Many observers believe that it is only a matter of time before before an attack is launched against Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein and his regime.

But plans for a sustained attack on Iraq have met with widespread opposition and threaten to destabilise the international coalition against terror.

In his State of the Union address, President Bush described Iraq, North Korea and Iran as part of "an axis of evil" threatening the world's peace and hinted that he would move to use the full force of US military might if necessary.

Should the war on terror be extended to Iraq and other countries? Is there a strong enough case against the "axis of evil" countries? Would the world be a safer place if Saddam Hussein were replaced?

We will be discussing how the world has changed since 11 September in a special international, interactive phone-in programme on 7 September with BBC World Service radio and American National Public Radio. 'Living with Terror after 9/11 - The World Speaks' will be broadcast at 1300ET/1700GMT. Please include a telephone number if you would like to take part. This will not appear on the site.

This whole situation reeks of Winston Churchill's warnings about Hitler's belligerence and arrogance

Winston Gregory, Tulsa, USA

I'm thankful our leaders (U.S. and U.K.) don't stick there head in the sand like much of the world, including the British public. America's decision to use nuclear weapons to end WWII was taken very seriously and saved Japanese lives as well as Americans. Australia was Japan's next target. This whole situation reeks of Winston Churchill's warnings about Hitler's belligerence and arrogance. Are Europeans so slow they won't act until a nuclear device is detonated in the middle of the Iberian Peninsula? Hitler conquered most of central Europe before war was declared. What scares me the most is the amount of naivety in the world.
Winston Gregory, Tulsa, USA

Why doesn't the government get rid of the terrorists that are right under their noses in this country?
Sue Pollock, London - UK

I am really afraid about what America is about to do with it's war against terrorism. America says no to everything: Kyoto, International court, steel tariffs and the list goes on. How on earth do Americans believe with their arrogant attitude that the rest of the world should stand behind them? I don't defend what happened to America on 9/11 but I simply ask the Americans to listen more to other countries and nations around the globe. If they do I am sure the world could become a much better place to live in. We have the ability, power, money together to save not only ourselves but also the planet!
Peter Carlsson, Oslo, Norway

George Bush is very dangerous

Stu, Edinburgh

He is hell-bent on destroying other cultures, he has weapons of mass destruction at his disposal and there is no doubt his country has developed biological weapons. Furthermore, he wasn't voted in very democratically. I say we should definitely go in and take George Bush out, he is very dangerous.
Stu, Edinburgh

Why has US allies turned against a strike on Iraq? When Desert Fox was launched in the Clinton administration all or most of the allies strongly supported it and so did the people. Wouldn't you think Iraq is more of a threat today then it was 5 years ago?
Bill, New Jersey USA

The United States has nuclear weapons? Who determines if it is not on the axis of evil?
Dawn Shepherd, Britain

Our President is covering his bases

Jack, San Francisco, US

Is Bush correct? Absolutely. Must the US act unilaterally, now? No. But domestically, he is covering his rear end in the event of another terrorist event while pressurising the UN to reinstate inspections. Wail about Bush and the imperial Americans all you like, but our President is covering his bases.
Jack, San Francisco, US

The war with Iraq will happen because otherwise Bush and Blair will look stupid as they would rather have thousands of people die than look stupid. The war is more about finishing Bush senior's business and about trying to regain Republican control of the Senate than it is about fighting terrorism. It is clear that the US is the aggressor, whether or not they manage to buy off the rest of the UN Security Council in order to get "approval".
W Boucher, UK

Do people really think that the world would be a safer place if we allowed Saddam to attain nuclear capability? It seems pretty clear that if left to his own devices, sanctions or not, he will gain nuclear capability. If war in Iraq now prevents a nuclear terrorist strike later it has to be the better option. Putting your head in the sand is not going to make the problem go away.
Jason, UK, Manchester

Two wrongs never make a right. Without concrete evidence, this whole "War on Terror" is nothing more than a medieval witch-hunt. I find it ironic that these self-righteous do-gooders who are pointing the finger and crying "Evil!" also happen to be the same nation with the worst current track record for utilising nuclear weapons in the history of mankind.
D Mann, UK

The time to have taken out Saddam Hussein was while the Gulf War was still going on

Lyn Noon, England

Can someone please tell me when we (America and Britain) were elected as global policemen? The time to have taken out Saddam Hussein was while the Gulf War was still going on. If we do it now aren't we just as bad as the terrorists?
Lyn Noon, England

The US and UK have many times more weapons of mass destruction than Iraq will ever have. Unless our Prime Minister is going to become a servant of the people then we might as well resign to the dictatorship we now live under, as he fails to listen to his public's wishes.
Adrian Phillips, Leeds, UK

I believe that we should confront terrorism

Kyle, Carson, U.S.

Whether or not the war on terrorism needs to be expanded depends on individual scenarios. I believe that we should confront terrorism wherever it may be, or whoever it may endanger.
Kyle, Carson, U.S.

It scares me to death that there is a madman somewhere in the world with his finger on the nuclear 'button'. But what scares me most is that there doesn't seem to be a country in the world willing or able to stand up to that man - George Bush.
Kate, Cambridge, UK

Why are people suddenly making Saddam Hussain look like a normal president? He is a dictator like Adolf Hitler, why did we leave him in power?
Bill J, USA

There is no reason to attack Iraq

Kevin, Michigan, USA

There is no reason to attack Iraq. We helped Israel obtain Nuclear weapons. We helped other countries with weapons of mass destruction research; therefore we shouldn't have a problem with other people having them. Also, America was founded on freedom and the right to choose, forcing other people to have our beliefs in government is against what we were founded on.
Kevin, Michigan, USA

Has the UK become a dictatorship over night? When do the people get a say? When do we get hard proof instead of empty promises and yet more spin? Where have all the diplomats gone?
David, Hemel Hempstead

First terrorists are created through our inept policies. Then we hunt them to hang on the wall as trophies. This is a war of ego's.
Khalid Rahim, Toronto, Canada

It is obvious Saddam has something to hide

Melissa, Ohio, USA

Action is needed to prevent Iraq from creating biological and nuclear weapons. It is obvious Saddam has something to hide or he would grant weapons inspector's access. If Saddam continues to violate this, then war is inevitable. Bush and Blair do need the support of the UN, but this problem cannot wait if Saddam refuses to allow inspectors unlimited access. We cannot afford to wait too long or our fears of Saddam's abilities may be realized too late.
Melissa, Ohio, USA

Now is not the time to launch an attack against Iraq. However, a hard deadline of no more than two months away should be set for weapons inspectors to return. If they are not allowed access by then, action should be taken. To not take out Saddam is to trust in the naivety of the rest of the world.
Dave, USA

We should attack Iraq before it's too late

McKinley, Georgia, USA

I believe in the president when he says that we should attack Iraq before it's too late. If Iraq does get nuclear weapons then who knows what he'll do?
McKinley, Georgia, USA

Bush is doing more harm to more people through his policy of trashing the environment and causing huge irreversible damage to the planet than Saddam ever could. A plague on both of them!
daniel, london uk

Yes we should remove dangerous regimes. There is no point waiting for them to perform another act of terror on the world before we act. We are perfectly entitled for our own safety to remove a so called sovereign head of state if there is sufficient justification that there is a very real threat to world security.
Ben, UK now US

The world might be a safer place if Bush was replaced with someone who wasn't under the control of the oil industry. Perhaps an UN-appointed interim government is needed to run the US until this threat to world peace is neutralised.
Jay, Warwick, UK

Here is a man who continually thumbs his nose at the world, violates international agreements and has no regard for human life

Eric, USA

Saddam Hussein should definitely be removed. Here is a man who continually thumbs his nose at the world, violates international agreements and has no regard for human life. Why our so called European friends (except the British) don't support his removal just baffles me. I suspect it has something to do with money. The fact remains that Saddam has not finished fighting the Gulf War. Destroying America is at the top of his list. Intelligence reports show activity at old nuclear sites & list many smuggled items needed to make a nuke.
Eric, USA

There is no moral justification for this so called war on terror to be extended to any other country. The US government doesn't even have a proof that Iraq is engaged in any type of terrorist activity. Look at history, where ever the Americans have interfered that have created more problems than they have solved.
Guri, Sydney, Australia

It is just plain immoral to attack a country that hasn't done anything to us yet

Robbie, Brighton, England

It is just plain immoral to attack a country that hasn't done anything to us yet. By all means let us be prepared to retaliate should such an attack come, but meanwhile let America fight its own battles. Anyway, why is it OK for some 'civilised' countries to own terrible weapons, while other countries are not allowed to do the same?
Robbie, Brighton, England

Saddam will allow the weapons inspectors in. However, he will only allow them to see what he wants them to see. If the inspectors protest they'll be kicked out. War will be on the table again, and it will all follow this path over and over again until Saddam has acquired his nuclear device. Kill him now before it's too late!!!
Cally, Germany

We can't just disregard the sovereignty of another country and take out its head of state

Anne, Virginia, USA

We should not invade Iraq - we can't just disregard the sovereignty of another country and take out its head of state. We would not stand for that being done to us! It is this arrogance and short-sightedness that always gets us into trouble. We supported this man at one time and helped to create this mess. I know that there are Americans who have read history and have more than a superficial understanding of world events and other cultures. Are none of them in the Bush administration? We shoot ourselves in the foot and then cannot ever understand why we're bleeding.
Anne, Virginia, USA

The Western model of democracy is by no means perfect but it is by all means the best there is! The world is getting smaller each day and very soon there is no room left for dark age groups like the Taleban or Saddam's regime.
Klas, Sweden

What is the big hurry? Give Iraq more time. Build more support by providing the facts and make this public. Once war begins then a lot of deaths will occur. Is this what the world needs? We should think more about saving our planet instead of killing it.
Paul T, Michigan, USA

While all the bleeding hearts and bleat on about how we shouldn't do this and shouldn't do that when it comes to stopping these terrorist groups, they forget one important fact. These people do not play by our rules so why should we? We will only suffer more outrages and attacks by these fundamentalist groups. The Cold War era was about watching the enemy, not slaughtering thousands of civilians. We need to act now before fundamentalist groups that have permeated Western society to plan their attacks have a chance to carry them out. This isn't some diplomatic or political issue, this is about a people who are willing to die in order to kill the infidels - us!
Jamie, UK

If no link has been made between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, then why attack Iraq? In fact there is evidence provided by the US which shows the opposite, that these two parties hate each other. The war started off with trying to hunt down those responsible for 9/11. As that has not been achieved yet, it now appears the US is trying to start another war which it can win, to restore some pride and prove that it can do anything it wants. It is very dangerous to let one superpower be above the law, and do as it pleases. What happens after Iraq? Is Iran next? Perhaps Syria? I am weary of having the US rule the world by placing their soldiers in every country! It can only make things worse and create more extreme groups.
Shafi Chowdhury, Ulm, Germany

We cannot even guess as to the truth about Iraq and what weapons it possesses, but it does indicate that people in general are very easy to program so long as they think they are getting a good deal. Disinformation is incredibly powerful, so powerful that it causes what we see in Israel, Iraq and America. The truth is in us, not out there.
Kevin Daniels, Newcastle, UK