<% ballot="31752" ' Check nothing is broken broken = 0 if ballot = "" then broken = 1 end if set vt = Server.Createobject("mps.Vote") openresult = vt.Open("Vote", "sa", "") ' Created object? if IsObject(vt) = TRUE then ' Opened db? if openresult = True AND broken = 0 then ballotresult = vt.SetBallotName(ballot) ' read the vote votetotal=(vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes")+vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no")) if votetotal <> 0 then ' there are votes in the database numberyes = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes") numberno = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no") percentyes = Int((numberyes/votetotal)*100) percentno = 100 - percentyes ' fix graph so funny graph heights dont appear 'if percentyes = 0 then ' percentyes = 1 'end if 'if percentno = 0 then ' percentno = 1 'end if else ' summut went wrong frig it numberyes = 0 numberno = 0 percentyes = 50 percentno = 50 end if end if end if %> Votes so far:

100% 0%			>		>
			Yes: <% =percentyes %>%		No: <% =percentno %>%

Man-portable weapons of mass destruction change the nature of the threat. If those weapons are used against a US city, the understanding of the threat will surely become clear to all. In the case of attributable attacks, retaliation is not a credible option, much less a deterrent. See what I mean?
Jim Hyde, USA

The reality is that there is no appetite for a violent response to Iraq's barring of US inspectors within the Arab states. This was borne out by Ms Albright's recent unsuccessful trip. Any violent reaction by the US/UK to Sadam's latest manoeuverings will be seen by many in the Middle East as further western interference and could breed the kind of extremist violence we witnessed in Luxor on Monday. Let's give diplomacy one more chance.
Keith McCabe, UK

In a way I agree that a dictator like Saddam should be removed with force if necessary, but I am not so pleased with the way America and Britain seem to be trying to push Saddam into making the first move. The longer we wait, the harder it gets.
James Milmine, United Kingdom

One effective approach to resolving this and future situations of this kind would be to destroy any installation that UN weapons inspectors are not allowed into, after a very short warning period of perhaps twelve to twenty four hours.
Thomas O' Conner, United States

Iraq is right to complain about the US dominance within the UN inspections team, the Yankees are, in effect, dictating them at the moment. This however is an internal issue for the UN to resolve. It would make more sense to send an inspection team composed of equal numbers of inspectors from the security members of the UN (I am afraid I cannot remember all the members, save for the UK, US, China, France, and Russia), unless of course qualified inspectors from their respective countries, which, although improbable, is understandable. If however Iraq does attack one of the allies, I am fully behind a military counter attack by the allies. Naturally one would rather seek a peaceful alternative to the Iraqi situation, if they are to provoke the allies the should recieve the wrath of the allies. Iraq should take to heart the boxing maxim that one must be prepared to take a punch if one intends to throw one.
Jonny Starling, Canada

National sovereignty within a globe of nations requires responsible behaviour by all. The threat of mass destruction has to be checked. If Hussein has nothing to hide, why is he trying so hard?
Eric le Roux, South Africa

As a veteran I understand the need to stop the madmen of the world. What if Hitler had been controlled earlier maybe millions would have survived.
Garry Lowery, USA

The Americans have the most experience in the fields of NBC warfare (possibly excluding the Czech chemical teams), and to exclude them would seriously compromise the effectiveness of the mission, and so must not be allowed. I believe that Iraq may well step back from the brink, as has happened before. It is possible that they intended to use this dispute to increase their income from the oil for food program, or to gain other diplomatic advantages.
Max Hammond, United Kingdom

Military strikes would be cruel to the ordinary & innocent people of Iraq. Why don't the UN ask the US to back down and replace their weapon inspectors with those from more "neutral" countries. Aren't there any more "experts" in this world to do just that?
Harry Soehartojo, Malaysia

I served in the war zone during the Gulf War. Force is the only method to convince Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors free passage. We must not allow him the opportunity to continue to develop and amass weapons of mass destruction.
Tim Wallis, England

Before I make my mind up, I would like to hear the real facts i.e what happens when or if we take out Saddam Hussein? Could we have Muslim fundamentalist running the country? And if we kept the population starving and with limited medical supplies, are we going to have all the Arab counties against us?
John Dean, UK

The Iraq regime is a fanatical power that has one ulterior motive. That motive (together with other similar regimes) is to dominate peaceful communities by terror. Iraq seemingly has the money and intent to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has used his arsenal previously on his own people.
Since Nato has the resources available to prevent him bullying other communities - let us prevent him doing it and in the process avert the crisis escalating to a potential World War 3.
Lee Pilling, Scotland

The trouble is that anything short of deposing Saddam will simply result in the people of Iraq continuing to suffer, not Saddam; and of course, should he be deposed, we can expect an internecine blood bath that makes Bosnia look comparitively restrained.
Therion Ware, Malaysia

Regrettably, I see no other option, but to severely reprimand Saddam Hussein (i.e. Iraq). We cannot allow him to develop any, I repeat, ANY form of chemical or biological weapons!!!
He must not be allowed to destroy life on this planet... I pray & beseech any and all Gods, to help us save this unique and special planet.
Megan Martin, USA

In a civilised world it is far too regrettable that force is even thought of. However, we do not always live in such a world, and it seems Mr. Hussein certainly does not.
David Wright, USA

We all saw what the outcome of the Gulf War was and any human being in his right state of mind would not want to see such a showdown happen again. I think the best way out is to reach a diplomatic settlement to the current crisis.
Let the UN go ahead with their weapons inspections - the Americans in the team - but let also the Iraqi people get what they deserve in life.
Abu Bakar Bah, Canada

It seems to me that the real problem facing the west is the lack of widespread support for a military solution. Would it be better to wait for Saddam to make the first move?
Jerry Hart, Glasgow, Scotland

Iraq has been playing 'cat-and-mice' all these days and the game must stop. This is the right time to put an end to all of Saddam's tricks and teach him a good lesson!! The world should unite against Saddam and his country.
Sulove Bothra, India

Any aggression without the approval of the UN will only reinforce the negative bullying image Saddam and Mr. Aziz have been attempting to promote.
At this point the main concern of both the US and Britain should be forcing Saddam to comply with UN resolutions rather than acknowledge the individual sovereignty of the United States. The aggressive rhetoric and threats of continued U2 flights only serve to bait the wolf.
Nathan Leonard, USA

US Oil companies are particularly active in the region (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia), with the best chance of them operating acreage being where national security is an issue.
The allies could have eradicated the threat from Saddam Hussein at any time since 1990. However, it is in their interests for his threat to persist, and shouting matches like the current activity also serves to provide foreign policy points for the Western Governments.
Geoff Freer, Australia

It is extremely difficult for the British and US Governments to steer events towards a peaceful conclusion.
Right now the UN is a frustrated adult caught up in the machinations of a truly disruptive 'child'. A united show of force in the Gulf by the UN may make a difference
Barry Griffiths, London

I am sick and tired of hearing the phrase "international community." This is a dispute between the US, UK and Israel on one side and Iraq as the Pretended leader of the Arabs on the other side.
Russ Greene, US

The United States and United Kingdom must take the lead role in stopping terrorism and tyrants around the world. The responsibilities of leadership are often difficult, but that willingness to stand up to Saddam is what separates us from many nations.
David Weldon, US

No matter how much one despises Saddam, one must give credit to him for outsmarting the Americans and the British.
He must not be allowed to keep or develop weapons of mass destruction, one wonders how the USA and British going to prevent it from happening, now they have pulled out the inspectors from Iraq.
What credibility do the two leading antagonists of Iraq namely USA and British have when they totally ignore the weapons of mass destruction possessed by Israel?
Naveed Khan, USA

I'm really surprised that USA & UK are taking this attitude against Iraq. To my knowledge, Israel has a nuclear power , but no one dares raising a voice about that, even if they did very unlikely that it will bother Israel.
Please, start thinking about Iraq as a nation not as Saddam. You do not treat Germany or Japan with what they've done in the past.
I. Abou-Zeid, U.K.

If we are to support any action against Iraq on the grounds that they have weapons of mass destruction, then we must advocate the same action against all countries having these weapons. The focus should be particularly on countries which have demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons (nuclear, chemical e.g. agent orange) - I can only think of one.
If action is based on Iraq's activities in controlling its neighbours freedom and forms of government, then the same rule must apply and we must consider actions taken against Cuba, El Salvadore, Nicaragua and so on.
Ian Honeywood, US/UK

Sanctions do not work over a long period of time. They did not change Cuba and they will not change Iraq. The UN should trade elimination of sanctions for a specific period of detailed monitoring.
Does the US or any other country have the right to choose the leadership of another country, by force or any other means? Are diplomatic talks at the UN just a prerequisite before a country uses force to attain its objective?
Will Soong, US

This is gangster logic coming from a so-called left government. While most other countries have opposed the use of force the US and Britain are taking matters into their own hands in threatening to violate Iraq's sovereignty and use force to resolve the question. There have been six resolutions condemning the US's illegal blockade of Cuba yet of course no one is suggesting an armed strike against the US.
Roger Nettleship, UK

According to the UN hundreds of thousands have already died as a result of UN sanctions, many of those children.
It was obvious after the first war with Iraq, that there would be a sequel: we are on a dangerous road that we need to get off. We could just end up destabilising the region, and that could eventually lead to a World War. "There never was a good war, nor for that matter a bad peace."
Ed Manning, UK

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage	©