Sydney Johannesburg Tel Aviv Bethlehem Delhi Beijing Moscow London Washington Baghdad Sao Paulo

Front page | In-depth | World | Conflict with Iraq


Pratima Yadav
There should definitely not be a war against Iraq. War should be a last resort. Any other option is better than war. Issues can be solved by discussions and settlement.

In war there are many people who are innocent, who do not contribute to the wrongdoings.

If Saddam Hussein is hiding something, it's not the nation that is hiding it. Innocent people suffer. These issues are diplomatic and should be resolved through politics.

Joyita Roy
The United States should not go to war against Iraq. World economic conditions would suffer. The markets would suffer. The price of oil would go up.

I'm not frightened of Saddam Hussein, but I'm frightened of war and I'm frightened of chemical weapons. What should be done about Saddam Hussein? I have no answer.

Rajender Thakur
There shouldn't be a war. War would hit those developing countries like India that import a lot of oil.

The United States has a bossy attitude. It doesn't have any concrete proof, so what's the logic of going to war? The US has oil interests in the region - that's why they are going to war.

The weapons inspectors should be given more time. If they find anything, then there should be more sanctions.

Arun Goyal
I don't think the US has any right whatsoever to attack any other nation just because it thinks the other country has weapons of mass destruction.

If President Bush could give rational proof to show that Iraq is so dangerous, then perhaps, yes, there should be some action against Iraq - but not by one nation. It should be justified by all countries.

No one nation has the right to spoil the integrity of any other nation. But if the United Nations believes there should be action, then there should be action.

© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy Search Help | Feedback