Click here to watch the debate

Or click here for an audio-only version

President Bush - speaking after an emergency summit with the leaders of Britain and Spain - has said that Monday will be a moment of truth in the crisis over Iraq.

It will be the final day to determine whether or not diplomacy could work, the president said.

War is already justified by previous UN resolutions, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said earlier, and no further mandates are needed before attacking Iraq.

Do you think a strike against Iraq can be legally and morally justified without a second resolution? Should Britain wait for UN consensus before taking action? What do you think should come next?

This debate has now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

Iraq is not attacking any country. Neither are its citizens involved in any terrorist acts so far. There is absolutely no way that Iraq can attack US or UK. US has much more threat from the religious fanaticism in countries which are its allies like Saudi and Pakistan. So what's the reason for the war?
Farhan, Singapore

Think of peace and security in ten years from now. This war is going to add more enemies to US than only Islamic people. The anti-US sentiment all over the world is going to be enormous. Don�t be mistaken. I�m against Saddam but this war is needless and most of all stupid.
Jose Ignacio, Barcelona, Spain

Where are the weapons of mass destruction? And even if they are there, many other countries possess such weapons. If the government of the UK and the Bush-administration do not follow the UN, it will suffer the same fate as the League of Nations did � just before World War II.
Malene Flagga, Copenhagen, Denmark

Despite all the diplomatic debate, the single important question is, "Does international terrorism and those who support it present a physical threat to the people of the United States?" The answer, despite all the wishful thinking, is "Yes." Therefore, the US has every right to defend herself with all means at her disposal. We do not need UN nor French permission.
Doug, Washington, DC, USA

Must a country be threat to the US or Britain for the UN to act decisively? Is it acceptable if Saddam gasses more Kurds or invades Kuwait again? Must Saddam assault the beaches of Dover before the UN is justified in dealing with him militarily? A second resolution is meaningless, except that it may pacify the few Brits who still place stock in the UN.
Shane Watts, US

If a group of nine countries vote for a war does it suddenly become justified? If, on the other hand 14 countries vote for a war and one against it, does it suddenly become Unjustified? Give us a break!
Derek, Spoane, USA

They will undermine whatever moral authority they might have had John Berwick, Berlin, Germany

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the "conscience of the world body" has already said that the legitimacy of military action against Iraq would be "seriously impaired" without UN approval. If the US and Britain launch a war in violation of the UN, they will undermine whatever moral authority they might have had and will incur the contempt of the international community.

The question is not whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, like the US, Britain, Pakistan or India, but whether the US, Spain and Britain have respect for international law, or are no better than rogue states.
John Berwick, Berlin, Germany

If it's war without UN backing, could the people involved be charged with war crimes under the new international laws?
Peter Andresen, Herts

The way I see it, the only reason the UN exists is to limit the US in its right as a sovereign nation to declare war. President Bush should have got Saddam out of the way back in October. The UN isn't only a joke, it's a threat to US sovereignty.
Russel, Miami, USA

My Labour membership card has the following on the back: "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that... power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect." At the march in York tomorrow I shall burn this card as it is no longer valid.
Mathew Neal, York

The US and Britain's only sense of a solution is to destroy the object of their fear Peter Hill, D�sseldorf, Germany

I regard the intentions of the US and Britain regarding the UN as an attempt to undermine the credibility of the UN, global peace and democracy itself. The hypocrisy of Bush and Blair's actions is becoming increasing obvious, and their integrity and credibility as world leaders is rapidly declining. They are both resorting to ignoring public opinion in an effort to save face and appear to be strong leaders. They have left democracy behind, becoming in the process what they most fear - aggressive global terrorists whose only sense of a solution is to destroy the object of their fear.
Peter Hill, D�sseldorf, Germany

I still don't think there will be a war. However I think that Saddam should be removed from power. Blair is doing a good job of this, even though the media not helping much by being biased. This is an elected government under a democracy. Yes people are allowed to have their say, but I think we should leave the politics to the politicians.
Idi, Guildford, UK

If a second UN resolution is not reached I still think the UK and the US should take action against Saddam. This man is a tyrant that has persecuted his own people for decades, even just for humanitarian reasons alone we should do something. People may be able to turn a blind eye on the chemical weapons but they cannot ignore the suffering of the people of Iraq. People who suggest this is all about oil are just jumping on the popular band wagon.
Gareth, York, England

In discussing the legality of war, let us never forget that Saddam Hussein, or anyone else's dictatorship has no legitimacy to start with. The history of the most loudly talking 'peace heads' like France and Russia is full of violent episodes in which the legality of their actions was (and in many cases, continues to be) nil.
Dmitry, Oxford, UK

We live in a world in which current events have rendered our international institutions irrelevant Alec, Washington, DC

The number of resolutions became irrelevant after the first one went ignored by Saddam. We live in a world in which current events have rendered our international institutions irrelevant and one beneficial outcome of this crisis will, hopefully, be a reassessment of such bodies. The morality of war can only be discussed in the context of idealism. In the real world, violent conflict is sometimes required to eliminate the threats of men who have no respect for human life or civilised society.
Alec, Washington, DC

I cannot imagine a worse step than to invade in the name of freedom. When we cannot recognise the fallacy in that argument we are deluding ourselves. Secondly, for all the things that we take issue with Iraq, we have the same tools but do not own up to it. Is it fair to ask one country to give up their arsenal when we are guilty of the same?
Concerned, Portland, USA

Mr Blair, whatever you do, don't back down now. If you do, the people will look upon you as inconsistent and vote you out in the next election.
Frank A, Australia

A complete lack of flexibility Jassim, Newcastle upon Tyne

I would like to know what France's agenda is, when it states it will veto a resolution 'under any circumstances'. They have, ironically, as the country most fervently against war, ended the diplomatic process because of a complete lack of flexibility.
Jassim, Newcastle upon Tyne

The French have very short memories, maybe one day soon they will need help from the countries they are disgracefully letting down.
Tom Charter, St Neots

A second UN resolution is essential. The rule of law, the cornerstone of all democracies, demands it.
Stephen Roughton, Canada

What is the point of having UN resolutions if America can just change them when it feels like it, simply to suit its own needs?
Mike King, Bromley, Kent

It's not acceptable that some countries have the right of veto Antonio, Latina, Italy

No, it wouldn't be justified but I think something must change in the UN Security Council structure. A lot of things have changed in the past 50 years and it's not acceptable that some countries have the right of veto. This could only lead to a stand-off instead of resolving conflicts.
Antonio, Latina, Italy

I used to think we lived in a civilised society which obeyed laws. I have no doubt that war under these circumstances would be illegal.
Simon Clarke, London, UK

No, war is not justified without a second resolution. Iraq is not a threat to any countries in the West, there is no evidence for weapons of mass destruction being manufactured in the present and 1441 does not justify the invasion of one state by another. In fact the UN was intended to stop such acts, not justify them. The moral and political justification has never been made or proved by Blair and Bush. It will destabilise the Middle East, creating more terrorism, not less.
Nick Bardsley, London, England

If the UN were a body of ethically upstanding countries trying to do what's right for the world, I would say war is not justified without another resolution. But since the UN is a body of bickering nations many of which have no moral standing and most of which are acting purely in their self interest, I would say no additional resolution is needed.
Tom, USA

This isn't the second resolution - it is the eighteenth. Saddam has killed a million of his own people, it is time the world was rid of this monster.
Anne, Redcar, England

Sadly I feel it is necessary to disarm Iraq and topple the regime before it's too late. If we don't do it now then who knows how many more innocent Iraqi people will die at the hands of their own government?
Mark, London, UK

I fail to see how an Iraqi civilian hit by a cluster bomb will care whether it has the UN's name on it or not Jennifer, UK

I fail to see how an Iraqi civilian hit by a cluster bomb will care whether it has the UN's name on it or not. Either you think war is morally justified, or you don't. All the posturing and horse trading at the UN now is either about providing a fig leaf for Tony Blair, or about Jacques Chirac pretending that France is still a world power and incidentally trying to protect French companies' oil interests in Iraq. How a positive vote from the likes of Angola (hardly a model democracy) makes war more justified is beyond me.
Jennifer, UK

Without a second UN resolution, a war would be illegal under international law. This would give the same level of legality to an invasion of Iraq as to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. But then, according to former secretary-general of the UN Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the 12 year US/UK-imposed no fly zones have also been illegal and they got away with that. So long as there's one law for us and our allies and another for our enemies, international terrorism will continue, no matter how many terrorists we capture or countries we bomb.
Andrew Dean, UK

This is unprovoked, raw, illegal aggression by the American and British Governments Norman Wilcox, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

This is unprovoked, raw, illegal aggression by the American and British Governments. What chance have the Iraqi population against such a monstrous force? The deaths and mutilations will be counted as hundreds of thousands and discarded as collateral damage.
Norman Wilcox, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

In the terms of the ceasefire at the end of the last Gulf war, Iraq was ordered to dispose of its chemical and biological weapons. As it has clearly opposed and obstructed the UN, it has simply rendered itself in breach of the ceasefire. Britain and the US would still be justified in disarming Iraq under that treaty even 12 years later. Congratulations to Mr Blair on his efforts to go the UN route, but now is the time to take action.
Jon Davis, Lincoln, UK

Yes it's justified. For 12 years the UN has demanded that he destroys and accounts for his biological and chemical weapons but he has not. How can people still want to give him more time? Are 12 years and 17 broken resolutions not enough? Failing to act now will give the green light to any country to develop these weapons and what's to stop them? Decades of UN hand wringing? That's sure to have them shaking in their boots.
Alan, UK

No. Blair and Bush have said that democracy is best and should always be upheld. The UN is the democratic body of the international community and its will should also be upheld.
D, Northants, UK

Saddam has been given enough chances Phill Steele, Newcastle, UK

Saddam has been given enough chances, he has failed to take those chances. Tony Blair needs to be congratulated for trying to use the UN. It is not his fault that the French have rendered the whole process of diplomacy irrelevant. Now is the time for action and now is the time for his whingeing backbenchers to get behind the man who led them into power.
Phill Steele, Newcastle, UK

I'd like to express my heartfelt thanks to the government and people of the UK. Though we may agree or disagree on issues one thing is clear on this side of the pond, you are our allies. The intransigent stance of the French have almost assuredly 'let loose the dogs of war'.
C Beckingham, USA

The reason that the US want to invade Iraq simply does not stand. If we took up arms against all countries building weapons of mass destruction, we would be at war with North Korea, Israel, and many others. The Israelis ignored the UN, and the Iraqis complied, yet Iraq is going to be invaded.
Chris Pickford, Liverpool, UK

Whilst Iraq may not be posing a direct threat to the UK or the USA, it is a threat to itself. Saddam has already shown that he is prepared to use his weapons on his own people. Should we stand aside and watch this happen again?
John, Malvern, England

Yes! The UN has been shown to fail to uphold its own will when there are conflicting agendas present. It's time that the UN folded, and a new body was installed.
Stephen Henry, Glasgow, Scotland

This isn't a potential second resolution being discussed, it will be the eighteenth! And the seventeenth resolution already carried the threat of 'serious consequences', diplomatic language for war.
Philip Thompson, Nottingham, UK

Yes, full stop. France will be shown to have previously provided Iraq with illicit material such as rocket propellant once the current regime is overthrown. Their actions to block the US/UK will be exposed as cynical attempts to protect their own economic interests.
John Sullivan, USA/Hong Kong

The Iraqi people have been comprehensively brutalised by their government and it is morally just for the UK and the USA to liberate them, with or without a second UN resolution.
David Semark, London, UK

No. Without a second UN resolution there is no justification for US and UK to go in. The second resolution they made up is a joke. How can Iraq "commit to giving up all mobile bio-production laboratories" That resolution isn't made up to solve the crisis without war, it was made to get approval for war. Mr Blair it is time you wake up.
Viv, Belgium

There is absolutely no justification for a war under resolution 1441. The US ambassador to the UN (Negroponte) at the time of the vote said that there "was no automatic trigger for war" in the resolution. Now that international consensus can't be reached, we can expect the US and UK to use an older resolution to justify war. This will be certainly illegal under international law as the use of force has to be mandated under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Mark, Dublin, Ireland.

War against Iraq is unjustified, irrespective of UN resolutions Alcide Barboni, Italy

Iraq is not posing any threat to Europe or the USA, and no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda has been proven. Therefore war against Iraq is unjustified, irrespective of UN resolutions.
Alcide Barboni, Italy

War is absolutely justified. 1441 was approved unanimously, and now many countries refuse to back up their own decisions. This is typical of the UN, and it gets us nowhere. The time has come for action, whether or not the UN is benign and undermines its own authority. And so if we must act without them, we will do so without hesitation.
Rob, United States

Yes! The previous 17 resolutions on Iraq clearly give enough authority for military action. The onus has always been on Saddam to give up his WMD along the lines of the South African model; it was not up to UN inspectors to disarm him. It must be clear now to almost everyone that he has no intention of doing so voluntarily. Diplomacy has run its course and I hope and expect that the US and UK will now resolve this matter once and for all as soon as possible.
Alfred, UK

This war is unjustified and from the UK point of view will probably enter future history books as the War of Blair's Ego. His arrogance and anti-democratic attitudes have put him out of his depth but he's not man enough to admit his mistakes and withdraw from the impending disaster. Whatever happened to the "ethical foreign policy" New Labour used to go on about?
Jack, UK