Skip to main content Text Only version of this page
BBC
Home
TV
Radio
Talk
Where I Live
A-Z Index
Games
Games
Chat
Chat
Vote
Vote
Win
Win
Quiz
Quiz
Club
Club
 Homepage
 UK
 World
 Sport
 Music
 TV/Film
 Animals
 Sci/Tech
 Weather
 Pictures
 Find Out
 The Team

Contact Us
Help
Teachers





  Interactive debate on Iraq
Updated 13 February 2003, 11.28

In our special interactive debate, we gave you the chance to discuss the possible war in Iraq.

Press Packers Dan and Shaz debated whether war should happen. Lizo heard your questions, and put them to our expert BBC reporter, Martin.

Watch Iraq debateWatch Iraq debate

Or scroll down to read it:

Lizo:
So let's start with our Press Packers - Shaz who's in favour of war. Now let's have a look at some of Shaz's main points and what he thinks of Saddam Hussein.

Shaz:
He bullies his people and has started wars against two other countries in the region - Kuwait and Iran. Iraq probably has weapons of mass destruction. Empty rocket shells and lines to carry chemicals have been found in the country. President Bush you're not the enemy, you're just trying to help. Few people wanted him to go into Afghanistan but look how he helped get rid of the Taleban.

Lizo:
So tell us Shaz, why do you want war?

Shaz:
Well Saddam Hussein has basically terrorised his own people and those of other countries. He's bullied them and he's done bad things in the past. Also Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction, I feel it's best if we attack first rather than they attack us or we'll suffer.

Lizo:
Now do you find you're on your own with all your friends - what do they think?

Shaz:
I think in general most of them think that the war shouldn't go ahead, they all have their own reasons but I think I'm one of the few people who thinks there should be a war.

Lizo:
Well we've got Farrah on the line who wants to make a point. Farrah what do you want to say?

Farrah:
This is for the for bombing Iraq. Do you think it's fair that millions of people's lives are going to get ruined and war is doing this - it's a feud between three people not three million. Do you think that's fair?

Shaz:
Well obviously the people in Iraq should be allowed to evacuate the country within the time, so while the weapons inspectors are carrying out their reports and publishing the actual final report I feel that the people should leave the country and by then few people will get injured and the people that are actually fighting the war should stay in Iraq.

Lizo:
Thanks for that very much and thanks for your call Farrah. Now we've got Dan who's against war. Let's have a look at Dan's main points.

Dan:
If the United Nations let in a war it would create two million refugees who would flee to neighbouring countries which would struggle to look after them. If we attack Iraq the consequences will be disastrous - millions of innocent people will be caught up in the fighting and many are likely to die from hunger and disease. There is no strong evidence that Iraq has illegal weapons. They've allowed weapons inspectors into the country and they haven't come across anything substantial.

Lizo:
Well Dan most children seem to agree with you, according to our survey. Why do you think that is?

Dan:
Well most of them would see how bad the war would be and how many people it would kill - innocent people.

Lizo:
Well thanks very much for that, we'll be coming back to both of you later on in today's interactive debate.

Now we've got Martin Asser who's our BBC expert with us here. Now Martin tell us we've got questions coming in from lots of different people. Zara is 11 from Manchester. She says: "Why did America actually make war with Iraq before?" Was this back in the 1990s?

Martin Asser:
In 1991. Well in 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait, which is the neighbouring country to the south of Iraq. And America, afterwards, got together a large coalition of lots of different countries and they sent a big force down to Kuwait and they expelled the Iraqis from the country. Lots of people think that they should have actually gone to Baghdad and unseated the Iraqi regime then - Saddam Hussein's leadership - but they didn't do that, that wasn't their remit.

Lizo:
Now so what do our Press Packers think of that - were we right to go to war before? Now Dan you're against war this time around - do you think we were right to go war before with Iraq?

Dan:
No I don't think that you can ever justify a war really. I think that you can almost always find a better way around.

Lizo:
But they did invade another country - they weren't going to move, I mean what was the best way to actually get round that then?

Dan:
Well possibly removing just Saddam Hussein and his regime and then possibly the troops, the Iraqi troops would have moved of their own accord or you could have pressured them to move on.

Lizo:
Okay thanks Dan. Shaz, what do you think, were we right to go to war then?

Shaz:
Under these circumstances again I feel we should have gone to war because this was an innocent country that was getting invaded. Now in this war Iraq isn't really an innocent, they may have weapons, but in that war the country that Iraq invaded were innocent and so the US did have a right to go and attack Iraq and get rid of them.

Lizo:
But you know Dan made a good point there and maybe there were other means of actually trying to oust the people from Kuwait last time round?

Shaz:
Well Saddam is an evil man, obviously he'll not listen to people, he leads his own force. So I think the Americans needed to equal that force, even increase the force they used to get rid of Saddam.

Lizo:
Okay thanks Shaz and Dan. Now we've had another question in from Amethyst, she's from Washington in the United States of America. She says: "Why exactly are we going to have a war anyway, George Bush seems to have changed his mind several times - first it was a war on terrorism, then it was a war with the Taleban in Afghanistan, then the war with Osama bin Laden - what is it now and is war the only thing that can solve all this?

Martin Asser:
Well that's a very good question. The Americans say that this war is all about weapons of mass destruction - that's biological weapons, that's diseases which can be spread as a weapon amongst civilian population and chemical weapons which they say they have and they say that they're developing a nuclear programme - nuclear weapons. Now do we believe it? We haven't seen a great deal of evidence that necessarily these weapons exist in Iraq. We have the Americans word for it. The Iraqis say we don't have any such weapons. But that really is what the war ostensibly, openly, is about. Other people have other theories that the Americans are trying to dominate the Middle East region, that they're trying to get hold of the oil in the Middle East, so there are lots of questions about why this war is happening and why it's happening now.

Lizo:
Yeah that's an interesting point. We've got Sarah on the line - Sarah what do you think?

Sarah:
Well I think that the whole intention of war is about the oil situation - the fact that Iraq holds tons of good quality oil that America wants and they need for their growing economy. I think that they're using Saddam Hussein as a reason to go to war as that reason will gain more support from the British and American public and I was wondering whether you believe that the reason for going to war is the one which Bush and Blair stated or whether you believe, like me, that there are more reasons that they haven't expressed to the public?

Lizo:
Martin?

Martin Asser:
Well lots of people agree with the last caller. That's all I can say. They don't trust the Americans. A lot of people point to the days before September 11th when a lot of people in the Bush administration actually had a plan to change the regime in Iraq, that was before 9/11. And they will point to this saying actually the Americans - all they've ever wanted was to unseat Saddam Hussein and of course it was George Bush's father, the current American President, who fought against Iraq in 1991 under the United Nations but many people think it's a personal thing, I'm not sure that's true.

Lizo:
Oh well thanks very much for your call Sara. What about you two - Dan is it all about oil do you think?

Dan:
Yeah I think it's strongly about oil. He would very much like to have the oil simply for power and riches and I think it's considerably more about oil than anything else.

Lizo:
Okay Shaz what do you think - is it all about oil and if it is does that necessarily mean they're doing the wrong thing by going to war?

Shaz:
Well I actually feel it's a war against Saddam, I feel it's a war against a bully who goes around hurting innocent people. People feel that America will be hurting innocent people but Saddam himself has harmed innocent people in the past. So you have to get rid of him. Now I don't feel this is a war on oil, I feel it's a war to get rid of evil.

Lizo:
Okay, thanks very much for that. We've had another question in from Alex who is nine and from Bath. He says: "Why is Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, looking at the prospect of going to war without asking us first?" We have a point of view surely.

Martin Asser:
Why isn't he asking us? Probably because the country would say no, if he did ask us. So what he's doing he's saying to this country we know best, we see the danger of weapons of mass destruction that the Iraqis are believed to have or at least that our government and that the American government believe the Iraqis have. And he's saying since those weapons are there we're afraid of them, it's an unstable regime, he could give the weapons to terrorists like the people who carried out the September 11th attacks and then who knows what would happen. That could be happening in your town, in my town and so we have to protect ourselves. So the country doesn't believe that yet. When you look at polls, your callers here probably don't believe it, as far as we can tell, certainly when they do polls amongst the general population of the United Kingdom people, a large proportion of people, say let's not go to war unless the United Nations sanctions it, which hasn't happened yet. A lot of people who are against the war will be going to a march on Sunday, I think it is, in London - Saturday or Sunday I'm not sure - and they will put their point of view on the streets. So maybe the Prime Minister will have to listen to them.

Lizo:
But it's this issue of weapons of mass destruction, whether they're there or not and what should be done if they are that's the key to all this at the moment, that's key to the support from the United Nations isn't it and from other countries. Now we've got Ciara on the phone from Twickenham, Ciara what's your question?

Ciara:
If they find any weapons of mass destruction what would happen to those weapons - would any be kept for England and America?

Martin Asser:
No they'd all be destroyed. After the first Gulf War in 1991 Iraq promised or it was made to promise not to have any weapons of mass destruction. And if it is true that they do still have weapons of mass destruction those should be handed over to the United Nations and destroyed.

Lizo:
Okay Ciara thanks very much for your call. A quick one word answer: do you believe Dan that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?

Dan:
Yeah probably.

Lizo:
Okay and Shaz?

Shaz:
I agree with Dan.

Lizo:
So you both think that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction in your opinion but you both think we should do different things about them? Okay. Now our next question is from David who's in Gloucestershire. He said: If America isn't just going at Iraq for oil what other reasons could there be?" I mean is there anything else other than weapons of mass destruction, I mean do they want to see somebody else in the Middle East there dominating things?

Martin Asser:
Well they don't say that, they said all about weapons and it's all about the threat which Iraq poses to us here in Britain, in America, all over the world.

Lizo:
But do we really believe that?

Martin Asser:
Well we don't know. They have the intelligence, the governments have the intelligence, they know what is going on or we hope they know what's going on. We can't really tell because we're not there, we're not in the minds of the Iraqi leadership so we don't know what they're doing. There might be other reasons for the Americans going to war, we've mentioned the repeat of the last Gulf War when George Bush's father didn't unseat Saddam Hussein, other people think that the Americans are trying to dominate the Middle East region. They have an unstable regime in Iraq which causes lots of the American allies in the region - countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait - it causes them to fear that instability will come to them from Iraq. So the Americans - they have a momentum after the Afghanistan operation and it could be that they're just moving from one big operation to get rid of the Taleban, which was again another very unstable regime in the Middle East that was threatening America's friends and now they're moving on to Iraq to deal with that situation.

Lizo:
Okay thanks very much Martin. We've had lots of e-mails coming in. Laura who's 13 from Southampton says: "How is war justified? How is the murder of people and animals justified? As you can see I'm very anti-war, I just want to know why people think war is okay." And Amy from Manchester who's 12 agrees with her. She says: "Will bombing really solve anything, think about mass murder - that's really going to help all the bad that's in the world, why do you need this war?" But on the other side of things we have Fiona who's 12 from Chester, she says: "This is the person who's for war - do you think that by going into a war with Iraq that all the problems over there will be solved?" So she's actually for war but do you think that all the problems will be solved by going to war?

Shaz:
Yeah I think the problems will be problems. First of all Saddam will be got rid of and then we can have a new government, like in Afghanistan how they got rid of the Taleban, they had a new government put in and it's all peaceful there now - women can go to school and everything, it's going well.

Lizo:
Okay Dan what do you think - does the end justify the means - if a new regime put into Iraq if we do go to war would that be a better thing for the people of Iraq even if you don't agree by the means we got there?

Dan:
Well I think a better - I think a new regime would definitely be better but I don't think war is in any way the way to get there.

Lizo:
Okay thanks very much. Let's have another question from Alex who's 14 from Cheltenham. He says: "George Bush seems so pro-war but lots of other European countries are anti-war. I think Bush is just trying to challenge Iraq the only ways he knows how by war." Is he an aggressive person like this and what is the real situation in Europe - it all seems a bit of a mess at the moment from his point of view?

Martin Asser:
Well I can't say what George Bush is like but certainly September 11th changed everything. We had an isolationist President who thought America could pretty much do things by itself, was hit devastatingly on the 11th September and so he realised that he had to have people helping him, other countries behind him. But this war against - or possible war against Iraq is causing a very deep split between the country which most supports war in Europe, which is the United Kingdom, other countries also support it like Spain and some of the countries in the former Soviet Union, they also are very pro-war or the possibility of war to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction. But then there are also countries that are acting against it like France and Russia ...

Lizo:
Germany ...

Martin Asser:
Well France might eventually come round to waging a war if there's another - if there is justification, they want to give the weapons inspectors a bit more time.

Lizo:
What about people like Germany and Belgium?

Martin Asser:
Well Germany is against the war, full stop. They've said that the war really shouldn't take place and the way to pursue this is, really like Dan's point - that there are other ways of containing Iraq and dealing with Iraq's weapons, i.e. diplomacy and weapons inspections. So there is a deep split and the harder the Americans push - they want to push France and Russia in the Security Council at the United Nations to give backing for a war and the French and the Russians are saying well no, don't push us, don't push us because we might have to use a veto in the Security Council - they can veto legislation, they can say ...

Lizo:
And that would mean that the United Nations wouldn't give the United States the support to go to war?

Martin Asser:
Exactly, exactly.

Lizo:
Okay, just very briefly, so who are the main power brokers there, who can make the decisions about what will happen and influence the United States possibly?

Martin Asser:
Well you've got Britain working for the United States, trying to help the United States to get a new resolution and they're really pushing on the French and the Russians, in particular, to allow it, not to use their veto. And what the Americans are saying and what the British are saying is that if France or Russia uses the veto that's it, that's the end of the United Nations as a world body which can decide these things because they're saying it's your own legislation which says Iraq mustn't have weapons, so if there's no agreement then the United Nations might be finished as a useful body but then maybe they shouldn't be pushing the French and Russians so hard, I don't know.

Lizo:
So it's a game of wait and see at the moment - what happens to those countries. Okay. Let's go to the phones. We've got Kate on the phone from Edinburgh. Kate what's your point?

Kate:
Does Tony Blair actually want war because he says at some moments that he doesn't and then at other moments he says that we stand shoulder to shoulder with America who obviously do?

Lizo:
What does Tony Blair think, do we know?

Martin Asser:
Well that's a very good question. What would happen tomorrow if the Iraqis opened all of their suitcases with weapons and said look here are the weapons, we now no longer have everything? Would Britain and America want a war? I'm not sure. The Americans do, they want a regime change. Britain says it doesn't have a policy of regime change. So really what the British are doing, what Tony Blair is doing, is he's sticking very closely to what the United Nations should be doing and that is disarming Iraq. So that's his view. Does he want a war? I'm sure he doesn't, I think if there was a chance of this being settled in another way probably he would say to himself - no let's settle it another way. But the Americans they've been pushing very hard for war and he's their biggest ally.

Lizo:
Okay we've got some text messages that have been coming in. The first one's from Liana, she says: "Why does Blair have to follow Bush? Aren't we in effect just interfering and asking for trouble." And Jo from Dorset, she's 14, says: "I don't see the point in war, it just kills people, it doesn't help anyone." Very quickly from our press packers here - what do you think of Tony Blair - has he been doing a good job or a bad job so far in leading us towards the right decision? Dan?

Dan:
Very bad job. I mean it's supposed to be a democracy but he's going outright against his people.

Lizo:
He hasn't declared war yet though has he?

Dan:
Well he's suggested that he wants to and he's following America strongly in this.

Lizo:
And you don't agree with that. Excellent. Shaz?

Shaz:
I feel he's reacted well, especially after September 11th - he's worried about whether there'd be another attack. So the way he's gone about this is very well done.

Lizo:
Really? But if the country doesn't agree with him?

Shaz:
Yes, I mean he isn't there to bomb innocent people, he's there to disarm Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein.

Lizo:
Alright excellent, thank you very much you two. Let's go to the phones. We've got Charlotte from Buckinghamshire. Charlotte, tell us what your question is.

Charlotte:
If we do go to war with Iraq will this not just provoke more terrorists attacks?

Lizo:
Yeah, thank you for that Charlotte, yeah that's a big worry isn't it with people, are we actually asking for more trouble over here?

Martin Asser:
I think what the Americans and the British are hoping is that it will be over quickly, that Saddam Hussein, who's been a problem for the region, for the whole world for not just the years since the Gulf War but for 30 years in the case of the Iraqis, that he will be gone and that people will say with hindsight oh actually it was quite a good idea because we've improved the situation. So that's if it goes well for them. If it goes badly for them then people in this country will probably be more angry about what the Government has done.

Lizo:
Natalie, 11, from Stockport has sent us an e-mail, she says: "If there was a war on Iraq would it affect me?" How would it affect children in this country, that's the big worry for them isn't it?

Martin Asser:
Well we hope it won't affect anyone in this country. What is being talked about at the moment is the link between Iraq and possible terrorist elements in this country. The Government is pushing this very strongly, the Americans are pushing this very strongly, this supposed link. We have no prove of a link really, not yet, maybe there's little soundings that suggest something might be going on but really there's no big smoking gun, to use this Commons phrase, to say there is a link. So I don't think we're necessarily talking about a terrorist act taking place in this country, I also don't think that the Iraqis are able to attack us in the same way that we're able to attack them with our massive fleets and aircraft carriers in that the Iraqis don't have that, they don't have missiles that can reach us. So really I think it's our responsibility in this country to come to an informed decision about the war, whether we believe that it should take place or whether we believe that it shouldn't and make our voice known so that the people in charge listen to us.

Lizo:
Right, more e-mails coming in. We've got Afram from Hexham who's 10 saying: "Loads of countries have weapons of mass destruction, why pick on Iraq?" Assuming Iraq does have these weapons which of course we don't know for sure.

Martin Asser:
Well after the Gulf War Iraq said that it wouldn't hold weapons of mass destruction anymore, that was the ceasefire agreement. So there are other countries which probably have weapons of mass destruction - a country like Israel probably has dozens of nuclear weapons and it's never signed any international treaty to prevent nuclear proliferation. So the Israelis, they have the weapons, but they're not breaking any rules really by having them whereas of course the Iraqis are.

Lizo:
Isn't this just bringing more people out to say well it must be about oil then?

Martin Asser:
Well I don't know. I think Iraq has used weapons of mass destruction, that we all know about, they've gassed their own people, they've used poisoned gas against their neighbours. And this is a big issue. Of course would they use it again? Well they might only use it if they're attacked. So these are very fraught questions and we can't really answer them until we see how the next few weeks play out.

Lizo:
We'll come back to weapons of mass destruction in a moment. We've got the latest update on our vote - 3 or 400 of you have voted and 16 per cent are for war, 80 per cent are against, at the moment, so we'll keep you updated on that throughout the programme. But staying with the weapons of mass destruction - gas, biological, nuclear weapons - Michelle, who's 11 from Huddersfield, says: "I watched a programme on television and was quite shocked by the effects that nuclear weapons could have. Is there a good chance of Saddam Hussein having these kind of weapons, if so do you think he's going to use them?"

Martin Asser:
What the experts say is that Iraq probably, at the moment, does not have a nuclear weapon. I think what the e-mailer was talking about was a radiological weapon, which is different to a nuclear weapon, that's a weapon where you blow up something radioactive and spread radioactivity over a large area which then makes it uninhabitable. But it's not like a thermonuclear device which actually blows a huge hole in the ground and destroys everything for tens of miles from the point of impact. So I think probably what's at stake in Iraq is not a nuclear conflict. However, the Americans might use nuclear weapons if the Iraqis use weapons of mass destruction against the Americans. And of course Israel has threatened to use its nuclear weapons if rockets from Iraq reach Israel with poison gas on them.

Lizo:
Okay Shaz what do you think about that? Is it worth going to war if it could actually end up in this huge escalation with people using nuclear weapons on each other, isn't that too high a price to pay?

Shaz:
Yeah I think nuclear weapons aren't the right way but I do feel that the army, airforce should get involved. Nuclear weapons have repercussions for decades, like Chernobyl - if they drop a nuclear weapon - I know Chernobyl wasn't an attack but it could be ...

Lizo:
An accident at a nuclear station.

Shaz:
Yeah, if they drop a nuclear bomb and then they'll be a big nuclear aftermath, generations would still have radioactivity, they might even suffer from cancer.

Lizo:
Is that a reason for not going to war then in case nuclear weapons do end up being used at some point?

Shaz:
Yeah I don't think war should happen with nuclear weapons, that is one of the anit-war things.

Martin Asser:
If I can just add. It's used as a deterrent - they're not saying we're definitely going to do this, it's not part of their war plan, it's a deterrent. Before the last Gulf War there were secret meetings and the Americans said look if you gas us we will nuke you - in blunt terms.

Lizo:
That's pretty high stakes going for play though isn't it?

Martin Asser:
But that is the reason why the Iraqis didn't use any of there weapons of mass destruction in the last Gulf War in 1991. So again the Americans and the Israelis might be just saying this, saying don't mess with us, if you have these weapons, we say you have got these weapons, don't use them against us.

Lizo:
Very briefly, so what do you think of nuclear weapons - are they an effective deterrent to war, should we have them?

Dan:
I think that not just Iraq should disarm nuclear weapons, I think everyone should disarm nuclear weapons. I think that if you were to go to war then that would just trigger Iraq to use them and I don't think anyone should be allowed to use nuclear weapons.

Lizo:
But if having nuclear weapons actually stops people going to war surely that's something you would agree with?

Dan:
Well I don't think that nuclear weapons can ever just be considered just a hollow threat and just be taken that lightly.

Lizo:
Okay let's go to the phones. We've got Callum from Whitley Bay on the phone. He wants to know how did the last Gulf War end?

Martin Asser:
Well it ended very well for the Americans and their allies. There was a few weeks bombing campaign and then in four days, I think, they routed the Iraqi army from Kuwait and they drove them back to Baghdad and they lost very few people. It was a disaster for the Iraqi army because people who had been conscripts who had been in the army had been bombed for weeks and they were absolutely in a terrible state after the war and then they went back and there was an uprising in Iraq in fact - a short uprising. So it ended very badly for Iraq and very well for the Americans but they didn't get rid of the root of the problem which is Saddam Hussein who's still there.

Lizo:
Okay we've had more e-mails coming in. Tam from Glasgow says: "I think there shouldn't be a war in Iraq because the people who don't want a war will get hurt and might die and the Iraqis might bomb us." Bianca who's from Brentwood, she's 14, says: "Why should we go to war with Iraq when they did nothing to us? If we want to fight or blame someone we should attack those who cause the pain to us, instead Bush wants to jump to conclusions and probably finish what his father started. Bush needs to find a good reason." People for war, we've got Heather from Inverness, she says: "If Saddam Hussein has the power to wipe us all out with nuclear and biological weapons we should definitely do something about it." And Leah, who's from Pennsylvania in the United States says: "Why are people against a war? I believe that we need to go to war, if we don't go to war Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein will kill more people?" Okay and we've been having lots of e-mails coming in still. Shelley, who's 11, from Manchester says: "Won't the real victims be the children of Iraq if we go to war?"

Martin Asser:
Well I'm afraid the children of Iraq have suffered greatly already. They have a very high level of infant mortality in that country after years of ...

Lizo:
So basically more are dying than anywhere else?

Martin Asser:
Yes that's right. And while one hopes the Americans, when they launch their war, they would attack military bases and the military infrastructure of Iraq, rather than the civilians. But of course when you bomb a country people suffer.

Lizo:
Yeah. I mean let's look to the future. Daisy-Leigh, who's 9, from Bath says: "If Saddam Hussein does go who do you think the Iraqi torch will pass to - who will be in charge of that country?" And I suppose that depends how he goes as well very briefly.

Martin Asser:
That's one of the scary things about this we don't know and we don't think the Americans have got a firm plan, or if they have they're not telling us about it. And they say they want to introduce democracy, so everyone gets to vote for their leader. But will it happen in a country that's been ruled by a totalitarian regime for such a long time? Hard to say.

Lizo:
So Sadie, who's 10, from Bath wants to know how the war will end if we do go to war? Does that mean we just don't know?

Martin Asser:
Well the result of the war is not in doubt because America is very strong, with Britain's help it's even stronger. Iraq is very weak. It's not in a state of readiness to fight a war. So the war actually will be - at least the result is not in doubt. Saddam Hussein will almost certainly be unseated, he will be made to leave.

Lizo: So why is he putting himself in this position if he knows he can't win if the world does go to war against him?

Martin Asser: Well he's looking now and he's seeing splits between the major powers over whether or not to go to war, so he will exploit that to stay in power.

Lizo: He's done well so far hasn't he.

Martin Asser:
Well I'm sure many Iraqis think that but yes he certainly is persistent, he has staying power.

Lizo: And what do you think will happen if we do go to war eventually in Iraq, Shaz?

Shaz: I think that the actual offenders who might use these weapons against America and Britain may get killed and that's a good thing and Saddam might be defeated.

Lizo: What do you think will happen if we do go to war - how do you think it will all end?

Dan: I think if we do go to war then Saddam Hussein will probably be unseated but also thousands of innocent people would die, including children and there are other ways, so it's not a good price.

Lizo: Okay, let's go to the phones. Duvia from the West Midlands - what's your point?

Duvia:
Well I think that there shouldn't be a war because even though you're killing your enemies you're killing other people's loved ones as well.

Lizo: Thanks very much for that Duvia. We've had another e-mail coming in from Nora who's 12 from Surrey. She says: "I'm Iraqi but have lived in England all my life. I think there will always be wars if Saddam stays president because he doesn't realise how much he's destroying Iraq but I also think that punishing Iraqis just because of Saddam and what he's doing is wrong." Okay thanks very much for that Nora and thanks for that on the phone Duvia.

Now to finish we've got some texts that have been sent in for Dan And Shaz supporting their individual views. So if you want to read them out, starting with you Dan?

Dan:
"I think Saddam is an evil man and should be stopped but in another way - not war." From Alex in Milton Keynes.

Shaz: I've got one from Cameron in Charlotte, USA. "I think we should go to war with Iraq because they have the capability to wage war with America and arm their allies. They have biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and they're threatening us and we should go to war with them.

Lizo: That's it for this very first Newsround interactive debate, we hope you enjoyed it and found it useful. See you again soon. Thanks to all our guests, thanks very much bye.

More InfoBORDER=0
Find OutFind out about Iraq
ChatShould we go to war with Iraq?
VoteVote: war with Iraq?
QuizDo you know about Iraq?

BORDER=0


 


E-mail this page to a friend



Full Chat Section
Also in Hotseat now:
In the Hotseat: Laura
Astronaut Michael Foale in the hotseat!
Interactive bullying special
Conflict with Iraq
Full Extras section
Conflict with Iraq
MAIN REPORT
WATCH THIS EXTRA
YOUR COMMENTS
NEWS INDEX
INTERACTIVE DEBATE
PICTURE GALLERY
VOTE
PRESS PACK
NEARBY COUNTRIES
QUIZ
Our webchat with Rings actor Andy Serkis Gollum answers YOUR questions
Today's quickfire quiz How well do you know today's news?
Harry Potter Your guide to Harry Potter
© BBC Back to top^^
Homepage | UK | World | Sport | Music | TV/Film | Animals | Sci/Tech | Weather
Pictures | Find Out | The Team | Games | Chat | Vote | Win | Quiz | Club