We discussed the UN and Iraq in our global phone-in programme, Talking Point.
The White House says the United Nations Security Council will be asked to vote on a new Iraq resolution later this week. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said: "There is room for a little more diplomacy here but not much more room and not much more time."
The US and UK are now persisting in their efforts to sway six undecided members of the UN Security Council.
One of them, Pakistan, has confirmed its intention to abstain from the vote.
President George W Bush has telephoned eight world leaders in the last 24 hours, and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said he was working "flat out" for a second resolution.
Is there any hope of reaching a consensus at the UN? Can a second UN resolution be passed?
This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
Your comments:
 The US and UK have taken a very arrogant and insular approach  |
A UN resolution is certainly possible - but only if everyone behaves like adults and presents all facts openly for everyone to analyse and understand. So far, the US and UK have taken a very arrogant and insular approach, seeming to assume that everyone should just accept the US' assertions without question.
Jeff Lewis, Canada No new resolution. As a long, liberal supporter of the UN I have to say that it is a failure. It is time for a new international system reflecting reality. France has absolutely no business on something as important as a 'security council'. India has more right to be there. The UN failed in Rwanda, failed in Cyprus, failed in Bosnia, failed in Somalia - and the list goes on. The US needs to let Britain and Mr Blair off the hook and go to war now. Not in ten days. Now.
Richard Shepard, Ukraine
I haven't heard a single thing from the UK or the US that doesn't stink of ulterior motives. The world has other men like Saddam Hussein, but for some reason neither seem to be quick to go and deal with Zimbabwe, and several other African states or North Korea. Oh yeah that's right there's no oil in those places!
Bill Spindloe, Philippines
In the real world, Saddam has not disarmed or co-operated for 12 years, the leaders believe that there is a clear danger which must be confronted, and there is a short window of operations for the troops. Any delay will prevent action against Saddam and give him even more time to distribute his anthrax and sarin to terrorists. For our children, it's now or never.
Jon Shamah, UK
Critics of the US and Britain have not offered any viable alternatives |
The US and the UK have received a lot of criticism on their stand against terrorism. But what I ask is the UN strategy to combat terrorism and how does the UN expect to enforce the strategy? Critics of the US and Britain have not offered any viable alternatives because the UN doesn't have a policy nor would it have, if a policy existed, the means to enforce.
Don, USA For those of you who claim we shouldn't rush into war at the precise moment when disarmament is beginning to work, do you not realize the obvious fact that the only reason we have seen this very slight progress is the fact that there over 250,000 troops surrounding Iraq? Disarmament via U.N. inspectors, is not working if the only time we see even the slightest amount of progress is when there is a massive military build-up, since this military presence can not be maintained indefinitely.
Daniel, U.S.A
The resolution is not possible if two permanent members of the Security Council have already stated they will vote no. Why continue? The facts are that Iraq has continually violated the terms of the cease fire it agreed to abide by. Under international law the United States, Britain and others have the right to force his compliance which included destruction of weapons of mass destruction. We know Iraq has them because they have used them and attested to the fact they possessed them after the last war. The purpose of the inspectors is not to find them but to verify the destruction. Where are the weapons? Has Iraq offered any proof of destruction? Does anyone truly believe that this destruction could have taken place without an audit trail ordering there destruction? Let's give Iraq enough time to disperse these weapons perhaps even out of the country. Then the terrorists can use them should the current Iraq regime fall.
Bill Illing, USA
I would respect Tony Blair if he was noble enough to admit that he has been too impulsive |
Iraq should be given more time to comply - months, not days/weeks. It is POSITIVE that disarming has begun - why wage war when there is progress? Why is Tony Blair not listening to the majority of his people when this is supposed to be a society which is democratic? No war should take place unless there is full agreement and military support from the UN as a whole, otherwise the UN is a complete and utter farce. I would respect Tony Blair, and so would the majority of the British people, if he was noble enough to admit that he has been too pre-emptive, too impulsive and chose NOT to send the British troops into war.
Stella, Britain The question should be, will it make a difference if a new UN resolution will go through or not? I don't believe so. The US is committed fully to this war. And the UN has been already declared irrelevant from the instant the US stated it will pursue this "crusade" with or without international support. Even without a Veto, the majority of the Security Council nations general public, even of countries supporting the US, are apposed to war. As president Bush said, "you are either with us or against us". Congratulations USA, the spreader of the so called Democracy in the new world.
Mike Perkins, Canada
The war against Iraq is unjustified both in the United Nations charter and International Law. |
The war against Iraq is unjustified both in the United Nations charter and International Law. There is no aggression on the part of Iraq towards United States that has been established to warrant a military action on Iraq. The period of unilateralism in matters of international concern is long gone and America must conform to the reality otherwise it will become a create a lot of Osamas in the world. My dear veto carrying powers, tread carefully and save the world and the Security Council from this ill conceived war. Thanks so much.
Mwania Walter, Kenya The UN and I have a lot in common; every year we both make new resolutions but neither of us have any plans at all to enforce them. If you think another resolution is going to solve this problem well then I have this bridge I want to sell you.
Joe, US
Can anyone take an organization seriously that places Libya chairing a human rights conference, or Iraq and Iran co-chairing on disarmament? Furthermore, the UN continues to turn a blind eye to meaningful condemnation and resolution of human rights abuses by various sovereign nations, Iraq included. Hypocrisy is rampant among the security council, with France in for billions in Iraqi oil deals, and Germany and Russia in for billions in weapons deals. Of the three military actions supported by the UN, all of them were asked by the US. Conversely, France most recently engaged in military actions in the Ivory Coast and Russia continues to have ongoing actions in Chechnya. Does it make sense to even have the UN anymore? There obviously is a double standard in play with the UK and US on the short end of the stick. Let them move the UN HQ to Zurich and have it atrophy like the failed League of Nations.
Brian Rice, USA
Our own safety may soon become the top priority. John Laubacher, United States |
The United States has exhausted all forms of diplomacy. Saddam continues to be a threat to the safety of the American people, let alone those on his own soil. International officials have put forth countless hours of research into diplomatic relations and investigations, while Saddam only augments his own threat. Our own safety may soon become the top priority.
John Laubacher, United States Tony Blair is right on Iraq. Keep on keeping on, Tony - history will prove you right.
Alex Lyell, UK
True, Saddam should disarm. There has never been disagreement over it. But does that justify war? If war is the only or necessary means to achieve that, fine. But it is not. What we see now are oil-tappers masquerading as peace-keepers.
Danny P Y Fung, Hong Kong SAR
All sides have now dug into their positions too deeply. |
Unless Blix finds a major smoking gun in the next few days there will never be consensus. All sides have now dug into their positions too deeply. France will use its veto unless something very drastic occurs to force them not to. Lets be clear here, Frances position is not about being morally correct - they are defending their own commercial interests in Iraq (those deals that they have already agreed with Saddam and his regime). These agreements will clearly be worth nothing if Saddams regime is removed. So basically the French are as dirty as the Americans with regard to the reasons for their position. Furthermore, having been so badly insulted by the Americans (especially Mr Rumsfeld) there is no way that they are going to do anything to make life easy for the Bush regime. New resolution? Not a chance!
Perry, UK It is not only not possible, it is not even necessary. Earlier UN resolutions provide all the legal backing the US needs to go to war against Iraq.
Robert Hodson, USA
While disarmament is the stated goal, the real goal is regime change. After 9/11 the USA is going to make the point that you do not have to be our friends but if you covertly or openly support hostility and terror against the USA then the USA shall not tolerate it. Pakistan and Afghanistan learned the lesson and now Iraq will learn it. Iran and North Korea will be next.
M. Burke, USA
Next Monday is a completely unreasonable timetable in which to do anything. |
Hans Blix wants months, the UN should give him months. Next Monday is a completely unreasonable timetable in which to do anything. The UN should set very clear benchmarks, and a 6-month deadline. If Iraq is crawling with inspectors, what can Hussein do? All the people talking about terrorism and instability should note that war will produce both of these things, whereas diplomacy will get us a great deal further with much less bloodshed.
Tanya , UK Legal or not, second resolution or not, the logical consequence of 1441 should be recognised. The world community, in the form of the UN, has expressed the opinion that Iraq should disarm and that the threat of military action is an appropriate means for exerting pressure. It is surely clear that any recent movement we have seen by Iraq towards meeting the demands of the UN have been in response to the (increasing) military threat. Now, having started on this path, it is difficult to see how it can be reversed without Saddam clearly winning the whole game. Continued pressure requires continued build-up of military forces, but this clearly cannot go on for ever. And if the build-up comes to a stand-still or troops are withdrawn, the signal will be clear to Saddam. Yes, it is tempting, seeing the inspectors in Iraq and the moves in the right direction, to believe that more of the same and a bit of patience will reach the desired goal. If one reflects however on the chosen strategy and on Saddam's past record, is such a conclusion not naive?
Peter Aspey, NL
Isn't it shocking when democratic bodies don't vote as they should? Perhaps we should bypass the UN completely and take global decisions straight from the Whitehouse
Max, UK
The US and UK are paying the price of making a decision on war and then asking the UN to ratify it. |
The US and UK are paying the price of making a decision on war and then asking the UN to ratify it. They gambled on the fact that security council permanent members will not dare to veto the resolutions. However, I think that these members have reached a point where they feel that facing the US/UK may be less risky than supporting them in a war with unknown consequences.
Jennifer, UK Why not send more UN inspectors - 200,000 of them. If Saddam says no then Iraq is in breech of 1441 and send 200,000 troops ? I think this is what the French et-al want - more inspectors before deciding if war is the only option.
Bruce, Canada
The French stance on Iraq is cowardly, and unbecoming of a supposed NATO ally. Their choice of vetoing the resolution is a sorry attempt to seem powerful in the world community. They shouldn't even be a permanent security council member, as they no longer are a world power. What if France was led by an oppressive dictator who dominated every aspect of their lives. I wonder how much they would wish to be liberated.
Paul, USA
The United Nations is a coalition of the greatest countries in the world. Each should make some concession to find common ground. War participation should not be forced, however there should be mutual respect for each countries actions or decisions.
Lesley, USA
There is nothing resolute about them |
A new UN resolution would be pointless. How would it differ from the countless other resolutions that went before it. Perhaps they shouldn't call them resolutions at all, as there is nothing resolute about them.
John, USA I don't care if a second resolution is passed or not so long as the US finishes the job that should have been done along time ago. It makes me sick that we are even putting our security in the hands of France, Germany, and Russia. There are no permanent friends in this world, just permanent interests. If Iraqis do welcome US soldiers as liberators, I wonder how France will react then? I guess they forgot along time ago that you have to fight to be liberated.
Knowlton, USA
Last night two New York City police officers (who had 5 children between them) were shot and killed on the streets of the city. Perhaps Mr. Bush should worry more about the guns on the streets of America rather than what he thinks Saddam has.
Sean T., New York
I doubt that the UN resolution will be passed. I think President Bush needs to wait and see if Hussein will meet the first deadline!
Amanda Brown, U.S.
We are at a point where Angola, Guinea, and Cameroon are deciding what is in the best interest of the United States. |
The United Nations is dragging it's feet on any type of action once again. This actionless institution is once again rearing it's ugly head. We are at a point where Angola, Guinea, and Cameroon are deciding what is in the best interest of the United States. This makes no sense. After failing so horribly in Rwanda (1 million people killed), in Sudan (2 million people killed), and in the Balkans (Ethnic Cleansing) how does the U.N. expect anyone to take this institution seriously? It seems to me that the economic policy and agendas of France and Russia represent the real threat to the war on terror, and not a possible war with Iraq. The UN is yet another example that anarchy rules the international arena, and that each country must view the world through a "Self-Interested" world view. How many more people will the U.N. let Saddam Hussein torture and kill?
Whitaker, United States Will the UN ever give Iraq a deadline, or is the purpose of the exercise to provide a counterweight to the sole superpower in the world. Remind me, who is the bad guy here, Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush?
Nick, Denmark
A second resolution is not lawfully necessary. Read 1441, military action is already justified and approved. I for more than one, would support military action now
Mick, England
Resolution 1441 does not "authorise military action" (Mick UK). If it had, it would never have been passed. It says "serious consequences". Yes, we all knew that the US/Blair would try to use these weasel words to justify war, but perhaps we should use legal means instead?
David Smith, UK
For those who say the UN is about to become irrelevant, I say rubbish. The UN has had an angry, disruptive disagreement before and is in no danger. For those who say Iraq is flouting the UN, check out which countries have flouted more Security Council Resolutions.
J, united states
The US and UK shouldn't make the other representatives vote the way they want them to |
I have to agree that this issue is primarily about the credibility of the UN. It sets a very dangerous precedent to allow the US and UK to go to war without approval from the entire Security Council. The US and UK shouldn't make the other representatives vote the way they want them to simply because it meets their ends. Yes, I want to see Saddam out of power and no longer a threat, but I still do not believe a war is really the answer. It's another example of the US trying to influence the whole world and mould it into what they want it to be. The whole world should not necessarily be just like the US.
Liz, NJ, USA The solution seems simple. Everybody in the world wants to see Iraq disarm. The UN weapon inspectors have a "grocery list" of non-compliance issues. The inspectors should list, in priority, all issues with strict and immediate dates (after all he's had 12 years). If the Iraqis fail to comply on one or all of the issues/dates then Iraq demonstrated it's unwillingness and UN force should be used. If Iraq "fully" complies in accordance with the UN inspectors (not any other one country) then force should be ruled out. I don't know how any logical person can argue this route as all parties intentions become transparent.
Rob, Canada
There is no question that pressure on Iraq must be maintained/increased. Having worked in that country I am certain that significant progress will not be made otherwise. A clear commitment by the UN to move in if effective progress was not achieved quickly would almost certainly have solved the problem without a war. However now that France has vetoed in advance a new UN resolution is not possible and shows that the UN in its present form is ineffective as a world policeman. The sad thing is that there is an almost total lack of awareness of the eventual catastrophe that is likely to result from allowing weapons of this kind to be stockpiled by unstable regimes. I was a mile from the Pentagon on 9/11 and saw it hit - next time it may well be a dirty bomb in a city centre!
Neil Prebble, England
Surely disarmament is the goal, regardless of how it is actually achieved? Darren Bradshaw, Worcester |
A second resolution is essential, but in light of the current climate, namely 3 of 5 the permanent members opposed to war, it is very unlikely to be achieved. This being the case the UK and US should concentrate on actual disarmament while it is currently ongoing and not place the world into a situation where Iraq can say "what's the point, war is going to happen so we won't allow further inspections nor will we continue to disarm"! Surely disarmament is the goal, regardless of how it is actually achieved?
Darren Bradshaw, Worcester, England Very unlikely. The world has totally bought into George Bush's assertion of a binary world. Even the BBC's vote posits that there are only two positions possible here. I wonder how many people would vote that they agree with neither the US/UK position OR the France Russia position (which says no war under any circumstances.) The European left seems to have deluded itself that to be against America automatically makes one good even if that means denying the very real fact that there is a very real and dangerous rise in fundamentalism (Islamic and otherwise) that threatens us all and that the existence of WMDs makes this threat an intolerable one .
Anna, NYC, USA
After viewing the UN in 'action' I am certainly glad that the US never wasted time seeking UN approval for action in Afghanistan. Had we sought their approval the Taliban would still be in power and Al-Qaeda would be quite comfortably planning their next atrocity.
TFB, Macomb,MI,USA
When will the UN actually make a decision that it intends to reinforce with action? |
The UN has reached this crisis point not because the US and the UK are being unreasonable but because it is, as ever, nothing more than a toothless watchdog. 1441 was just the latest in a series of lines drawn in the sand for Iraq by the Security Council, a line that it is going to be allowed to cross yet again. When will the UN actually make a decision that it intends to reinforce with action? Britain and America are not the countries who are weakening the UN, the blame for that lies squarely at the door of the Russians and the French. Why on earth did they sign up to 1441 if they never intended to act upon its threats when the time came?
Andy, Kuwait This debate is starting to linger past its welcome. The UN, US, & UK need to get to it. While I respect everyone's opinion here in this forum, I must say that you are missing the point here. Nothing can be written here or anywhere else that will supplant the fact that the UN security council voted unanimously to disarm Iraq. Twelve years of resolutions and sanctions have done little to disarm Iraq. Saddam still has weapons unaccounted for and is just now beginning to destroy those that exceed limits, but only after the threat of force.
Joe America, USA
I would love to see Iraq disarmed and Saddam deposed without violence. The only reason he has complied at all with any of the requirements of 1441 is because of the threat of war. Take away that threat and he will stop even the token efforts he is making now. A second resolution should not be needed due to the wording of 1441 but in reality it will be needed given the positions of the other members of the council. The US and UK need to put as much effort into discussing with the other countries and ensuring there is common understanding as they are at preparing for war. It seems finally that this detailed diplomacy is happening.
John, Brussels, Belgium
The UN must be able to act swiftly and decisively |
To allow the UN Security council's decision making powers to be hijacked by France and Russia using their vetoes goes against the reason why the UN was set up in the first place. It is there to implement international law, and when countries continually flout this then the UN must be able to act swiftly and decisively to make that renegade country comply. A war should not happen without a second resolution authorising war if Iraq does not comply, but if France and Russia do not let the UN draft this resolution, how can the UN survive? How can France and Russia justify jeopardising an institution that has been instrumental in helping both their countries through their difficulties of the last 60 years.
David, UK I sincerely hope that the second resolution will pass in the UN, if for no other reason than to help Tony Blair, whom I have great respect for and I think that he is a very good Prime Minister for the UK. I also sincerely hope that the United Nations will stay intact as a world body.
Felicia, Deerfield, USA
I have worked for three years in Iraq. I can only imagine that the Iraqi people will see the US and UK as liberators when they invade Iraq. I have a feeling that most people against this war have not the slightest idea who is Saddam and what does it mean to live in Iraq under Saddam. He will be a major threat to humanity as long as he remains in power.
Ad v.d.Eelaart, Netherlands
With no help from Europe the battle will never end. |
No resolution is possible. The whole world is united against Bush and Blair. America in its arrogance has overreached, and France has struck off their hand. They will invade Iraq, but never pacify it. With no help from Europe the battle will never end. They will withdraw in defeat. This the end of America as an intrusive world power. Europe will stand with its new friends to recreate the miracle of Moorish Spain throughout the EU.
Ismail Bretodeau, France Blair and Bush go on about the UN becoming irrelevant if it does not sanction war. This is complete and utter rubbish. The UN Charter is clearly established in the pursuit of peace and despite slow progress in Iraq, the UN must continue to work through inspectors to achieve disarmament. The UN should not be forced into a situation by the likes of Bush and Blair and continue to be relevant to the majority of the world by giving peace as much chance as possible. There is no need for another resolution and no it will not be won as the UN Charter does not lend itself very well to war when diplomacy has not yet failed.
Yusuf, UK
Countries like France and Russia need to put their domestic politics aside |
If France and/or Russia veto the new resolution they will be responsible for the destruction of the UN and the destabilization of the modern world. There is no question as to whether Saddam needs to be dealt with. Countries like France and Russia need to put their domestic politics aside and consider the impact of their decisions on the security of the world.
Peter Jackson, UK This second resolution is not only about Iraq. It is a fundamental battle over the future direction of world politics. Post September 11 there is a split in opinion over how to deal with the all-dominant power of the US and its increased willingness to wield this power. France, Germany and their allies want to create a new "European" counterweight to American power. Britain, Spain and others rightly see the danger of this route. They recognise that deserting the US will only play into the American right wing who want nothing to do with UN at the best of times. I fear for the chance of a second resolution but hope that the so-called pacifists soon realise how counter-productive their stance is before it is too late.
Richard Fowler, UK
I doubt that a new resolution will pass. The US and UK wouldn't be stalling if the votes were forthcoming. I personally would not have chosen war as a solution, but the stalling tactics employed by the UN have been a useless exercise. To those that claim there are no WMD in Iraq, I ask: What will you say when Saddam uses WMD in the upcoming war? That he is justified?
Jeff, USA
I doubt any resolution would pass in the UN on this issue. |
I doubt any resolution would pass in the UN on this issue. What's ludicrous is that 1441 already had a deadline back in December. After watching the Security Council meeting last Friday it sure seemed that no country, including France, believes Iraq has complied with 1441. I'm disappointed that the US and UK are jumping through hoops to try and sway votes. We should have gone and liberated the Iraqi people months ago and we would be done with this argument and moving to the next problem issue, North Korea, which the world wants the US to handle unilaterally.
Jerry D, USA Another UN resolution is a waste of time. It will but one more exercise in diplomatic appeasement with a tyranny that the US government has determined is a threat to US, and for good reason. More resolutions, more pieces of paper, will not improve our security, nor convince the monster of Baghdad to be nice guy and destroy his weapons. When will the leaders of the world learn from history, and realize that accommodating a tyrant only encourages him. Lying is not a big mental leap for a man who tortures the children of his opponents.
Eric Frazier, USA
The countries that want to veto are only worried about voters, not vetoes |
I doubt it. The countries that want to veto are only worried about voters, not vetoes. These men want to remain leaders in their own countries. It's all about ego.
Peter, Australia
Vive la France! To authorise war when disarmament is working (however slowly) is utterly wrong. France and her allies are displaying immense courage in standing up to the US and UK. In so doing, they are representing the views of the majority of people in the Arab world, Europe, the UK and the US.
Leo James, Edinburgh, Scotland
For twelve years the dictator Saddam has laughed in the faces of the UN council, and taken no notice of 1441 at all. There is no need for a second resolution, he is in breach of the first one! OK so he's not responsible for the WTC tragedy, but one day he will be responsible for some terrible atrocity somewhere. Stop sticking your head in the sand France, it might be you he targets.
Julie Jackson, Pontypool, UK
The UN must be respected because the stability of the world is at stake |
The question is not about war or removing Saddam. It's about the credibility of the UN. Why is the UN required if your ultimate aim is just war? If the US and UK start a conflict without the support of the UN, then it would lead to other nations starting conflicts based on their own agenda and policies. I believe that the UN must be respected because the stability of the world is at stake.
Rajesh, India Why bother? The USA and UK have stated they will go to war regardless of whether they receive UN backing or not. It seems that Bush can decide to go to war with Saddam Hussein on the pretext that he hasn't complied with UN resolutions but without the blessing of the UN. Er, isn't that a little skewed somewhere?
Shelagh, Beirut, Lebanon
Prime Minister Tony Blair has my full support. He is constantly re-iterating his point that he wishes to see a peaceful resolution but that this must be backed up by the real threat of military action. Countries like France are the ones who threaten the role and authority of the UN by not allowing the UN to follow through the threat of action that has been made in many previous resolutions.
K H, Dundee, Scotland
Surely the offering of contracts to US firms to re-build a post-war Iraq is illustrative of the futility of the anti-war efforts |
Surely the offering of contracts to US firms to re-build a post-war Iraq is illustrative of the futility of the anti-war efforts, and the lack of respect shown to the UN. With what amounts to bribery occurring on both sides, this could be a very important turning point in our history, and a time for the international community to consider which direction the world's decision making processes are moving (or always have been?).
Andrew, UK Bush, who said during his campaign that the US would not be engaged in any "nation building" as he called it at the time, now he wants to reform the Middle East, and turn them all into happy go-along Bushocracies, but not all of them. Just the ones that don't want to sell him Oil. Lets all pray that Mr. Bush will be back in Texas in 2004, and not in the White House.
Ashley, Alberta, Canada
We should all agree that without US & UK's pressure Saddam would not have agreed for what he is doing now. Everyone seems to be forgetting that the only reason Saddam Hussein is "co-operating" is because there are 300,000 troops sitting on his doorstep. Any country other than the US and UK will only support a second resolution due to its financial interests, not for any moral convictions. The Germans, French, and Russians have financial ties to Iraq they want to protect. Shame on them. Disarming Saddam and liberating Iraq is the right thing to do.
Sanjay, Indian in Kuwait
The idea that Saddam has links with Islamic fundamentalists is laughable. Saddam is a secular leader and he has worked for years to crush fundamentalism in Iraq. If Saddam gave weapons to Al-Qaeda they would probably use them on him. We, as the thinking public, need to ask ourselves why are our leaders trying to convince us this strange, fearful notion which has no factual bases whatsoever.
Tom Gallows, London, UK
Until today I thought a second resolution was just possible. With the announcement of contracts for the rebuilding of a post-war Iraq, however, all bets are off. To award these contracts whilst ostensibly negotiating a consensus is either breathtakingly stupid, or breathtakingly arrogant. Either way, don't judge Britain by Blair's sycophantic posturing. It will take a long time for the US to win back the goodwill it has lost here.
Tom, Burnley, UK
War is not the only answer |
Invading Iraq is not too expensive nor is it too dangerous. It is simply unjust. Links between Saddam and future terrorist threats on America and UK are tenuous at most. As for infringing UN resolution 1441, war is not the only answer and Iraq is cooperating - be positive and give diplomacy another chance, allow the threat of war to make UN Inspections work, not actual war. The just argument for invasion is the liberation of the Iraqi people and their suffering. But why Iraq and not all the other trouble spots in the world? Where is the consistency?
CI, UK Bush and Blair will go down in history as the men responsible for making UN irrelevant. They have decided to go for war with or without a UN resolution backing them.
Vas Jai, USA
Should we go in and topple Saddam's regime or should we do nothing and accept a status quo in Iraq? We should ask, first and foremost the Iraqi people. Those who have dared to write here so far seem to think that unless Saddam goes, nothing will change for a better, and that includes WMD problem.
Meerkat, Alexandria, USA
Since when does cost and danger keep us from doing what is right? |
I am disgusted by comments from people who think that invading Iraq is too dangerous or too expensive. I respond to those remarks by asking, what dangers will we face if we do not disarm Iraq? I also would ask how expensive will it be to rebuild after another WTC type attack by a terrorist group backed by Saddam? Since when does cost and danger keep us from doing what is right? Disarming Saddam and liberating Iraq is the right thing to do.
Anonymous Why more time? Isn't 12 years enough? Saddam clearly has NO intention of meeting the resolution.
Darlene LK, Atlanta Ga, USA
It is probably not possible at this point to get a second resolution that wouldn't be vetoed, because the Bush and Blair administrations made up their minds a long time ago that there's no alternative to war. The French, Germans, and Russians have made up their minds there is every alternative to war still on the table, so I see no foundation anymore for compromise. I also see this is more and more having nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with whether there will actually be a new world order or an Anglo-American global dictatorship passing for a new world order.
T.H. Seals, Chicago, USA
How can there be peace if all USA and UK talk about is war? |
Yes I think the UN resolution will be possible not because the Security Council share Britain's or the USA's point of view but because of the immense pressure being applied on them to vote for the resolution. How far will Britain go to bring peace in the world and at what extent? How can there be peace if all USA and UK talk about is war? Which country will be next after Iraq?
Saif, Birmingham 
One-Minute World News 
News services
Email this to a friend 
Printable version 
Click here to watch the debate 
Or click here for an audio-only version 
