The British Government has issued a dossier on Iraq's arms programme which it will use to justify military action against President Saddam Hussein.

The document should give details of Iraq's capability to make weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological) and evidence that it has, or is likely, to achieve that.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has supported America's tough stance against Iraq, but has faced dissenting voices within the cabinet who have warned against another Gulf War.

BBC News Online world affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds, has been following the arguments for and against military action in Iraq and will be one of the journalists analysing this latest report.

How much new evidence will be provided by the UK dossier? How up to date is the information?

Transcript

Newshost:
Roger asks: Why is this being called a dossier of evidence? Evidence means proof, not viewpoints.

Paul Reynolds:
The title is not that important in my view. This document does contain evidence - some of it new evidence though the general charges have been made before. The interesting stuff is in the detail especially in the list of equipment which Iraq is alleged to have tried to buy to make a nuclear bomb.

Newshost:
Michael asks: Why aren't Saddam's neighbours more concerned about this?

Paul Reynolds:
Same of Saddam's neighbours are concerned about this, especially Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990. Other countries like Iran do not like Saddam but also do not like the prospect of a war and think that Saddam could be contained.

Newshost:
P Y asks: Have we learnt anything new from the report?

Paul Reynolds:
I have learnt some new things PY. For example, the list of equipment Iraq has been trying to buy to construct gas centrifuges. It would need these to extract enriched uranium. This list is very interesting and contains things like vacuum pumps magnets and something like a filament winding machine. Critics will say that some of these items have dual use so are not necessarily intended for a bomb.

Another new thing is a claim that he has built an engine test bed for a rocket with a range of a thousand kilometres. There is a picture of this.

Newshost:
Michael asks: Do you think this evidence will convince the rest of Europe?

Paul Reynolds:
I think Michael that many governments in Europe will be convinced that something has to be done about Saddam Hussein but beyond that the issue is whether there should be a war against him and not all governments will accept that, the German government presumably for one. Even the report is not saying that Iraq has a nuclear bomb and accepts that sanctions could stop Iraq from developing one.

Newshost:
Benji asks: Why are we so keen to exercise military action? Are their no other choices available to us?

Paul Reynolds:
The other choice available according to the British Government is for Iraq to allow the UN inspectors back in and be allowed to work freely. If this happened, there might be no talk of war though the United States might not be convinced that inspections are effective. But that is the alternative - inspections and continuing sanctions.

Newshost:
Alistair asks: Is the British objective to stop Iraq from building weapons of mass destruction, or is it for a regime change?

Paul Reynolds:
Good question Alistair! The immediate aim is to disarm Iraq but if this does not happen the ultimate aim will be to remove Saddam Hussein.

Newshost:
Jerry: Why would Saddam use these weapons when it could topple him from power?

Paul Reynolds:
This is an argument often used by opponents of attacking Saddam. They say he would not be such a fool as to use these weapons and did not do so in the Gulf War. However, the British and American Governments say that you cannot be certain about this. That he has shown aggression in the past to his neighbours and might do so again.

Newshost:
Brian asks: Can there be a vote at the end of this debate?

Paul Reynolds:
Brian, I think it is a procedural vote which might mystify many people. I don't think there will be a substantive vote on war with Iraq at this stage. We have probably not reached that point in the process yet. But a vote will be demanded by many MPs at some stage.

Newshost:
Saswata: People are quick to discount the link between rogue terrorist groups and Saddam. Are they being slightly naive?

Paul Reynolds:
There is nothing in the report linking al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups to Iraq. Many people doubt that there is a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Iraq has had links with some Palestinian groups but it is not an Islamic fundamentalist country and there is little reason to think that Saddam would develop such links.

Newshost:
Kopi asks: Why did you not depose Saddam Hussein earlier, say at the first Gulf War?

Paul Reynolds:
The then President George Bush said the UN mandate was only to eject Iraq from Kuwait and that the coalition would have fallen apart if US troops had gone to Baghdad. Looking back of course, historians might well conclude that it was a job left unfinished though Bush Senior still argues he was right.

Newshost:
Des asks: If Saddam is attacked he would have nothing to lose in using weapons. How does action against him prevent his using them?

Paul Reynolds:
Des, - two points here: one is deterrence - if he uses them there would be massive retaliation. Secondly, if the attack takes place soon, he may not have that many weapons to fire off which could seriously damage US and other troops.

Newshost:
Cool Dude asks: Do you think the Iraq outcome will be used as a guideline for other extremist countries?

Paul Reynolds:
This is another worry expressed by opponents of the American action. You'll remember that two other countries, Iran and North Korea, were named by Mr Bush as being in the "axis of evil" they must be wondering if they are next. It is an open question and a serious one.

Newshost:
Matt asks: Who would take over from Saddam Hussein?

Paul Reynolds:
Matt, nobody knows yet. There are exiled groups who are trying to draw up plans for a democracy. Maybe some army elements would form a government. There are fears among some that the country would split up but nobody really has a clear plan.

Newshost:
Alistair asks: How do you think OPEC will react if there is a war?

Paul Reynolds:
Alistair, most of the OPEC countries will probably try to raise their prices though there is plenty of oil in the world at the moment. Some people say this is a war about oil. I do not agree with that.

Newshost:
Andrew: What will happen to the Arab view of Saddam Hussein if he is not deposed. Will he become more of a hero?

Paul Reynolds:
This may be in the background of people's minds but not in the foreground. For some people on the streets he will be but the attitude of neighbouring governments is more complex. Secretly they would be pleased if he is removed and would fear him if he stayed.

Newshost:
Thomas ask: What do you think of Germany's stance so far?

Paul Reynolds:
It's not up to me to pass judgment on Germany obviously. But one has to recognise that the anti-military sentiment which developed in Germany after the War is still strong. Germany clearly faces a difficult task in repairing relations with the United States.

Newshost:
David asks: If Saddam is ousted isn't Iraq likely to fracture in the same way as Yugoslavia?

Paul Reynolds:
David, this is often the fear but it is not totally accepted . Some Iraqis say that Iraqi society is not clearly divided and that economic and class links cut across religion and ethnic divisions so that a fracture is not a foregone conclusion.

Newshost:
Jamie asks: Why have the media portrayed the US and UK as standing alone when both Spain and Italy have shown strong support?

Paul Reynolds:
This is a fair point. It is partly, I suppose, that national media tend to look most closely at what their own government is doing. Also Spain and Italy I believe are currently not on the Security Council. If there is a war I am sure their support will be highlighted.

Newshost:
Prashant asks: If Iraq does use nuclear/chemical weapons doesn't the theory of mutually assured destruction prevent him from using them?

Paul Reynolds:
This again is the policy of deterrence I referred to earlier. By the way, he has no nuclear bomb it is thought so could not use one. If he used chemical or biological weapons, his fate would be sealed.

Newshost:
Alistair asks: Do you think Russia's motivation to try and find a diplomatic solution to this crisis comes from a humanitarian or a financial reason?

Paul Reynolds:
All governments are influenced by their own economic interest but why should one deny that they have a humanitarian aspect as well. I do not think that Russia would oppose America and that it would hope to help redevelop Iraq itself if Saddam goes.

Newshost:
Stephen asks: How likely is it, in your opinion, that Britain and the US will go it alone without explicit backing in the form of Security Council resolutions from the UN?

Paul Reynolds:
I think the chances of getting a UN resolution are quite high. The US and UK need nine of the fifteen Security Council votes and no vetoes. That could be achieved if it is not they will go alone or with others.

Newshost:
James asks: Is it possible that the US would leave the UN if the UN does not act forcefully enough?

Paul Reynolds:
I do not think the US would leave the UN but it might disregard the UN. Bush is giving the UN a chance but would not react favourably if the UN turned him down.

Newshost:
Christian asks: You said earlier that this is not about oil, yet Iraq has the second largest reserves in the Middle East - is there no coincidence?

Paul Reynolds:
If Saddam did not present a threat there would be no threat of war against him. Of course oil is a factor but it is in my view not the main factor.

Newshost:
M Kane asks: Does the dossier have to be convincing - after all attacks against Afghanistan were launched after the flimsiest of dossiers.

Paul Reynolds:
This document is more detailed. Some will find it compelling - others will not find it conclusive. It makes many assertions and has new detail but in the final analysis, if you don't believe it you will reject it.

Newshost:
Michael asks: Would a war in Iraq produce heavy casualties?

Paul Reynolds:
The hope is that there could be a relatively quick operation. The latest thinking is to go for the Iraqi government and leadership, not the people. But intentions in war are not always carried through and the risk remains of civilian casualties. But America is so powerful so maybe it would be over quickly.

Newshost:
A J asks: How factual is the dossier?

Paul Reynolds:
The dossier says it is factual. One has to take a lot of it on trust because intelligence sources are not revealed. Some of it is interpretative in that Saddam's motives are analysed but it is mainly factual.

Newshost:
Kerouac asks: Is there a link between close US election and the need to reinforce national cohesion in the US?

Paul Reynolds:
I think it is quite convenient that this issue has come up in the mid-term of George Bush's four years of office - or should I say first four years. Iraq had been put on the shelf after 9/11 and has now been taken down. The timing is certainly interesting but there are other factors as well. The end of the war in Afghanistan is one of them.

Newshost:
Neil asks: Would a war without UN support not make it more likely for the US to be open to terrorist attacks?

Paul Reynolds:
I think this is very true and this may well happen. It may explain why George Bush is trying to work through the UN - with UN support he could deflect this kind of argument.

Newshost:
John asks: Would the coalition against Iraq seek to capture Saddam or simply kill him? Would they try and make him stand for war crimes?

Paul Reynolds:
It depends on the circumstances. If he surrendered with his arms up he would have to be taken prisoner. There is a group called INDICT which wants him put on trial like Milosevic. The fact is we don't know what would happen to him. The Americans are more interested in removing him from power.