised, the Iraqis would have been able to remove Saddam themselves, which is how it should have been. Unfortunately, our leadership is short-sighted because it can be overturned every four years. That isn't long enough to carry through needed global initiatives.
Sharon, Hammondsport NY USA
I supported the war and still do. However I respect the majority of those protesting on the 20th. They want a better world just like I do. I just happen to think that when a dictator defies the UN, commits outrageous human rights abuses against his own people and destabilises an entire region, the world has to act. Now it's over, let's please all work together for the future.
I have always been for the war with or without WMD. I believed that the war was only relevant as one strategy against world terrorism and rogue states. The other strategies include high security and aggressive intelligence, seeking out al Qaeda where ever they are. There has not nearly enough pressure applied by Bush or Blair on Israel or Palestine. The Iraqi people are grateful for the freedom they now have but world security, in the long-term, will remain difficult until the Palestinians and Israelis have secure nationhood and state boundaries.
Vince, Coventry Uk
We should have never gone into Iraq - the world is a lot less safe than before. President Bush's ego was so big he had to go to war!
A Concerned American, USA
What's all this stuff about the poor Iraqi people have been liberated at last and evil Saddam dealt with. He had been in power since 1979 and committed appalling atrocities ever since! A bit late in the day to come and pretend it was done to make the world a safest place, the word hypocrisy comes to mind!
Paul Almond, UK
Do those protesting today who demand that troops come home, not realise that pulling out now would cause Iraq to descend into civil war and thousands of Iraqis would die. The very Iraqis whom they protested for last year? Try thinking about your slogans before you chant them.
Simon Letch, Milton Keynes, UK
One year ago I was optimistic, I thought we could change something. Now I realise why the world is so full of terror. Democracy has failed.
It's an emotive, complicated issue, which certainly isn't straight forward. I personally don't believe that it is an issue over whether we were right to oust Saddam. It's an issue of how the Prime Minister sold it to us. I don't believe, for one minute that all these protestors, given the opportunity, would truly return Iraq to the rule of Saddam. So it must logically follow that removing Saddam was correct. However they have the luxury of knowing that despite the loudest of protests, that would never happen anyway. You cannot go back. You cannot change history. The issue that needs to be addressed is that of a government that is accused of misleading its members and its public. Thousands of people yelling "Stop the War" is pointless and futile. It is also a display of utter ignorance a complete lack of understanding. Life isn't black and white.
Mark H, UK
I supported the war a year ago and I still support it today. Iraqis now have the chance to build a brighter future for their children, and the BBC's own poll showed that they are embracing that opportunity. The anti-war brigade are a bunch of passive whiners in my opinion, sitting in the safe societies their grandparents fought to build and leaving people in faraway lands rot and suffer under the thumbs of tyrants.
Jason Sinfield, UK
My view of the war hasn't changed - I think it was justified based on regime change alone. However, my view of Tony Blair has changed.
Stephen Dalgleish, Edinburgh, UK
So much for Blair and Bush saying the war will be over in three weeks, and the Iraqis will be out in the streets to thank us and all will be well in the world. One year later the war is still going on and soldiers and civilians are still being killed. Bush and Blair have a lot to answer for, of course they are safe in the guarded establishments while others do the dying.
Lester Stenner, Weston super Mare
US and UK shouldn't have invaded Iraq without the UN approval. This will give some countries the wrong idea to do the same with their own agenda. Now it also proven the there is no WMD. US and UK have made the world more unsafe.
Wayne, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
My view remains the same. America and the UK had no right to poke their noses into the business of another country. So Saddam was a ruthless dictator. Are they going to go after Gaddafi now? This war was about 2 things. The Iraqi oil reserves, and finishing the job that George W senior failed to do in Operation Desert Storm!
The century's biggest act of state sponsored terrorism was not the attack on the twin towers. It was Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Anirban Roy, Pune, India
I was in favour of the war because of WMD. This was not the case and I firmly believe that Blair and Bush knew that no such weapons existed. If their intent was to rid the world of a despot, why don't they go after another half dozen dictators? But then - they don't have oil.
Norman G Mowling, Orsett, Essex, England
The damage has already been achieved, the outcome of this war should be to give Iraqi's independence with help from those which who decided this was the correct action to take at this time.
I believe that the world is a far better place than it was with Saddam. He was an evil man who murdered millions of men, women and children. So what if Bush and Blair lied, would you have let them take your country to war if they said they were just going to give Saddam a hiding!
Craig Haskins, Bath, UK
I can't think of any defence for Saddam Hussein's regime, but it was living proof of why the West shouldn't interfere with other countries' internal politics. I'm pleased he's gone, but still furious at the way in which it was achieved.
I really don't care one way or the other. What I do know is I am sick to death of hearing about it and seeing protestors marching (tax payers money again to police them) its done and it shows more clearly the divisions in our society... that is far more dangerous.
Intelligence about Iraq was far from perfect because that is the nature of spying. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair responded to the threat as it was assessed and perceived by career professionals, not partisan hacks. Had they not responded and the assessment been right, we would have been in far greater danger than we now find ourselves.
A year ago, I supported the war, largely because I wanted an end to Saddam Hussein and the instability that he was bringing to the Middle East. In my view the status quo wasn't working. Today, I still believe that the war was necessary to end the reign of tyrant who clearly had no intention of ever complying with international law until he was threatened with his own end. Having said that, I am dismayed by the fact that Bush and Chirac, among others, have driven a wedge through the international community at a time when we need to be united.
Rajeev Dutt, Germany
First we were told that it was about weapons of mass destruction. I didn't buy into that, so I couldn't support military action. Then we were told we had to go to war to stop a repressive regime destabilizing the region. I couldn't support that hypocrisy. Now we are being told that it has something to do with terrorism. Maybe I could have supported this argument in the past, but now the White House doesn't have enough credibility for me to support any of their initiatives. My reasons for opposing the war have changed, but my opposition still stands.
John Toth, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
No my view hasn't changed. I did and still do fully support the war in Iraq. The country is slowly and surely improving and heading towards democracy. Anyone who thought we'd go in a turn Iraq into a democracy overnight is not a 'realist'. A change to democracy takes time, especially from a tyranny. I give my fully support to the Coalition and the fight against terror!
Michael, St Helens, UK
I still believe that the war was morally justified and that the liberation of Iraq was the correct course to take. WMDs or no WMDs, freedom and liberty are above such petty political justifications. However, the conduct of the post-war plan (or lack thereof) has highlighted serious misgivings about the US's ability to deal with peace time.
Jonathan Lafferty, UK
The war was the right thing to do. Blair had the courage to be realistic about the threat facing us all. How many would be protesting if London was hit hard. For goodness sake get real and wake up all those protesting.
John Rider, UK
For me, war is only necessary if the threat is evident and proven. However, with the way wars are waged nowadays, it can be concluded that it is unnecessary. Firstly, evidences are not yet found and verified. So far, the cause of the war is only the said potential WMDs to be produced. In other words, the cause is merely a speculation.
Ersa, Pasig City
The war was justified. The world is a better place without a despot who murdered and suppressed many thousand thousands of his own people.
I do not trust both Governments (US and UK). They have made a profit and I feel the British and American people are being screwed around. It is about time we stood our ground once and for all. Just ask yourselves this question. What will happen if Saddam Hussain takes the stand. That will never happen because heads would roll and the real picture will come in to effect.
Joanne Edwards, Brighton, UK
I am all for spreading democracy but the US seems strangely selective about where it spreads it to. I don't see any invasion of Zimbabwe being planned. This war was about one thing - the US finishing off an old enemy.
Frank, Cambridge, UK
I marched against the war a year ago and still believe the war was wrong now more than ever, in light of an increased terrorist threat and the ever changing justifications for the war. It should have taken a few SAS soldiers to achieve regime change, not a full-on invasion, pull the troops out now as they are needed elsewhere but unfortunately won't be deployed because there is no oil in the countries who need our troops the most.
Geoff Card, Reading, England
My view of the war hasn't changed. I was against it in the first place. However, I feel that a peace keeping force is needed in Iraq until stability can be brought to that country. I think the UN should take over the peace keeping role there.
Sonny, Brisbane, Australia
If we are talking of freeing repressed people, when is the UK going to act against Zimbabwe? They don't have any oil, so I guess never.
Andrew, Leicester, England
Absolutely not, I opposed the war when it started and I still oppose the (some would say) illegal occupation of Iraq by coalition forces. My stance has been hardened by the attitude of the UK government in saying that it doesn't matter why we went to war, look, we've removed a dictator. The ends should never justify the means. If you do that you justify terrorism, the ends (a fairer distribution of power) are justified by terrorism. That goes against everything I, and I hope, society believes in.
Chris Steele, Sheffield UK
Given the fact that all peaceful attempts to remedy the situation in Iraq failed; I believe that the war was the only way to resolve things. However, I also believe that Blair and Bush should have been honest with the public about their reasons for going to war.
Okay, so they've got Saddam at the cost of a few hundred innocent lives and damage to property and homes, was he worth it? No. I agree with protests as long as they are safe and well publicised - I didn't know there would be one in Glasgow today. Here's a daft idea - why doesn't Tony let the people of Britain have a vote on the war "in our name"? Such a far out idea. Tony might be scared it might work.
Ally, Glasgow, Scotland
The war was a great step on the road to the New American Century. Bush, Blair and the Neo-conservative elite should be proud of their achievements.
Stuart Scot, Trowbridge, Wilts
The war was an intricate facade. The stars and stripes should not suffocate identity with its male egotism. The sole and central aim was not simply to rid Iraq of Saddam, as this war was not designed to help the Iraqi people. This sort of integrity never existed. And an immediate threat to the 'civilised world' merely masked a twisted vision of colonisation and cultural imperialism, with Islam as its scapegoat.
Yasmin, Birmingham, England
Iraq was not a terrorist state. It had no connection with Al Qaeda. It had no WMD and was not an immediate threat to Europe or the US. This war was planned long before 9/11. All this is true just as it was a year ago. The sky still isn't falling and George Orwell could now be regarded as a 'visionary'.
What a silly question! The war just polarised opinions even more, and almost no-one wants to admit they have changed their views, because no-one wants to admit they were wrong. Indeed, this far, no respondent to your question has changed sides.
James Parker, UK
Haiti and Kosovo have just erupted. Afghanistan just had its biggest poppy harvest ever. Was it really prudent to attack Iraq at this time? 10,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan, and 130,000 plus in Iraq, but Osama is in Afghanistan. If Iraq was part of the War on Terror, wouldn't it have made more sense to capture or kill Osama first?
Erik Gustafson, Washington DC, USA
Iraq is a mess but war is a messy business. I just don't know what to think, if our leaders lied then they should be punished but Iraqis need foreign troops to stop someone like Saddam coming back. I would like to see these protests become a focus for pressure on the coalition, not to withdraw immediately but to make them fulfil their promises to Iraq (which would be a first) and salvage something good from this mess.
Daniel, Leeds, UK
Now, a year on I am even more convinced that the war in Iraq should have taken place. Although no WMDs have been found the US and its allies have overthrown an evil regime. 56% of Iraqis say their life has improved since the war and over 70% expect it to improve even more in the next year, surely this shows that it was right to go to war, though maybe for the wrong reasons?
Lydia, Milton Keynes, UK
It was not a war against terrorism, it was a political war to subdue a political opponent and we all are paying for it now
Aftab, London, UK
War is a disagreeable necessity, illegal or legal, the only thing that matters is the future of our children, and each generation has to assume its responsibilities. My view has not changed.
In spite of the arguments of the legality of the war in Iraq, the accomplishments of the armed forces in removing the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein should not be forgotten. This war has improved the lives of ordinary Iraqis and has indirectly removed the WMD program in Libya and made the world a safer place. I have supported this war throughout, we cannot let the terrorists bring anarchy to democratic world.
No democracy in Iraq a year ago no democracy today. Death and suffering under Saddam, death and suffering under the Coalition/al-Qaeda today. Things really have not improved. It is vital for the Coalition that improvements are seen soon.
John L, High Wycombe, UK
I'd have more faith in the anti-war camp if they tried arguing on facts. Instead the whole basis of their argument seems to be rabid anti-Americanism.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the war, the coalition are losing the peace. By leaving the country without basic necessities such as electricity and medical care, they have failed to convince that Iraq is better off without Saddam in charge. There is no interest in ensuring the well-being of the people of Iraq and it has gone on for so long that it is beginning to look like this abysmal state of affairs is deliberate - to keep the people down.
Terrorism is always driven by an ideology - religion, nationalism, Marxism etc. History tells us that military force does not defeat ideologies, and I have no doubt that al-Qaeda and international terrorism will survive, even if bin Laden is captured. We could have anticipated that before the 'war' on terrorism.
JS Noble-Hendry, Watford, UK
The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with a war against terrorism. Saddam's Iraq was the one country in the Middle East where al-Qaeda could not operate. The war has greatly stimulated terrorism. It has killed far more innocent people than terrorists have so far, and is therefore a kind of super-terrorism. It has also exposed the dishonesty of the Bush/Blair axis. Of course I am against it now as I was before it was started.
Hiding your head in the sand and pretending a problem does not exist will not make it go away. The Allies did the right thing going into Iraq. It was always going to take time for the country to settle down. But eventually Iraq will be a better place.
Jon, Cambridge, UK
I will be less stubborn than many on here and agree that my opinion has changed. I protested against the war last year for fear that it would be another bloody attack on Iraq without a serious push to remove Saddam. A year on, without Saddam, Iraq is a better place for Iraqis even though there is still much work to do.
Haider Al-Najjar, Sheffield, UK
The war has certainly made the world a more dangerous place. Iraq seems a breeding ground for terrorists. Also, it's hard to see how a so-called War on Terror can work when no one knows exactly where the terrorists are. We are fighting a war without end, we are fighting invisible enemies with cells dispersed around the world. How do you win such a war? New and novel ideas and solutions must be sought to make this world a safer place.
It was ridiculous a year ago, and it's even more ridiculous now. Especially when you watch the same politicians, like Rumsfeld, try and say now that they never said any of those things about Iraq being an imminent threat. What's the difference? People forget quickly exactly what was said and done a year ago.
Iraqis were dying everyday under Saddam's rule. The war cannot be bad if it removes Saddam and eventually brings self rule and democracy in Iraq. Security may still be an issue there but it is a process and nothing comes easy. Right now Pakistani soldiers are fighting a war with al-Qaeda fighters to make a world a safer place. If the UK, US and people of other countries are so against losing lives, how can they justify asking Pakistanis to take all the risks? Peace does not come without a price - antiwar demonstrators lose sight of this. Would they also ask Pakistanis to seek compromise and peace with al-Qaeda people?
Patrick Foo, Malaysia
I supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe they weren't just important for removing rouge regimes, but sent a powerful message to other states. As nuclear arms spread across the globe, democracy and justice is vital to their control. The 'mutually assured destruction' principle which has kept world war 3 from happening will not apply to regimes which happily kill thousands of their OWN people. The thing that really disturbs me is the liberal appeasers who don't seem to appreciate the sacrifices people have made along the way for us to live in a society like this. Finally, even more worrying, is that Blair wants to enforce justice for terrorists around the world but cannot seem to control the Islamic extremists in his OWN country. Personal human rights are a two way street, they require personal responsibility too.
Paul, Bristol, England
I was initially against the war and in the last year I've changed my stance almost completely. WMDs or no WMDs, there is no arguing against the fact that Saddam Hussein was a leader who had nothing cruel disinterest for his own country's people. The way forward, however, needs to be more focused on the desires of Iraqis (as the recent polls have shown) than it has been. Then I think the world will see clearly how much better they are without him.
For me it's simple. There are more people alive today than there would have been without the war. Do the math: 300,000 found in mass graves - over 35 people a day during Saddam's 23 year rule.
I was against the war from the start. It was an illegal action backed up by very flimsy arguments. I still feel the same way, perhaps more so given the alleged WMDs and supposed links with al-Qaeda have proved false. While I can't dispute that freeing the Iraqi people has been a good thing, the way the whole process was brought about is shameful and has played directly into the terrorists' hands.
John, Bucks, UK
The mistake which supporters of the war constantly make is to conflate the war on terror with the war in Iraq. The fact is that there were no links at all between Saddam and al-Qaeda. So at best, the war against Iraq was an irrelevance, and at worst it simply inflamed Arab opinion, thereby increasing the pool of terrorists and making terror attacks on the West more likely. A lot of people in the USA don't seem able to understand this.
David, London, England
This war is the most recent in a long list of the West's flawed and simplistic handlings of Iraq. Our actions over the past 20 years have caused untold suffering and misery for millions of Iraqis. How anyone here can describe any part of that as a success is beyond me.
Matt, Amsterdam, Netherlands (ex. UK)
Unlike most people here, my view has changed. Before the war, I though that on balance it was probably not justified by the "evidence". Now, I am convinced that Bush & Blair knew that what they were saying was untrue. Blair continued to say that he was "confident" that WMD would be found, nine months after the start of the war, but Robin Cook says that Blair told him there probably no WMD in Feb 2003. Whether he is dishonest or just has poor judgement, Blair is not a fit and proper person to be making such decisions.
Mark Williams, Hurstbourne Priors, UK
Go back and reread the pre-war arguments. Every statement on the anti-war side was true; every word from the US and UK governments was a lie. The media is utterly complicit.
Richard P, UK
You lose your land, you lose your faith, you lose your culture, you lose your friends, you lose your family, you lose your life - and all that after many long years of severe sanctions. I was against that war because it was based on lies and I am happy to still have enough lucidity left in me to see the light.
Michel Tremblay, Laval, Canada
I am originally from Iraq. Now I can contact my family and my extended family by telephone and e-mail in Iraq. We feel very grateful and appreciate the stand of British government to liberate Iraq. But the thing which annoys me is those who call themselves the "coalition against war." I feel their stand is insulting to the Iraqis. Now, for the first time in 35 years, Iraqis feel they are human and part of the international community.
Basim Mehdi, Billingham UK
Don't forget the pictures of Saddam holding a vital component of a nuclear weapon on TV and boasting about how close he was to having one... If he thought he was that close how were we meant to react? By waiting for one to drop on Israel? March all you want to stop wars but remember its people like George and Tony who save you whilst you moan about the legality of things.
Pete, Manchester, England
I still support the war one year on. I am extremely proud of our armed forces and Mr Blair in his brave stance on the conflict. I think those that opposed the war need educating. It is only their ignorance that makes them take their misguided and naive views. I don't blame them for this. I am sure in a few months they will admit the error of their ways and support the West, which it is their duty to do.
Although WMDs have not been found it does not change the fact that the war was right. The burden of proof was on Saddam and he was unable to prove that he had destroyed his weapons. One year on the democratization of Iraq has progressed despite the difficult circumstances and history will look favourably upon Bush and Blair.
Colin Keesee, Moorpark, CA, USA
Yes, they have changed. I still support the War but, not the current Occupation. Allied Coalition Forces should pull out into the Southern and Western Deserts, where they will be free from terrorist attacks. I've lost all patience with the Iraqis, they should work out their own mess with the U.N. The U.S. and Coalition Forces can stand on the sidelines and veto any thing they don't like with mostly Air Power and a few ground forces. It's the Iraqis who need to make peace amongst themselves, and create their own Nation. If they want our aid they'll have to play our game. If not who cares?
Michael, Mount Shasta, U.S.A.
Where were all the demonstrators that are expected on the streets of London today, on the day that Spaniards came out on their streets to protest the Madrid bombings? In fact where were they previous to the Iraq war when Saddam was brutalising and murdering his own people in their tens of thousands?
Lucy, Dunstable, UK
I am thinking of starting a demonstration against demonstrations? I wonder how many idiots would turn up? I am sure that these people who demonstrate would be the first to complain if they had no petrol for their cars, and would be the first to ask why the government had done nothing to prevent it if a dirty bomb was let off in London. We voted this government in. Let them govern.
Ron Coldwell, Milton Keynes
I support the war and the troops. The people of Iraq have suffered so much pain from Saddam and his sons. This war is a necessary evil due to Saddam Hussein's failure to cooperate with the UN. The UN was not willing to enforce any of its resolutions and so it fell on the lap of the USA. I am glad the US is taking the lead with the UK against mass murderers like Saddam. Many might say America is too big and has too much power, but I feel being the "biggest kid on the block" has important responsibilities. This requires the US to respond to global threats like Saddam and Osama bin Laden.
I think many people have forgotten what sparked the war, a threat to the lives of innocent people and their rightful freedom (Sept. 11 and the Bali bombing). War is not nice and has a price. We pay that price with the loss of life, but the bigger picture is saving thousands of more people from the cowardly acts of terrorism.
Bush and Blair claim they acted in support of UN resolutions, but they failed to get Security Council authority for invasion. They claim to have intended to topple Saddam, but a year ago they offered him safe passage from Iraq. Even now, Saddam is treated as a prisoner of war, while hundreds guilty of lesser crimes - or none at all - rot in Guantanamo.
Robin T Cox
I think it's funny that the same people with "Free Tibet" bumper stickers in my town are also the ones against freeing the Iraqis. Though I don't think our less-than-intelligent president's reasons were good ones, I think there were good enough reasons to do it, and would think so again and again if that's what it takes to take these people down.
Rob, California, USA
Saddam is gone at the price of about 10,000 human lives. This, in itself, would be acceptable given the atrocities he inflicted on his people. Nevertheless we are now further away than ever from winning the real conflict against terrorism. Combine that with the lack of trust many now sense in regard to the US and you understand why I still think that the war was wrong.
Sven Fischer, Berlin, Germany
The war was the right thing to do both strategically and morally.
Mary K, San Francisco, USA
I was against war even before it started a year back. Bush, Blair and company justified the commencement of war alleging that Saddam was in possession of WMD. Even after a year they haven't succeeded in proving the existence of the same. The Spanish have rightly rejected their government that send troops to Iraq. Now the Polish president has said that they were misguided by the US. I am sure I am not alone in my opposition to the war.
John Kurian, Trivandrum, India
How can anyone claim merit points for the destruction of so many innocent lives, lost in such pointless wars. We must address the injustices that other countries feel against the west.
Lyndon Patrick Berchy, Edam, The Netherlands
Can anyone honestly say that this war was fought as the last resort? In a war, regardless of whether it is a just one or not, the powerless and innocent are always the ones who suffer the most. No war should ever be fought unless it is REALLY the last resort.
Given the "justification" we were given before the war, there must be only one question. Where are the WMD?
Gordon, Welwyn Garden City, UK
I have fully supported the Iraq war from the beginning as I still do today. Before you condemn Bush or my country, talk to an Iraqi who, at long last, has hope for a better future for the first time in several decades. Through my country's actions, and the brave actions of a handful of other steadfast and true allies, there will most likely be no more mass graves or torture houses in Iraq's future. Consider these things before you rush to heap criticism on my country and it's leaders.
Daylen Curry, USA
I cannot see how anybody can explain to me how exactly the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan helped the Spanish from being attacked the other day. It is logically impossible to combat terrorist networks via invasions. What they need is intelligence and they are certainly looking for it in the wrong places.
Aris Aristidou, Nicosia, Cyprus
I wasn't wild about going into Iraq to begin with and now, with no WMD being found, I feel duped. The situation for some Iraqis may be better but it is not the US's place to dictate these changes. It would have been more honest to have gone to war to free the people from the brutal dictatorship. But then again, Bush could not have gotten that passed through Congress so he chose to STRETCH the truth a little to suit his goals.
Glenda, Palm City, USA
The real reason for the invasion has been craftily disguised - OIL. Will the removal of Blair and Bush change things much? It is big business that controls the politicians so don't expect any change soon.
Lou Harrison-Smith, Christchurch, New Zealand
One year has passed, but the war is not over. I am still against the war. Every effort must be made to help Iraqis get their sovereignty.
Aikande Kwayu, Tanzania
I still believe that in the long run the world will be a better place with a democratic Iraq. It's hard to put a price on freedom, and most of us take it for granted, but I would not give mine away at any cost. I believe in time that all Iraqis will feel the same as I do, and the taste of liberty will spread throughout that region. I certainly hope so.
John S., Arizona, USA
I still support the war on Iraq. That didn't change and will never change. The media has a propensity to cover only the bloody news about the Iraq war. The improvements never made it to the newspapers. What's the use? News like that doesn't interest the people anyway.
Bridgette, Christchurch, New Zealand
No, my view has not changed. Reading the remarks so far, it would appear as though few folks have changed their minds about the war one year on. Those who were opposed to the invasion are now opposed to the continued occupation and those who were for the war seem to feel it was a great success. We are no closer to consensus than we were 12 months ago.
Penny, Victoria, Canada
70% of the American people believed that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and that WMD were in abundant supply in Iraq. This was the basic premise of the war, well supported by over 70% of the American people. European democracies were uniformly opposed to the war, apparently better informed by their respective medias. Perhaps the free press IS the most important ingredient for real democracy along with balance of power.
Frank , Charleston, USA
My view of the war hasn't changed a bit. It was the wrong thing to do then, and it's continuance serves no good purpose now. At no time did Bush have absolute proof that Iraq possessed WMDs and, for his desire to prove to the American public just how tough he is, nearly 1,100 young Americans and countless Iraqis are dead. What a dreadful waste.
Paul, Toronto, Canada
I believe that it was right to wage war against a dangerous tyrant a year ago and it still remains the right decision today. Bush and Blair are on the side of the angels.
Duncan , Port Vila, Vanuatu, South Pacific
No, the implications of the liberation of Iraq are just beginning and far reaching. The people if Iraq will decide if it was all worth it. It seems that they are in agreement with the coalition of the willing on the future of their country.
Fernando f, Montreal, Canada
I supported the action in Iraq last year, and I still support it today. But it is far too early to make conclusions about the success or failure of the coalition's actions. I personally believe that in time (possibly) 5 years or more, our actions in Iraq will prove to have been justified, effective and in the best interest of the Iraqi people, the world community and the fight against global organized terror cells. Trust me.
Jim S, Columbus, Ohio, USA
Of course the war has changed things. Saddam is gone and parts of Iraq are starting to enjoy an abundance of services and freedom. The only thing that has not changed is the annoying comments of the anti-war protesters. If politicians do not take action now against all terrorists, there may not be a tomorrow to defend. Our way of life is under threat here. Stop moaning and get behind our politicians and eradicate this major problem.
A year passed. Still my views of the illegitimate war has not changed. This is the most reckless unilateral expedition in the name of fighting the terror. And we are only fighting it daily - in multiple parts of the world. In one master stroke, critical thinking has been subjugated by clichés such as "we know what is best for the world" with nothing to substantiate. I wish Hans Blix and the inspection team was given the due attention they deserved.
Mouli Narayanan, Portland, Oregon, USA
The decision to wage the war was difficult a year ago, but I am more confident now that it was the right choice. The world is better for the change; the people of Iraq have a chance to be free.
Donald, Montana USA
I still believe a year later that the war in Iraq was necessary to bring freedom to the people of Iraq.
Anne, Mackenzie, BC, Canada
I support the war now more than ever. The war was necessary! It is sending the message to people who protect terrorist and support their activities that it will not be tolerated!
Richard, Memphis, USA
I've never supported this war. I don't support this President and my vote in November will reflect that.
Victoria Lowe, Orlando, USA
I opposed the war by joining candlelight vigil a year ago; today I'm even more convinced that the invasion of Iraq is wrong. We must oust the Bush/Cheney regime to save the world from complete chaos.
Hiroshi Arashi, Gold Run, USA
No! My view is the view of millions of people around the globe. It is illegal, inexcusable; it was perpetrated with the only purpose of domination, imposition, greed, and overall great dishonesty!
Elba Beolchi, Sydney Australia
While I had doubts in the beginning, I am positive the coalition did the right thing. I am utterly disgusted with the UN and the rest of the world who spend a lot of time talking about poor countries, dictators, terrorism, or starvation but do nothing while time marches on.
Marlene, Maine, USA
The US is still perplexed by much of the world's outrage at the invasion. They should ask themselves what their reaction would have been if China or Russia had decided to remove Saddam Hussein by invading Iraq.
Colin Edwards, New Zealand
The invasion was wrong a year ago. It is wrong today and it will remain one of the darkest moments in the history of multilateral approach in international politics.
Alem M, Ottawa, Canada
Yes it has changed and I am more determined than ever to stay the course and see this through. We walked into a changed world after 9/11 knowing full well this could take many years. World events and war since WWII and Korea have proven that urban terrorist warfare will be with us for quite some time to come. There are no quick solutions to this type of warfare.
Robert Moore, USA/Japan
No - no change from my perspective... no Weapons of Mass Destruction found... no apology from the Government... no vote from Dan at the next general election!
No. I was against the war then, and now. I watch as virtually all of the reasons for which I stood against it come to pass as expected.
Adam, Phoenix, USA
It has made me realise all the more what is needed to defend and promote freedom and democracy. I continue to support the war, even though the politicians have made some bad mistakes. They are expendable, but the people of Iraq, and the coalition forces, are not.
Francis, London, England
I think there was a very strong case made for toppling a monster like Saddam. Too bad Bush did not actually make it before invading...
Mel, NYC, US
Saddam in chains, Iraq with a constitution, political prisoners freed, Kurds are truly free, no more mass gassings of civilians, foreign terrorists being rounded up, Libya turning over its nukes, North Korea at the brink of doing the same, elections in Iraq coming soon, a judicial system where no real one existed for decades. God Bless the UK and US!
Frank, Miami, US
All Bush and Blair did was enhance terror. Military action will never solve the root cause of terrorism. I know where I will be at 1 pm.
Phillip Knowlton, Ottawa, Canada
I am confused and uncertain about what this war has meant - and at what cost. My gut feeling is that during our lifetime, it will eventually become an example of how repressed people find democracy. I pray for all us.
Tony, NYC, USA
The war was only a fix for the symptom, not a cure for the disease.
MZ, Frazer, USA
I am still positive regarding air strike against Saddam regime. Actually it is not just a problem of Iraq rather it is a global issue for which Pakistan is still suffering and still our soldiers are dying in clean up operations. That war was a good initiative against radicals to stop them prevailing and creating problems everywhere in the world. Saddam was just a shelter provider and supporter of radicals. I am personally happy for his removal and capture. But if we just take the case of Iraq, a survey proved that Iraqis are happier now, and hopefully will prosper more.
Muhammad Ali Panhwar , Khairpur, Pakistan
I totally supported the coalition of the willing one year ago as well as today. Either you fight terrorists on their soil or you open up your borders and let them in. It is a grave mistake to think one can remain neutral and remain untouched.
All that Blair and Bush achieved was to make the world a more dangerous place. I was against it then and I have not changed my mind. It is a war based on lies.
Julia Balmer, Hemel Hempstead, Herts, UK
I'm still waiting for the WMDs to be found. Until they're found, the invasion was unjustified.
Dave, Bolton, UK
Terrorism is the poor man's war. War is the rich man's terrorism.
I protested the war a year ago and tomorrow I will go and do so again.
Jeff Honings, Maine, USA
My view has not changed. I still support the war, and Blair and Bush. They did the right thing.
Richard, Great Britain
The war was not justified. There is no nation in the world that would love to invite foreigners to their land and adopt alien ways of life. A forced method of imposing democracy will never succeed, especially in the Middle East.
Konstantin, Moscow, Russia
I am sick of having corrupt politicians use Iraqis as a shield for their ambitions. All of this is just a twisted chess game with people like Saddam and Osama being merely pawns - big powers use them to advance their goals, sacrifice them when it suits some greater goal.
This war is right. Free the world against tyranny. Shame on France, Germany, and now Spain too. Keep up the good work Bush and Blair.
Piotr Wojcik, Offenburg, Germany
As a veteran of WWII, when our war was over it was over. Bush, Cheney and Blair have created a never ending conflict.
Gene McCrimmon, Oregon, USA
We are slowly winning.
Gill, Llandysul, Wales
I am more convinced than ever that appeasement does not work. One can nitpick about the specifics, but the reality is that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. .
Jeff, Springfield, VA, USA
The fact that no WMDs have been found a year after extensive searches just makes it clear that the war was a pointless exercise. Too many lives have been lost on both sides in order to boost the egos of 'President' Blair and his American superpower friends.
Nicholas Triantafylllou, London, UK
I have never been positive about the war. It is a waste of human life.
Does our view really matter? Shouldn't the question be directed toward the Iraqi people? With that in mind it is quite evident from the polls conducted on the Iraqi people that the war has improved the conditions of this country. If the majority of these people have a positive view of the result of the coalition's actions then it is an obvious success.
Michael, Texas, US
As a matter of fact it has changed. I thought this war was a big mistake then, but now I am sure it was a gigantic mistake. The USA waged an illegal war against a non-fundamentalist state, which has caused huge expenses and discredited the UN, not to mention the Arab world. Yet, there is one good side about this: times of huge crises are usually times for great innovative ideas. Let us hope the wave of unilateralism can be brought down by the effectiveness of multilateralism.
Samuel Nobre, São Paulo, Brazil
Unfortunately, it hasn't. Every time people talk about bringing peace and democracy to region through Baghdad, a bomb goes off to bring everyone back to the reality of what's happened.
No my view hasn't changed. I still wholeheartedly support the Iraq war.
I believe it has been and will continue to be a complete success! Go Yanks!
Lindy Brockington, Vigneux Sur Seine, FR
I am even more opposed to the Iraq war now than I was before it began. Because now, what we only suspected prior to the invasion, has been proven. No WMD. No immediate threat of any kind to the UK or US. No links to al-Qaeda. No truth behind the verbal terrorism inflicted on us by our undemocratic leaders!
Benjamin, Ryde, England
The war was wrong and is still wrong. Bush and Blair must be put out of office.
Olli Kinnunen, Varkaus, Finland
Not at all. I can say that because my opinion over the war's legality is supported daily events in the occupied lands.
Thousands of people have died for one man - no, my view of the war hasn't changed