A second page of your comments on the UN and Iraq We discussed this issue in our phone-in programme, Talking Point.
Your comments
Absolutely no. We don't need a new resolution. Resolution 1441 is a good piece for Iraq's disarmament. The question is who is a major threat? North Korea or Iraq? The US and UK knows the answer. So, why don't we face the reality and let the Inspectors do their jobs.
Daniel T Vivour, Monrovia, Liberia
I have just finished reading an article in which Saddam Hussein has now called for an immediate lifting of the sanctions against Iraq. That yesterday's report said he has already complied with the UN's resolutions. How can we not support a war against somebody as deceiving as this man? He has done only enough to prolong and cause dissent amongst the nations of this world. Ask yourself, which is worst, a world dominated by those who cherish and fight for freedom, or a world held hostage by a man like Saddam Hussein.
Carol, Raleigh, NC
 The UN will become irrelevant if it lets a second resolution pass  |
Any country other than the US and UK will only support a second resolution due to its financial interests, not for any moral convictions. Bush is relying on buying votes on the Security Council, not on convincing them of the US's legal right to attack Iraq. The UN will become irrelevant if it lets a second resolution pass.
Nick, Toronto, Canada A new UN resolution would only validate the "new imperialism" or Bushism. If UN would approve the war in Iraq, what would be next? Take on the whole world that does not agree with American policies? The Bush administration is pursuing a discord type policy on the international as well as the national arena. In the name of war on terrorism, this administration pursues an illegal war and is attempting to stifle any national dissent by limiting the freedom of its own people.
Alina, Fairfax, USA
After listening in to the speeches at the Security Council last Friday I was outraged at France's boorish attitude and venomous tone directed at the US. I am also very disappointed that New Zealand Government is not supporting the US and it allies in this serious issue, but are putting their heads in the sand like ostriches. Let's face it Saddam has been laughing in the UN's face for the last 12 years. Its time to say enough! Also it is now becoming apparent as to why Bush declared Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "Axis of Evil" these three nations are all violating the Non-Prolifieration Treaty. That is the reason for Bush's choice of these three evil regimes. Let's deal with these rogue states before they do any real harm to international peace and security. I applaud Bush and Blair for their strength of courage to stand up and say "Enough! its time to put a stop to this madness".
Richard Arnold, Austin, Texas, USA (ex-pat Kiwi)
"Deadlines" portray the seriousness of how this situation is viewed. Unfortunately I don't feel any consensus will be reached, as long as France is so intransigent. Which begs the question of what that nation's real motives are for threatening to veto any resolution. I suppose we really should observe French techniques on averting conflict, since they are doing such a good job in the Congo!
Scott, Scotland
The whole talk about upholding freedom, removing a dictator and doing it for the good of the Iraqi people, is laughable. The Saudi regime is one of the most repressive in the region. Do we hear any talk about their democratization? No! Why, because they are US allies. A sympathetic dictator is very useful, easy to manipulate, and it serves the interests of the USA to have such rulers in "strategic" developing countries. Even a barely democratic regime like Turkey has the capability to upset USA plans by having a mind of its own. The war would be more "palatable"(?) if the USA just came out with "Hey we are the most powerful nation here, and we need to guard our interests and we don't care for anybody's opinion - friends or foes", instead of sanctifying it with "we are doing it for the worlds good"!
Anon, UK
With or without a second resolution, the Iraqi people must be saved |
The Iraqi People will greet the American and British troops with flowers and open arms. They have been waiting for a "Messiah" to liberate them from the Devil "Saddam" for the past 35 years. With or without a second resolution, the Iraqi people must be saved. Thank God for Britain and the USA for helping the Iraqi people
Usama, Iraq I think at the end of the day a second resolution will pass. If France decides to veto it will somewhat disorientate our alliances but will not effect the disarming of Iraq. France is nearly irrelevant.
Steve Jakosa, San Francisco, USA
There is no need for a further resolution, 1441 is enough. I fully support Tony Blair in his efforts. He will be well rid of Clare Short and others of her ilk if she resigns.
David Griffith-Jones, Wellington, New Zealand
Saddam Hussein is making a mockery of the whole resolution process Eli Ascuncion, Toronto, Canada |
A second UN resolution will not be passed because there is not a need for it. Resolution 1441 alone should empower US/UK to enforce military action against Iraq. Saddam Hussein is making a mockery of the whole resolution process and had it not been for the continued military buildup we would have not even seen a superficial cooperation on the part of Iraq. We should give credit to US/UK military pressure by all means.
Eli Asuncion, Toronto, Canada Everyone seems to be forgetting that the only reason Saddam Hussein is 'co-operating' is because there are 200,000 troops sitting on his doorstep. Does anyone really believe that things would be any different from the last 12 years were this not so? The sooner he is removed the better, and this will serve as a warning to similar states around the world that constantly flout human rights and threaten other states.
Craig, Norwich, UK
The 10-day notification by the UK and US was designed to "drown out" what was otherwise a rather positive assessment by the two inspectors. Having read the report, there is undisputable progress being made and the quote on "months" was made in a mostly positive light.
Andrew McSherry, Atlanta GA (ex pat)
It was a mistake by the US and the UK to commit so many armed forces into the Gulf region. Now there is no way back, and of course they cannot wait. Every day costs money. Iraq possesses only a fraction of the weapons and the infrastructure that it had before the first Gulf War, whatever the so-called intelligence says.
Conny, Leeds, UK
This is a definitive hour in the making of contemporary history Zahid Hamid, Bishop's Stortford |
The real agenda, as Bush puts it, is democracy in the region and freeing the people of the yolk of tyranny. This is a definitive hour in the making of contemporary history.
Zahid Hamid, Bishop's Stortford As long as Iraq is cooperating, the inspectors should be given time, whatever it takes. There should not be any deadlines imposed by individual nations. The world must have one and only one focus and that is to fight the people and states who are actively promoting terrorism under one garb or other.
Devendra Tripathi, Pune, India
If the USA and UK attack Iraq without UN backing, they should get punished by removing their permanent seats on the Security Council as well as their veto rights.
Joanne Andre, New York, USA
It is refreshing to see some American voices questioning the Bush administration's new imperial policy. A second resolution must be opposed, at least to isolate and expose the Bush/Blair/Howard (US Pacific Deputy Sheriff) axis for what they are - dangerous and duplicitous.
Lindsay, Sydney, Australia
A second UN resolution will not be passed Patrick Caulfield, Leighton Buzzard, UK |
There is no hope in reaching a consensus at the UN. A second UN resolution will not be passed. Deadlines are vital to solving this crisis. I think the UK and USA are being too generous for giving Iraq 10 days! I personally would have given Iraq just 7 days! I don't believe France, Russia or China will use their veto.
Patrick Caulfield, Leighton Buzzard, UK The Security Council was formed to prevent imperialistic aggression by one nation over another. A new possible resolution would be to declare it a war crime for one nation to attack another without the permission of the Security Council. Let someone put that on the table and see where the US and UK stand. Let them show their cards.
Joe, Ontario, Canada
The US is doing exactly what the terrorists want... they are becoming increasingly paranoid and closing off their society by isolating themselves on the world stage. This will ultimately lead to the fall of US imperialism.
Noorani Ramji, Vancouver, Canada
The UN is a great disappointment |
The UN is a great disappointment. It gives countries who don't have to take responsibility for keeping our world safe the ability to hinder those willing to sacrifice for our freedom. It gives them the ability to make behind the scene deals - basically blackmail of the nations who are not afraid. The Germans, French, and Russians have financial ties to Iraq they want to protect. Shame on them.
Jackie, Houston USA A new resolution is possible, but should not be pursued to the point that compromises make it meaningless. 12 years and 17 resolutions later, much of the world seems more interested in preservation of "process" over actual results from a process. Diplomacy, sadly, is useless unless there is a real threat of consequences.
The question from many Americans to those in the wider international community is: "Is the process an end in itself or do you expect results from the process?" From this point of view, the position of France, Russia Germany and others is they are more interested in process than security.
Scott Miller, Annapolis, MD (USA)
I do not think a second resolution will be passed, and I do not think there will be a veto. There are not enough votes on the council to support it. This is why Blair and Bush are now attempting to discount the importance of such a resolution. They have lost in their attempt to legitimise their illegal war of aggression, and are now showing their own "cards" to the world community. The people of the US are the victims of our own lies and our lack of historical memory.
Pierre Desir, Boston, USA
The council must uphold the viability of the UN by supporting the proposed new resolution Keith C Siddle, Grimsby UK |
The council must uphold the viability of the UN by supporting the proposed new resolution, if they do not, no other nation will be obliged to accept its future authority. It is in my view, the only way to bring Saddam Hussein to his senses, even if it means starting a war- which I do not wish to occur as my son is on the border of Iraq in the British armed services.
Keith C Siddle, Grimsby UK America and Britain is trying for a second UN resolution and France, Russia and China are opposing one as fiercely as they can because they all realise that without one, invasion of Iraq would be illegal. For a British Government to involve the country in such an illegal war is nothing short of shocking.
Zack Goldring, Tunbridge Wells
Whether or not there is a second resolution is not important. It is obvious that the US and the UK can go alone and protect the world from this madman. If they do not we will all probably live to regret it.
Deborah Chandler, Northport, USA
I wonder if the UN was just making hollow threats when they passed resolution 1441? If you threaten to send a criminal to jail for doing something wrong but can't make a decision on when or for how long, the criminal will continue to do the crimes and laugh at the "police". The UN is showing me there is more than the people of Iraq they are thinking of, is there big money involved? Are some of these countries lying just as bad as Iraq and using peace to hide behind? Time will tell who the real loser is in this war.
Kate Willson, Halifax, Canada
At the present time, military action would be pre-empting the completion of peaceful disarmament activities led by the inspection teams. A detailed work program for Iraq with deliverables and deadlines should be proposed. If Iraq fails to comply with this final list of UN demands, military action would be deemed to be justified. No further resolution is needed.
Jens Weitzel, Sunnyvale, California
This is not the US' war, it is the war of the Bush administration Dee, Independence, Minnesota |
Whatever the outcome of the second resolution, any action taken in Iraq must be done by the UN, based on what crimes they agree Saddam and his administration have committed. If the US goes to war without the support of the UN, then this is not the US' war, it is the war of the Bush administration. He is not listening to the citizens of the US. He is not listening to the world. His arrogance and blood-lust over a man his father could not bring down is putting a bad light on all Americans across the world. What's worse is that it damages our standing in the UN and puts many lives at risk. As the world watches what happens in Saddam Hussein's regime, it also watches what happens in George W. Bush's regime.
Dee, Independence, Minnesota, USA
There will not be a second UN resolution, as long as the US and UK played along democratic rules (and is it not democracy that they are promising Iraq?). But as they blackmail and bribe supposedly weak countries like the African members of the Security Council, there might still be a chance for this kind of forced resolution. If only those Americans who cry for war now had been so stringent regarding the breaching of UN resolutions by Israel for the past 35 years, the world would be a much more peaceful place.
Philipp Magiera, Amman, Jordan
It is likely that the new resolution will not even be put before Security Council, since the US will not risk the political backlash of their resolution not being supported. This way however, every player would consider it has a clear ground: US that 1441 still gives enough premise for war, and the anti-war trio that it sustained their principles without confronting the only superpower. However, Iraq will be attacked whatever outcome in the UN, even whatever development inside Iraq. It is obviously a long ago-decided decision. Yugoslavia saw a similar scenario in 1999.
Roman Balvanovic, Belgrade, Yugoslavia
Half our teachers have left the country until the situation is resolved |
I think it is clear the UN and the world will never support the American position so the Americans and their "willing" followers should make up their mind as quick as possible whether or not they are going ahead. As a Kuwait resident and teacher of young children I would not like to see a war but the uncertainty of when it will be is playing havoc with our school's programme with half our teachers having left the country until the situation is resolved. For everyone, please George and Tony, don't waste any more time! The world wants peace but if you are determined to take Iraq DO IT QUICKLY thus causing the least possible damage.
Jawad, Kuwait
If the US is decided to attack, the UN should take the right stand and let US go alone.
Nader Afshar, Iran
All responsible countries in the Security Council should veto new resolutions. Resolution 1440 is still in progress and is returning positive results. The pressure put forward by the US and UK has definitely helped but the politicians need to know when to stop. It is now beginning to look as the US is obsessed with war and the need to just kill "anything". The UN resolutions and weapons inspections have kept Saddam on ice for the last 13 years.
Invading Iraq with out the approval of UN defines the countries involved as aggressors acting for its own benefits, meaning those countries have violated sovereignty of an independent member of the UN and international community. That simply means, they are liable for all damages and will have to pay fines in the same way as Germany had to do after WW2. Does anyone believe the US economy can tolerate such a blow?
J Kristjansson, Reykjavik, Iceland
Yes, I think a second resolution is required. France, Russia and others should submit a resolution declaring that a US action without UN backing will be against international law.
Guclu, Turkey
Even if a second resolution is passed, it would not authorise the use of force. Francesca Barres, Uzbekistan |
Even if a second resolution is passed, it would not authorise the use of force. 'Serious consequences' in UN speak does NOT mean the authorisation of the use of force, which is Straw and Powell's mistaken interpretation of resolution 1441. These people should acquaint themselves with the UN's legal niceties before they arrogantly set themselves up as the interpreters of international law. In UN language only the use of the words 'all necessary means' = the authorisation of the use of force. And this phrase will never appear in the second resolution. So the Anglo-Saxon warmongers will still not be able to go to war without flouting international law.
Francesca Barres, Uzbekistan This seems to have become a purely Anglo-Saxon forum here. Well, no one apart from Anglo-Saxons with their notorious media supports the war. The history of ruthless killings in Korea, Vietnam and Yugoslavia conducted mainly by Anglo-Saxons taught the world to unite and thank God there's united Europe and China and India and Russia and the Arabic world to protect peace against those mad regimes.
Andrey, Russia
When Bush comes to shove everyone falls in line. Even if they don't Bush has declared he'll do it alone. The US itself has vetoed 38 resolutions on Israel. Who is it to complain??
Afreen, Saudia Arabia
A second resolution will fail and within days the US and UK will invade Iraq; and from the wake of horrible devastation the US will be praised for its awesome military power, while having lost any semblance of honour or respect for its democratic values. If the world is truly at risk from this prostrated dictatorship, then we must believe the world would act in concert to depose the Iraqi Government, regardless of oil interests and aid payments.
It is clear the world is not convinced. Shouldn't we look to the big picture of international cooperation in this time of global terrorism? What good does it do to discredit the UN? I look forward to international cooperation and regime change here in the US.
Kevin, Newport Beach, CA, USA
A second resolution is not necessary, as war itself is not warranted. The UN is taking actions against Iraq through sanctions, weapon inspections and disarmament. What the UN does not support is an invasion! As long as Iraq has not actually used WMD on any country, there is no justification for war.
Andrew, Singapore
I don't know if a new UN resolution is possible. I would just like to point out that while US officials try to persuade member nations by promising the big bucks, here the federal government is telling public schools to cut back on their school lunch programs.
Merry, Portland, USA
Whether a new UN resolution passes depends on what it says. A resolution authorising war against Iraq at this time will not pass. The reason is that there are members of the Security Council who are still using their brains. You see, a primary trait of intelligence is the ability to use minimal resources to realise maximum benefits. The plan to invade Baghdad uses a lot of resources for an indeterminate result. I do not think that the planners and warmongers are displaying intelligence on this issue.
Peter Sagay, Las Vegas, USA
Even a second resolution is a process just for the eyes of the world Dimitris Agrafiotis, Budapest, Hungary |
I am afraid that even a second resolution is a process just for the eyes of the world. How could African countries like Angola and Guinea stand up and voice their opinions? They depend on Western and US aid for the food on their table. There shouldn't be a second resolution but only insistence on disarmament without war!
Dimitris Agrafiotis, Budapest, Hungary I very much doubt there will be a second resolution; I don't believe that the world will ever do anything more than agree Saddam is a threat. I can't help but compare this situation to Afghanistan nearly two years ago. Then, the whole world offered moral support but when it came to actually doing something, ie removing the Taleban, it was left entirely up to the US and UK.
Once it was all over the entire world rushed to the scene to make it look like they were doing something in the name of goodness. I guarantee you that when the US and UK get rid of Saddam for good, France, Germany and Russia will be the first in line to claim they were backing the allies all the way.
Matt, UK
The US' behaviour of snubbing their allies after 9/11 set the scenery for what's happening today |
To Matt: After 9/11, all Nato countries including Germany and France offered the US their help under Nato's fifth chapter (all Nato countries are attacked if one of them is attacked). This generous proposition was turned down by the US who would lead their war, choosing their allies (and France did play a significant role in committing its entire fleet). This behaviour of snubbing one's allies set the scenery for what's happening today. "You're with us or you're with the terrorists. And we reserve the right to turn down our friends anyway."
Bernard Gauvain, France The UN was founded on ideals that nations should reconcile their differences through dialogue rather than resort to unilateral decision to wage war. The biggest mistake America has made recently is to elect President Bush who lacks vision and world leadership, which is causing the US to be isolated in the international community. The US will commence a war in Iraq without securing a second UN resolution. My hope is that the world will see that the current US administration will be voted out next year, and the US foreign policy will right itself.
Chris, New York, USA
I don't think Britain and the US will get a second resolution because countries like France, Germany and Russia are determined to undermine the UK/US even though they are wrong. Why can't the French see that Saddam is a threat to us all. When the war ends the British and Americans will be able to hold their heads high while the French and Germans will no doubt try and claim some credit.
Paul, Coventry, UK
Does it matter? Bush is saying that he'll start war anyway but is trying to armlock weaker voting nations through threats. Not exactly democratic, but it would look nice on paper if he got the second resolution. However, the process of "persuasion" is so heavy-handed that it invalidates the process itself.
David, Italy
If reported disarmament progress is to be believed, then perhaps more time should be given |
If reported disarmament progress is to be believed, then perhaps more time should be given. Extending by a few months may not only avert a war, it may actually provide the necessary pressure to topple Saddam Hussein from within, but such extension cannot go on forever and China, France and Russia must open their eyes and face the reality of this grave situation, align themselves with the rest of the UN, and shoulder their responsibilities.
John de Bry, Melbourne Beach, Florida, USA The problem with inspections at this point is that Saddam is not coming forward with the information he needs. The inspectors are being forced to travel around the country in search of weapons they know Iraq has. What has happened to the tons of chemical and biological weapons the UN previously estimated Iraq being in possession of?
People tend to overlook or ignore this fact. They didn't just disappear, and Iraq has not given the inspectors any evidence they destroyed them after they kicked out UN inspectors. There is no need for a second resolution. The US has to act on the security of itself and its interests. We all want peace, but we can't ignore Saddam. He was never contained, and he certainly isn't even under the heavy inspections.
Matthew, Lawrence, USA
I'm amazed that everyone is so critical of the US and UN. 50 or 100 years ago there would not have been any dialogue regarding such an invasion. I am pleased the international community is free to speak their minds and that the members of the UN have had such an open dialogue. I would also point out that without 300,000 US troops ready to go into Iraq, Saddam would not even be letting inspectors in.
The second resolution would be nice but just as ineffective as all of the others. The problem goes back to the first Gulf war when the UN did not have the backbone to authorise the removal of Saddam's brutal regime.
Tom, Cleveland, USA
This show could go on for years. |
Why stop at one more resolution? This show could go on for years. The UN is a wonderful opportunity for countries to grandstand in front of a world audience without actually doing anything. I cannot believe that France, Germany, and Russia are that closely aligned to Saddam Hussein. It is time for the real leaders of the world to act.
Chuck, Pennsylvania, USA Look at the facts. For over 12 years the UN has taken the peaceful route with Iraq. There are 17 UN resolutions against Iraq combined with years of sanctions and arms inspections. We know Iraq has WMD - it had them when inspectors left and we know it has not disarmed in the meantime. Therefore we know it is now hiding these weapons. Iraq has used and is willing to use these weapons. We know that it's only a matter of time before a terrorist gets hold of one of some of these weapons. This is what led to the groundbreaking resolution 1441.
1441 states that if Iraq does not cooperate and does not disarm it will face 'serious consequences'. Surely 'serious consequences' does not mean yet another resolution with more months of procrastination? No new resolution is required, the UN has made its case, it must stand by it and take action, or forever be ignored as irrelevant by future dictators and oppressors.
Peter, London, UK
The only course of action open to the global community is the removal of this man by force |
World leaders are quite correct in trying to avert the threat of war. However, whether a second UN resolution is passed or not will not remove Saddam from his seat of power. The only course of action open to the global community is the removal of this man by force. Appeasement has never forced a ruthless dictator to relinquish control, only force of arms. As terrible as war is it is sometimes the only recourse peace loving nations have of ridding the world of those who would hold them to ransom. By appeasing one dictator, the world may be encouraging other despots to follow the example of the likes of Saddam.
John Clarson, Birmingham, England The US cannot allow countries such as Angola, China and those countries with similar governments to decide what is in our best interests. It is time to bring peace to the Middle East and the peacemakers are already there. The easy thing to do is sit back and say "Not yet". It is America's military and we are not trying to take over anything, just save ourselves a bigger headache later on.
Todd, Washington DC, USA
Ruthless dictators are oblivious to resolutions Michael Sullivan, New York |
Why do we need more resolutions? The UN has proven that it is unwilling to enforce the existing ones. So we should have more resolutions which will never be enforced? If the US and the UK don't enforce the multiple existing resolutions, then what meaning do the resolutions have? What is the penalty for violating resolutions? If it weren't for President Bush, the weapons inspectors that were kicked out in 1998 would still be kicked out. Ruthless dictators are oblivious to resolutions and well-intentioned paperwork; they only understand force.
Michael Sullivan, New York, NY USA There is absolutely no reason for any extension. How many years does it take, how many threats and how much subversion of the Iraqi people? Much has been said about this being about US oil interests. Yes it is, but let's be clear here, France is taking its stance because it wants to extend its influence in North African countries with oil reserves as well.
Trevor, Colchester UK
A second resolution is possible and desirable only if the security council is allowed to express it's true opinion and desire based on the opinions of the inspectors and not to be bullied into supporting the wishes and one member. If the Security Council allows itself to be bullied and coerced into passing a resolution supporting action ignoring the reports of the inspectors then that is an act that will make the UN an irrelevant body.
Adrian, London, UK
Unthinking countries have taken a stance Rob McDougall, Manchester, UK |
No, because unthinking countries have taken a stance and will now stick to their bad decisions. The countries who are blocking the war effort should remain with the UN debating society and the more dynamic countries should leave the UN for good.
Rob McDougall, Manchester, UK A second resolution is not necessary as resolution 1441 sets out the stall for disarmament. Despite this, Iraq have chosen to ignore the will of the UN and continued to stockpile weapons. When will people wake up - when the first missile lands?
Yancy Jefferson, Runcorn, Cheshire
Since the Gulf war, Iraq has proven that they have the restraint not to use force and/or so-called weapons of mass destruction, something the US has not demonstrated. Imagine if no-fly zones were imposed over Scotland and the southern portion of the UK by a larger and far more aggressive world bully, do you think you might just want to hide a couple of extra weapons to deal the aggressor a blow if he decides to walk in and take over?
Jim, Edmonton, Canada
The US will declare the UN irrelevant and with UK support attack Iraq, probably next week Mike Tidmus, Brussels, Belgium |
Of course there will not be another resolution. The US-UK needs nine votes, and no vetoes, to win. Only Bulgaria has tentatively agreed to the resolution, while six nations - including France, Russia and China with veto power - oppose it. Short of massive economic threats, Colin Powell has run out of ammunition. Consequently, the US will declare the UN irrelevant and with UK support attack Iraq, probably next week. Saddled with a $95bn war debt, the US will order the UN out of NYC and it will set up shop in Brussels (where it belongs) whilst the US and UK do their best to stave off the onslaught of blood-thirsty terrorists attacks in reaction this war.
Mike Tidmus, Brussels, Belgium It seems the 'peaceniks' either don't get it or haven't the backbone to face up to the realities of the 21st century. Either way, their cringing and whining won't save us from the horrors now threatening our children's future. Only the brave can do that.
Ray Lee, London, UK
The UN has many powerful members, collectively they are powerful force for peaceful resolution |
The UN, international law, and other agreements and organisations that solve economic/state-to-state problems can solve problems peacefully, if they get cooperation from their members. The UN has many powerful members, collectively they are powerful force for peaceful resolution. We have risen to the highest level of human ability with agreements and organisations such as these. Now the US, Iraq, Israel, Palestine want to drag the world down and back to barbaric levels again. A second resolution is unnecessary.
James Retta, Taiwan Bush needs to save face. He accumulated thousands of troops hoping to find the weapons and finish Saddam (something we all would like but not like this). Instead he found out that no weapons exist and that the US is only another country on the planet. France, Germany, etc also exist and put boundaries to his immaturity.
Roman, Singapore
Surely many countries will take a lesson from the Turks, they have shown their true measure by refusing to be bought. Surely the honesty and dignity of the Turkish folk is now recognised in every corner of the Earth. All power to them!
Alan Prosser, Antwerp, Belgium
Not likely and not necessary |
Yet another resolution on Iraq? Not likely and not necessary. Disarmament will not happen in Iraq until the root of the problem is removed: Saddam. It is time for the bureaucrats, appeasers, and aged hippies to step out of the way so the coalition forces can do their job.
Dan, San Francisco, USA A second resolution is inevitable and it will be passed unanimously. France and Russia have too much to lose by using the veto. As usual, the whole process has been hijacked by economics and the hijacking of the UN by the USA. It is interesting that the US and UK say that the UN's authority will be undermined by not dealing with Iraq by force. Would the authority of the UN not be undermined by two of its members ignoring it? Else what is the UN for other than to clear the conscience of the US' foreign policy?
Stuart Woodward, Colchester, UK
Both France and Russia have flat out said this week they won't support a resolution authorising war at the moment. So unless the US does a huge amount of threatening or bribing (which would in my eyes at least invalidate the resolution) there is no chance. This is good as I feel that at this stage this war is unjustifiable.
Colin Wright, UK
The first resolution gives the authority to go to war if Saddam does not comply |
A second UN resolution is not necessary and only confuses the situation further. The first resolution, 1441, gives the authority to go to war if Saddam does not comply. I think that Blair is right to now ask for a deadline to be put on resolution 1441, and Hans Blix has to stop sending mixed messages and tell the world - Saddam is complying yes or no.
Andy Clegg, Warrington, Cheshire The second resolution, if passed, will show most of the nations are prepared to take hard decisions. Otherwise the cost to be paid due to proliferation of nuclear material in the hands of terrorists, in terms of human life, will be very high.
KK Ghei, Delhi, India
Whilst I am against the war in Iraq without a second UN mandate, I find it a crass irony that Germany and France are now bedfellows with Russia. It was the US who provided European security after the Second World War. Germany particularly benefited from their strength and commitment. It will be interesting to see what the US does regarding Europe after the Iraq crisis is resolved. Saddam has managed to break up an alliance forged with the blood of US and British troops, and split the world powers.
Mike Barrell, Magor Gwent
Resolution 1441 and the second draft resolution do not mention military action OR regime change, why is it that the UK and US presume it gives them the authority to do this?
Gerard, London, UK
The fundamental role of the UN is to maintain peace |
The fundamental role of the UN is to maintain peace and harmony in the world, to end all war and to redirect global efforts to eradicating poverty, disease and other common problems facing the world. In exceptional circumstances, the UN can authorise the use of war (eg Korea in 1950, Kuwait in 1990) when war is the only remaining solution to repulse aggression or to otherwise maintain the peace. For the UN to authorise one of its member countries to attack another when there is no threat or aggression is nothing but a reversal of that role, a return to the law of the jungle, a recognition that might is right and a travesty of all that the UN is supposed to stand for - equality for all peoples. In such a case the UN has no more reason to exist.
Prakash, Lyons, France
I think that a second resolution will not bring anything new. The Bush administration may go to war against Iraq but this will definitely add to Bush's discredit and increase international terrorism. Bush is not discrediting the UN but his own country.
Wendy, France
The more this war of words goes on, the more unlikely it is that a second resolution will not be put to the UN. If it were and was not approved, it will not only leave the US in a tough position politically, but could well spell the end of the Blair goverment. Blair has made it clear that he will go to war with the US regardless of UN approval but this will surely spell the end of his administration and his term in office.
I am just thankful that countries such as France, Russia, Germany and China are beginning to stand up to the US and not simply allowing them to do as they will. I sincerely hope that the US is not able to 'buy' their way out of this though as they are attempting to do so with Turkey. Can someone please let me know where Kofi Annan is in all of this, he seems to be alarmingly quiet?
Aquil Khan, London, England
There will only be a second UN resolution if Bush and Blair are sure they will win it |
It is quite clear that the decision for war has already been taken. There will only be a second UN resolution if Bush and Blair are sure they will win it. Otherwise they will go to war claiming 1441 as authority. I hope the French and Russians maintain their backbone and resist the threats and bribes. At least this makes visible the incoherence of the US/UK position.
Dan, London, UK Resolution 1441 was passed with the approval of every member of the security council but few appear to back words with action. The inspectors will not find the weapons of Mass destruction they know exist if Saddam does not choose to declare them so it is pointless continuing to play this game. Saddam knows that many nations lack the mettle to deal with him directly and will play the weaknesses and divisions in the security council for all it is worth. By doing so he exposes the weakness and irrelevance of the UN in these situations. It is time for Saddam to be dealt with and for those willing to stand up and be counted.
Paul, Manchester , UK
People talk about the credibility of the UN being risked by no immediate military action. I would say that 3 out of 5 permanent security members objecting to the US/UK stance and non-permanent members having to be bribed by the US to support them pretty much undermines the UN if war does takes place!!
Rob Merchant, Leamington, UK
I hope France and Russia both use their vetoes |
I don't think that there will be a second UN resolution calling for/allowing war. The global opposition to war shows that most people don't believe that the case for war has been made (I certainly don't and strongly oppose a war) and that feeling should be reflected in a UN vote. I hope that France and Russia both use their vetoes and that all other governments listen to their people, in order to avoid a war. But Bush and Blair seem unaffected by this and will go in anyway against the will of the people who elected them. This war is unjust and it is time Bush and Blair realise that, because the price we and the rest of the world will have to pay is more than any of us can bear.
Tom, Luxembourg living in Leicester, UK The second resolution should warn Iraq that it must comply 100% but also condemn the US/UK for their belligerence and acting without clear UN authorisation. There should also be a resolution authorising the use of force against Israel if it does not withdraw fully and permanently from Palestine in line with 60+ UN resolutions.
Riyad Tibi, Marlow, UK
A second resolution is impossible and even if it were possible, it would prove useless. Sanctions are meant to continue long-term peace but the UN is less interested in enforcing them. Saddam has quickly proven the UN is a figurehead organisation that has no backbone to enforce its own policies. Who will be next to ignore the edicts of the UN? It appears that Korea has already learned Saddam's lesson in this.
Mike, USA
It's clear to Bush now that he won't have a second resolution. My guess is after Friday's report from the inspector he will garner up all his best reasons stating that Iraq has never complied with the original terms after the first Gulf war, and in spite of the other nations' reluctance, the US will make him disarm. Isn't it scary that this is all coming down to George's decision? I think as soon as he got elected, he strapped on his spurs and started looking for bullies to fight. What cattle we are.
Jim Brown, Osterburg, Pennsylvania, US
Bush's biggest mistake was going to the UN in the first place Arianna Kell, New York, USA |
Bush's biggest mistake was going to the UN in the first place. Saddam's blatant disregard for past UN resolutions was in itself sufficient cause for war. Bush's decision to disregard the advice of Dick Cheney and take his case to the UN simply gave opportunistic countries like France a chance to further their own secret ambitions of world pre-eminence while appearing to much of the gullible world as champions of peace.
Arianna Kell, New York, USA I will support a second UN resolution and the entire war if I can be guaranteed at least 75% of the Iraqi people support such a war. If not, this is no 'liberation'.
Brandon Butler, Halifax, Canada
The decision on whether or not the US goes to war should be made by our Congress, not the President or the UN! The language of Article I, section 8, is quite clear: Only Congress has the authority to declare war.
Justin, Austin, Texas, USA
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 
