 Prince Turki al-Faisal |
Click here to watch this edition of our global phone-in programme, Talking Point.
Or click here for an audio-only version
Saudi Arabia has said UN support is needed in any US led attack on Iraq. It says that unilateral military action by the US would appear as an "act of aggression".
Will the Saudis support a US-led war in Iraq if there isn't a UN resolution authorising the use of force? Would it allow the use of US bases in Saudi Arabia? What is its position on the war on terror?
Our guest on Talking Point was the Saudi ambassador to the UK, HRH Prince Turki al-Faisal.
Read some of your earlier comments and questions below.
Is it not the case that more democracy in the Islamic world will lead to less terrorism?
Oscar Franklin, Chatham UK
I believe this war is not against Arabs or Muslims but to wash away terrorists. Don't you think that regime change in Iraq can save lives in and outside Iraq?
Peterson Ssendi, Kampala, Uganda , East Africa Why does Saudi Arabia continue to deny that it is a breeding ground for Islamist fundamentalism? Participation of Saudi nationals in terrorist attacks (September 11th for example) and the provision of funds by popular Saudi public support to terrorist organisations must surely give the ruling family reason to take action.
Richard, UK
America's game of bringing the oil wealth under its control started from Afghanistan. It is Iraq next. It was Taliban there. Here it is Saddam. In Saudi it will be somebody tomorrow. India - which is finding rich gas reserves will be amongst the targets in the coming years.
Arif, Hyderabad and India
 |  I can't help fear for my children who will be objects of hatred as they grow up among a global generation of anti-American youth  |
In all the fray of opinion for and against military action in Iraq, I think one of the most important considerations for us as Americans to consider is the overwhelming anti-Americanism that will spring up in years to come. I do recognize the threat from Saddam Hussein, and I do see that the UN has been too passive. And yes, some Security Council members seem to be politicking. But I can't help fear for my children who will be objects of hatred as they grow up among a global generation of anti-American youth. In the end, we must temper the threat by thinking about international perceptions of us as a people, which may not be in *our* best interest, but certainly in our *children's* best interest.
Peter, Seoul, Korea
Saddam is a monster. However there are no such things as absolute good or absolute evil. No country or man is completely innocent. Iraq used gas against Iran, and for the war on Iran it was praised by the West (US included). The US did nothing to stop dictatorships in Latin America, it even sponsored them (where was the US love for democracy?). The UK and France helped create the powder keg in the Middle-east and Africa (along with Germany, Belgium, Italy and many other). The UN is necessary to counter balance the craziness of other countries.
Thomas, Brasil
I would like to address the notion of President Bush's illegitimate election. It is true that Al Gore received more "popular" votes; however our system is an electoral representative system. If you don't like the Electoral College system then change it but until then George W. Bush is as legitimate as George Washington. What's more this democracy insures that he will only be in power for a maximum of eight years. I wish we could say the same about that saint Saddam Hussein and his wonderful system of Government that everyone seems to want to appease.
Brian Shepherd, Salt Lake City, USA
When wars have to be categorized as being "aggressive" (bad), or "implementative" (good), then the world has reached a sorry state. Sadly, I don't believe either side in this conflict - especially the Anglo-American one. Regrettably, I still remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident (a lie that led to a war) and the babies being thrown out of incubators (a lie that precipitated another). Show me the weapons of mass destruction, and then let's decide whether or not the war needs a special name to make it morally correct.
John, Toronto, Canada
Why does Saudi Arabia allow the U.S forces to be located in its Kingdom? Who is Saudi Arabia afraid of and with almost 500 billion dollars in defence spending why does it need somebody else to defend itself.
Ja wed Malik, Laytonsville, Maryland, U.S.A
As a citizen of the US and former soldier I do not agree with a war on Iraq at this time. Invading Iraq seems counterproductive to the "war" on terror. However, Mr. Bush has decided that the time is right for such an attack. Legally, the US does not need UN support. Militarily, the US does not need the UN either. The only question is whether the US needs the UN for political reasons.
John, USA
The best system in the history of mankind for a government was Omar Ibnul Khattab who defeated the two super powers of his time: Rome and Persians. He defeated them not with power but with justice. The US and other powerful countries have power but no justice, which leads to greed and could lead to total destruction of a democracy system.
SAE, Madinah, Saudi Arabia
The whole world believes that Iraq can be disarmed peacefully. There is no rush to go to war now; Saddam is not threatening anybody like North Korea. If the war is last resort, then it should be under UN banner. There is no question of "time is running out". Give peace a chance!
Ansaruddin Rahimi, Nassau, Bahamas
Oil, oil and more oil. That's what this war is about. It's not about Saddam or what he did to his fellow citizens. The US choose to look the other way when Saddam used his chemical weapons, because they needed him against Iran. As far is the Saud family is concerned, they will want to protect their interests and control over the global oil market.
sg, india
If the UN can't see the blindingly obvious about Iraq then the US have no choice but to go in. Besides, the UN inspectors can't even do their job properly. When we see reports on the news we only see them checking the first few inches of materials in barrels. Whereas if you searched underneath that you could find secret documents etc.. So the US should just go in without the UN.
Adam Hall, England
Q: We attack, prevail and there are no weapons of MASS destruction. Are we the policeman that shoots an unarmed citizen?
J Murphy, Harvard,USA
| Bush is not wise enough to admit that Mr. Hussein has already been quite emasculated by the 1991 war |
Bush is not wise enough to admit that Mr. Hussein has already been quite emasculated by the 1991 war. Instead Bush and Rumsfield appear to be seeking vengeance rather than genuine protection for the US. Further, this military atrocity - along with the rest of Bush's policies - is running the US economically into the dark ages. The heroes of the day are those members of the UN who are refusing to knuckle under, and the Catholic and Anglican archbishops of England in their joint statement today, which calls for sanity, restraint, and the greater wisdom of the UN.
L. Payne, USA The Saudi statement is incomplete. War against Iraq with or without UN backing is a war of aggression. There is no such thing as a peaceful war. By its very nature, war is aggressive.
James, Honiara, Solomon Islands
I've lived in Saudi for many years. Suni's treat Shiites and foreigners like slaves. Many end up dead, or stuck in the country doing forced labour. How can anyone take seriously a country which treats stallions better than its women?
Larry Wayne, Vancouver Canada
Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest buyers of weapons in the area. Wouldn't it be better to invest that money in the development of the region instead? Once the oil is gone, what will you have to show for all the squandered wealth?
Paul de Rooij, London UK
On 9/11, the US was the victim of a terrorist attack. It has the right to defend itself! What better way to defend against an attack - masterminded by a Saudi, based in Afghanistan - by bombing Iraq? Emmm...
Tommy Wan, Ayr, Scotland
| No country has a right to declare war simply because it doesn't like regime of another country |
A pre-emptive strike by the US would be illegal under international law & what's more, it would trigger pre-emptive strikes all over the world. No country has a right to declare war on another country simply because it doesn't like that regime. Iraq have never been a threat to the US & UK and it have been contained. If they were that dangerous, why haven't they attacked before now? Why haven't actions been taken against Israel, who have far greater military capabilities than Iraq & who have breached more UN resolutions than Iraq?
Simon Porch, London, UK Can you please ask the Prince - Why Saudi Arabia is not taking the lead role in this crisis instead of inviting the Americans and European nations in to gain the advantage and take over the oil? Saudi Arabia is guardian of the Ka'ba and a powerful force within the Middle East. They should use this status to resolve outstanding issues (such as the Palestinian question) rather than allowing the US to manufacture new problems.
Irfan Sabir, Manchester, UK
The US used the disarmament question just as a prevarication to topple Saddam Hussein. This was just one big show, led by Bush and co. Clearly, the US never ever respected the UN.
TAE, France
Surely what is happening is an example of the inability of the Arab world to police itself. Shouldn't Saudi Arabia have led an Arab movement to depose Saddam Hussein after 1991 due to the damage he has caused to Arab causes and the interests of the Iraqi people in particular?
Nigel Perry, Dubai, UAE
How can Muslims defend a dictator who makes a mockery of their religion and clearly wants nothing else but to aggravate East-West tensions at the expense of his own peoples lives. Is it because the Arab world realise their oil supplies will run dry in the not too distant future and any political unrest that destabilises the current world superpower will increase their chances of being the next?
James O'Rourke, Leeds
Definitely military action by the US would appear as an "act of aggression". without the support of U.N, According to me, the U.S should not misuse its power on the weaker countries, taking lives of an innocent civilians. The rest of the world is silent because, no one can challenge the power of U.S.
VIKAS JHANJI, Pune, India
There should be backing by the UN before any military action is taken against Iraq. But it is clear that Bush has his own agenda, which is oil and a personal vendetta for whatever happened to his father. The U.S. would be best served if he would deal with domestic issues, such as unemployment,etc. Are all the other countries that are against a war wrong? I think not!
Jasmine Salem, Brooklyn USA
My husband and brother-in-law are both Vietnam veterans. My brother is a veteran of Desert Storm. My son-in-law is in the Navy right now. My family has sacrificed for our freedom in the past and will continue to do so. We know full well the sacrifice of war. It bothers me that those who are unwilling to serve our country are so ready to criticize those who won that freedom and are willing to defend it.
Audrey Wood, Ponca City, Okla USA The U.N is the only legitimate World organ that has the moral mandate to make impartial decisions concerning any sovereign country. It has its rules and a leader whom all member states including the U.S must submit to. It is in this respect that sound minded people the world over are calling on George Bush to listen to and take counsel from the wise leaders at the U.N.
Rev. Albert Joe Pimpong , Greensboro, USA
Does the U.S. need the United Nations support? The question is can the United Nations survive without the United State's support. The League of Nations couldn't do it.
G. Zephrus White, Marquette, Mi. United States
With every passing day, the US seems to become more of an imperialist power, and an attack against Iraq in the face of UN opposition as well as worldwide disapproval would definitely be despicable. Saudi Arabia has always been a staunch ally of the US but it is heartening to see it refuse to allow the use of bases unless the US gets UN backing.
Chinmayee Manjunath, Bangalore, India
I do believe Bush will do what he wants without the UN, but that will be his downfall. He needs to step back and take council from other nations. This is a World issue not an American issue..... Sometimes you just have to step back and listen. Swallow the pride and consider that there is other people in this world too.
Robyn, Nevada, USA
The Saudi ruling family aligns itself with the US but foments hatred against it in its news media and through extremists religious schools that they pay billions to support world-wide. They, Iraq, and Iran, for similar reasons, bank-role terrorism in Israel to insure Palestinians and Israeli's will never live in peace. They want US protection, but fear their citizens demanding democracy.
Patrick Wood, Warner Robins, GA USA
I am only a kid and laugh at most of the world's opinions. The media shapes most of our minds but this is obscured. I know a lot of the resentment of the US in the Middle East is because of years of slander and propaganda published in local papers by their respective leaders. To most of the worlds astonishment, the U.S. government do not want war, but we feel it is necessary.
Brad, Houston, Texas
I find the prospect of the world's most powerful nation acting unilaterally against Iraq very frightening. Where would it stop? What about Zimbabwe and North Korea? I am beginning to wonder if the greatest threat to world peace comes from the US administration who just seem so determined to have a war.
K. Tucker, Horsham, England
Why do you even think that US requires "approval" from the Cold War relic to protect itself from imminent threat that Saddam & his WMD represent? Does anyone seriously think UN ever did anything useful for the World Order without US?? Get over it people ... It has always been US that maintained World Order and defended democracy & liberty.
Alex Kim, Seoul, Korea
| The UN will soon be a moribund organization, the reason - dangerous unilateralism of the US |
Hypocritical sanctions must stop. When will Israel be forcefully disarmed? Multiple standards by the US and Britain, isn't it? There is something sinister and ulterior in US and British intentions. Unfortunately the UN will soon be a moribund organization, the reason: US's dangerous and cancerous unilateralism.
Badji, Taipei, TAIWAN "The Saudi Foreign Minister is an unelected member of a ruling family clique. I doubt we should listen to anything he says." Replace 'Saudi Foreign Minister' with 'George W Bush' and see how it reads then.
Mike, London UK
I feel the UN in the present form is a waste of time and resources. For example, how can anything in UN be fair if five permanent nations in the security council have veto power? They decide important issues. This does not represent the world but it gives power to nations that were victorious in WW2. Time has changed and so should the structure of the United Nations. In brief UN is dead.....but yet to be cremated.
Sunil, INDIA
US should wait for the result of the inspection team now working in Iraq. To wage war on a country without the consensus of the UN is very dangerous & selfish.
Gilbert Bogacia, FMS, Koronadal City, Philippines As someone who marched recently on Manhattan's East Side in NYC's anti-war/anti-Bush demonstration, I was struck by the media's coverage of the event. Many only acknowledged a count of 100,000 when others claim a half a million or more. CNN and the major networks are poised to have high ratings, and therefore profits, from their war coverage. Is that why they are playing down the display of dismay for our government's bull-headed grab for Iraq?
Steve, New York, USA
The Saudi Foreign Minister is an unelected member of a ruling family clique. I doubt we should listen to anything he says. In fact, we should exclude from international forum all non-democratic countries. We would not then have the farce of Libya and Iraq rotating to chairmanship of UN committees on Human Rights and Disarmament.
Vernon Moyse, UK
With or without the UN Backing, we, Muslims, fear the casualties of Iraq people, we may not like Saddam, we may need a regime change in the area, but war will bring casualties. The war may take a brighter look with UN backing, but it would mean the same for us. Diplomatic solutions is the best way, other wise, I strongly support using force against N. Korea too.
Ayman, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia has always been a moderate state standing for justice and reason. The first gulf war is an example. What Iraq did at that time was naked aggression and the Saudis were the first to welcome the allied forces to liberate Kuwait. Now the Saudis oppose the war as it has no justification, neither any backing (so far) from the UN, nor any supportive public opinion. Moreover, to destroy a nation just to get rid of its leader is like burning a house to get rid of the rats!!
Kollathodi Mohamed, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia It is stupid to call UN fence-sitter. It sanctioned the 1991 Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan. God forbid, if US and UK wage war on their own, they might have solved one problem (Saddam) but created many for the entire world in the form of numerous (Osama's) jihadis. And don't forget, the US & UK are sleeping over the more dangerous N Korean crisis. It's a case of kid-glove treatment to DPRK and harshness to Iraq.
Giri, Bangalore, India
If Bush and Sharon can do whatever they want, let Saddam do whatever he wants. Why do we interfere? Let the Iraqis decide.
Shahida, U.S.A
It is time for a change in the Middle East. There is a new generation of people in the region that are sick and tired of the way these regimes have ruled us. Unelected officials' words of protestation have more than a hint of self-preservation. What worse can befall the region? Yes, a change will bring upheaval but it is, in my view, a lesser evil than what we have to endure in our daily lives. And to the protesters in the West I say: Come live here under the same conditions we have to endure and you will protest against the preservation of Saddam's and other Middle Eastern regimes.
I don't wish my words to be interpreted as unequivocal support of the US. We will fight colonialism to the death if it seeks to enslave us but we want to be liberated and cannot accept to live any more under the boot of these despotic regimes where each leader has a decades-long monopoly on power that employs the ruthlessness and brutality of security apparatus to maintain his stranglehold on power.
Sami, Beirut, Lebanon
The Saudi Government is trying to play both sides of the street. On one hand, they do not want Saddam as a neighbour- remember that the only thing that stood from Saddam taking over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is the international community stepping in to turn back Saddam. Now, because of pressures within their own country, they are trying to show some resistance to the US and UK while praying that we will collectively stop him. That way, the US and UK are viewed as the villain and Saudi can live without fear of their northern border.
Rich, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Not to beat a dead horse, but the UN objective is for the current Iraqi Government to explain what happened to the previously identified WMD's, not for the UN to supply "a safe minimum number of inspectors" to find them. It is a subtle, but very important, distinction between Europe and the USA.
Dan, Austin, USA
| We are not children of America, we don't want them to teach us what to do and how to do it |
US government accuses that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but fail to provide evidence. What about America itself? Today's news reports that US wants to develop new nuclear weapons, and breakaway from global arm control treaty. Why can US do what they want and ban other countries to do so? We are not children of America, we don't want them to teach us what to do and how to do it. And furthermore, how can we guarantee our security when US nuclear weapon are directing at us?
Doramon, China The war against Iraq is totally unjustified.Blair and Bush want destruction.Yesterday Blair was talking about millions murdered by Saddam by thr use of chemical weapons. My question is just"Who provided those weapons" and answer is simple: US And UK
Muhammad Ali Riaz, Islamabad,Pakistan
If Bush wants to go to war then fine, but I wish he'd stop looking for support from us. Most Europeans seem to be against the war when asked, but I personally feel it's nothing to do with us.
Gavin, Cannes, France
Have read most of the comments on the Crown Prince statement. I feel many have missed the implied central point in the statement: if the UN is overlooked in such crucial moments , those responsible would be actively contributing to its withering away !
Ali, Khartoum, Sudan
Over the past 50 odd years or so, the West has proven one thing well: They know how to, destructively, meddle with Arab countries. So if there is anyone to blame its not Saddam or Bin Laden or Arafat...its themselves. Its about time they stopped meddling with what they don't understand and go back to playing democracy in their own countries.
Mark, Montreal, Canada
I've heard arguments that North Korea is a bigger threat, and Israel has ignored more UN resolutions than Iraq. Therefore, the US is hypocritical to attack Iraq. Well these first two facts are true. However, with North Korea, the simple fact is military action is too costly. Not to the US, but to South Korea, and the US knows it.
Chris, St. Paul, US
It really doesn't matter what Saudis or "Old" Europe think about the war, we will go alone to bring a long lasting democracy to Middle East. Yes, the Iraqi Oil is a factor, but its a worth price to pay to bring freedom of speech and democracy in the whole region. ....Thank God, George Bush is in office.
Mohamed, Raleigh, NC, USA I would like to point out that this is not a war of Muslims against the whole world. Islam like all other religions preaches peace, harmony and simply to lead a good and pious life.... For non-Muslims AND Muslims I ask you to read the translation of the Quran and understand for yourself the TRUE meaning of terms such as 'Jihad' to begin with. We are not against the west or east or south or north either. It is simply the frustration of knowing that we are the prime target and there is not much we can do about it. And finally to 'Les, Houston, USA', come meet myself and my family and I am sure your opinion will change.
AlifiyaN, Canada/Sri Lanka/Iraq
Things changed after 9-11, we can not do nothing and hope for the best. If the UN were to unite here, the next regime would fold much faster and build the peaceful world that we all want.
Jim, USA
Surely nobody wants Saddam to develop prohibited weapons. The only reason why he has cooperated to this point is threat of force. Even then, according to Blix himself, he still has not accounted for materials known to exist previous to 1998. Does anyone really believe he has "unilaterally disarmed"?
Ted B, NJ, USA
The US aggression on Iraq is for mainly the oil reserves , as the oil reserves of the US are limited and will be exhausted in the next 3 decades . This is also a part of the global campaign of discrimination against Muslims , headed by the US government . If Iraq has biological and chemical weapons and missiles , North Korea has Nuclear Weapons which are more deadlier at every respect .
Sadeq, Manama , Bahrain
I think Saddam should be removed from power. He has killed many millions of people. I find it absurd that some people believe� hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis" will be killed. I know the Americans will go out of their way to make sure civilians casualties will be low. Leaving Saddam in power is inhumane and will result in more hardships and death in Iraq than a war. It is naive and dangerous to believe war can always be avoided.
Teija Ojala, Kirkkonummi, Finland
If the UN prefers to support the tyrant of Iraq over several democracies why should the US or any other democracy support the UN?
Inna Tysoe, USA
I think America should do what it believes is right, despite public opinion. Why? Because every time in the past(except for Vietnam), America has been correct in what it did, and was thanked by the world afterwards. Note WW2. Many were against the US entering that war, but if it hadn�t, the Nazis probably would have won. And even if they didn't win, many more people would have died.
Sita, Calcutta, India
Thank you Salah from Iraq. You have illustrated a very important point. While all the self-deluded pacifists/enablers who marched around the globe this past weekend were on their self-congratulatory moral high-horse, the Iraqi people continued to suffer.
Andrew Brewer, Wichita, USA In 1993 Alija Izetbegovich, then President of Bosnia-Herzegovina was quoted as saying: "Only the Americans can save us from annihilation. If they do not come, there will soon be no Muslims left in Yugoslavia. The Europeans will debate until we are all dead.". That quote speaks VOLUMES. Ask the 2-4million exiled Iraqi's what there preference for a solution might be. I think in percentage terms they'd be as much for U.S./U.K. attack now as the French/Germans are for inspections until the end of time.
BP, Boston, US
The situation of war is fabricated by Americans. Iraq doesn't have any WMD's. Americans & Britons are repeating their lies. Both Britons and Americans should withdraw their forces from the Gulf. They are not the authorized body to change any regimes in the world. The UN should send inspectors to America & Britain and find out the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons they have and bring Bush and Blair to the Hague and then punish for war crimes..
Mohamed Ashraf, Saudi Arabia
I believe a US attack on Iraq without UN backing is a war of aggression. But, while we debate, the US is already quietly staging a war on Iraq without UN's support. I hardly see what difference it makes to US, at this point, what UN votes. It will not save Iraq and her people. The racism present against Muslims in the US and UK, for decades, is staggering.
Janina, Chicago, IL, USA
People of the world...you have two choices: France and Russia controlling Iraq's oil or US and UK controlling Iraq's oil. I vote for no 2.
John, Australia
US & UK will attack and that will set a precedent that all is legal as long as you are powerful, irrespective of the feeling of citizens of the world. My questions is what if in 10-20 years China/Iran are mighty enough to attack the US/UK under the same pretext. After all many great powers have fallen in the past.
Salman, Canada
The United States must have the backing of the U.N. after all it is a U.N. resolution that we pretend Saddam is in material breach of ,isn't it? An attack (notice I say attack) without U.N. backing is absolutely an act of aggression against a sovereign nation. Bush's Doctrine (pre-emptive striking in the name of security) is coming back to haunt him and the rest of the world.
Kim Lonzo, New York, USA
Americans are fed up with the world asking for hand outs then bad mouthing us in the press and doing an about face when we ask for a favour. A lot of Americans are making lists of what countries are helping us now and which ones are against us.
Tim Renfro, USA
People debating this issue are forgetting one simple fact. It was not France, nor Germany, nor Saudi Arabia that was attacked on 9/11, it was the US. The UN already has issued more than 1 resolution for Iraq to disarm. The US has the right to defend itself against terrorism. If the UN decides to fulfil its obligations then much the better, otherwise the US, together with the willing partners can LEGALLY do it without another UN resolution.
George Huhalov, New Canaan, USA
A few years back, the US chose to stand back from Yugoslavia until certain EU countries howled that it wasn't doing enough to end the slaughter. Why must the world rely upon the US to solve all of the petty regional disputes, then criticize it when someone grows tired of it's presence? The world was agape at the destruction and death on 9/11, and instantly fell in line with unanimous resolve to end global terrorism once and for all. Yet now we see that resolve wane when certain countries in the EU have their financial interests threatened.
Jeff, Horbach, Germany
Would Salah from Mosul agree to be one of the small fractions that are willing to be die along with his family for the sake of getting rid of Saddam? I am Iraqi and I lost members of my family in the previous war when a rocket felll over their house and killed everyone. God knows what I went through and hasn�t been able to recover till now. Millions of Iraqis had suffered the same thing so why do we have to go through the same tragedies again? It is so easy for us to cry war when it's not us that are having our houses bombed. I pray for the human race and peace.
Manal Mukhtar, Australia
George Bush senior killed an estimated 100,000 Iraqis in the first Gulf War (WTC 30 times over!). Since then, American-led sanctions have killed over 1 million Iraqi children (entire population of San Francisco!) and reduced most of the civilian population to grinding poverty. Now George Bush junior wants to wage another war certain to kill tens of thousands more. Anyone who believes that the removal one man from power justifies killing well over a million innocent civilians is utterly insane.
Richard, Switzerland
Does anyone remember the League of Nations? As I recall from my reading, no one country was willing to "go it alone" at that time. They decided to wait until they could all agree. Do I remember rightly that France and a few "other countries" (not to get too particular) were convinced that with time and rational discussion, Herr Hitler would see reason.
Alan, Oak Ridge USA
I agree with the Saudi Arabian position: a war without UN backing would be a war of aggression, not of implementation. The UN needs to specifically delegate the task of implementing its resolution to whichever army does the job, whether that be the United States and the United Kingdom or someone else. I think last weekend proved that the majority of people in the world think the same thing. Only George W. Bush and Tony Blair seem to think a different approach is justified. Unfortunately, they are the ones with the big sticks.
David Hazel, Fareham, UK
How can America threaten Iraq and expect her to disarm at the same time? Disarmament is best done when there is peace in the air, not threats of war.
Ivo Afungang, Yaounde Cameroon
I seem to recall reading in history books these same arguments about leaving Hitler alone. For those of you who argue no intervention, how many of you have lived under Saddam's rule? Since his reign began he has murdered almost 2 million. A war to oust him would only kill a very small fraction of that but yet you think that allowing him to survive unchallenged to kill more of our citizens is the better choice? I pity your lack of insight....
Salah, Mosul, Iraq
It is appalling to me that the "civilised?" world would prefer containing a tyrant than freeing his people, regardless of what other motives might exist. How easy it is to ignore the bondage of ones fellow man when they are not European, or rich. I think Old Europe can definitely now be called, as Homer Simpson so beautifully put it, a bunch of "cheese eating surrender monkeys." Containment is just plain not an option, get over yourselves!
Phil, USA
Does anyone realise that this disarming by force action is completely what Saddam wants? He has not complied completely like he was supposed to. The only thing the peace protesters are doing is ensuring the possibility of war. If they would protest Saddam and support disarmament rather than support his delay tactics, than he would be more likely to step down from power and leave the country when offered exile due to international pressures. Unfortunately, the minds of the protestor rarely consider logic or doing their homework before taking up a cause. By the way, for all those ignorants out there that say the US is only interested in Iraqi oil, only 11.4% of US oil comes from Iraq. We could easily do without it.
Jody Vandenberg, Milwaukee, USA
Most Arabic states hate America anyway. A Gallup poll taken shortly after 9/11 when America was receiving a great deal of world sympathy proved it. Nothing short of abandoning Israel to destruction at the hands of the surrounding Arabic states that refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist will quell the hatred. So if they are going to hate us anyway, we may as well take on those we perceive to be the greatest threat.
Les, Houston, USA
The bottom line is that all Muslims globally condemn the brutality and aggression carried out by Israelis in Palestine. Bin Laden and Saddam are products of Western terrorism and expansion. Muslims do not want a war but we will get one. The white man must invade and occupy. The big fish will eat the small, c'est la vie and the US is no exception. And you talk about Democracy?
Leila, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
It would be better if USA started a war against Iraq independently because any UN involvement would be a result of heavy pressure from US and of course nowadays UK. The UN should remain free to name the eventual war criminals impartially after the dust had settled. The war in current circumstances would be a war of aggression regardless whose approval it had. Saddam has to do something more active than just hiding some of his weapons to qualify for annihilation with hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's.
Mikko Toivonen, Helsinki, Finland The US does not need the UN's backing to go to war, but it will become the target of the world's anger and resentment if it decides to go it alone or with its so-called "coalition of the willing". This could lead to a public backlash against US economic and corporate interests, which would probably further worsen the world economy.
Steve, Toronto, Canada
US can go to war only with UN approval. If not there is no need to have a UN. If Israel can ignore plenty of UN resolutions why not Iraq? This is a time to Bush and Blair to make up their minds. Both these leaders are greedy for war.
Mano, Japan
| The Arab and Muslim nations should stop saying this is an attack on them, it is not, it is an attack on a tyrant |
It would be best if the UN sanctioned such a war, but they won't. They will sit on the fence or one member will use their veto for political reasons. The Arab and Muslim nations should stop saying this is an attack on them, it is not, it is an attack on a tyrant. If the UN can't solve this problem how can they be effective against North Korea and Israel?
Ian Hill, UK Everyone goes on about democracy and how it is dreadful not to have democracy in places like Saudi Arabia and how deposing Saddam will lead to democracy within the Middle East. Who are we to say what form of government other countries should have.
We in the UK can too be criticised for having a monarch as head of state who is not elected. And as for the US, did not Al Gore receive more votes than Bush in the presidential elections? The UN is also not democratic with five nations having the right to veto and permanency on the Security Council. So let's stop patronising others about their systems of government and focus on disarming an irresponsible despot like Saddam - peacefully if at all possible.
YK, UK
Ironically, the UN's strong and considered opposition to US aggression has won it a great deal of credibility. If Iraq blocked weapons inspections and the UN decided that war was the only option, I believe that most people would accept that. Sadly, George Bush's violent rhetoric and thuggish attitude mean that the US will never have that credibility.
Iris Lassiter, Dublin, Ireland
I think any action by the West in the Middle East will be seen as a war of aggression by extremists there, regardless of the UN's role. I might also note that France, Germany, and Russia would be thrilled if we ousted Hussein, but do not want to foot the political or economic bills.
Mathew Jasinski, Storrs, Connecticut, USA
In the end, the US government will do whatever it sees as being in the best interest of its own country, just like every other country.
Mark, USA
| What if the US and UK go in alone to Iraq, wage this great war and lose? |
I only have one question probably it's just a joke but what if the Americans and Britons go in alone to Iraq, wage this great war and lose. What will happen then, have we consider that?
Gabino, Panama Sure, most of the Middle East is governed by dictators and monarchs but it's the US who supports them and has always supported them. The last thing that the US would want in the Middle East is democracy. Since 1945, the State department has described Iraq's oil resources as a "stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history." I am so happy to see that the world is not standing on the sidelines allowing the US to DICTATE to the world.
Ani, Canada
War on Iraq would be an act of aggression whether it is allowed by Security Council or not. The war may become legal if Security Council allows it, but it surely won't become moral.
Ashraf Tiwana, Islamabad, Pakistan
Beside western demonstrators the biggest opponents of war in Iraq are all those dictators, monarchs and tyrants who lead Arabic world. They know that any change in the region can be fatal threat to legitimacy of their rule. There is no democratic Arabic country. All those "leaders" rule their people by secret police, army, arrests, tortures and discrimination. If Americans kick out Saddam Hussein and create liveable social environment for people of Iraq what "bad" example it will be for the rest of Arab countries.
Michal K., Poland
If the Americans are not interested in Iraq's oil why are they not taking on North Korea who admits having nuclear weapons? This is for sure a double standard. It is also important that America opens its doors first to the various inspectors to prove that they are clean and worth being honoured.
Ismail Mahroof, SriLankan living in Jeddah KSA. Actually the Bush team does not need the UN backing to go to war, they do not need the Saudi backing and they do not need the backing of their own people. They simply do what they want.
Albert, France
In my view, the Saudi Royals are rightly concern that if the USA and UK go to war, they have a lot to lose. After the war, there will be only one winner in Saudi Arabia - Osama Bin Laden. So I ask Mr Bush and Mr Blair two questions (a) where is Osaman Bin Laden? (b) How is it that after the collapse of Enron and World Com, Bin Laden was replaced by Sadam in the US and UK press as the new enemy?
Carlos, UK
We all know how important "form" is in the Middle East, especially when the USA is involved. America being careful and going through he U.N. will help friendly Arab governments in selling their public opinion what will in any case be a U.S. aggression (however justified). It shall sweeten the pill, this placebo that keeps active fundamentalism under control in most Arabic states with a mix of political oppression, mild anti-Americanism and toothlessly proud rhetoric.
Bruno Condotta, Italy
Anti western feeling is already high in Saudi Arabia. This is born out by the attack a couple of weeks ago in which a Briton was the victim of a drive by shooting in Riyadh. If the US and UK invade Iraq without UN backing there is a strong chance that many westerners could be attacked in similar ways by Saudis who feel that they are just being ignored while the US carries on it's anti-Arab war
Phil E, Riyadh Saudi Arabia
So eventually they have spoken. Despite the many injustices going on around the Kingdom it has always bemused me that the Saudi family have never spoken on the World forum. I am not condoning war of any sort but it would help if the more influential nations (like France and Germany) especially Muslim, should speak out and let the war mongers know that this brain washing and justifying of an immoral war will not and shall not be tolerated.
Mohammed Parvaiz, London, UK
I thought it was interesting what he had to say about the rise of religious fundamentalism in the West. It certainly seems to be true that the religious right (represented by Bush, Blair, Ashcroft, etc.)is in the ascendancy and that is truly scary. After all, if they believe that they are going to heaven as long as they stick to their 'beliefs', it doesn't concern them whether we are at war, or what sort of war that is, whether it be nuclear or whatever.
JOHN M, London, UK
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 