As long as the Security Council showed firm intent to disarm Iraq within weeks, a second resolution would be welcomed by Mr Bush.

But Bush wants no delay: "Saddam Hussein is not disarming... Any attempt to drag the process on for months will be resisted by the United States," he said.

War is weeks away unless Iraq fulfils UN orders to disarm, President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair warned after holding talks at the White House.

The pair interpret UN Resolution 1441 to mean that using force against Iraq without further UN endorsement is legitimate, but Mr Blair has stressed that he does want UN agreement first.

Do you think Bush will wait for UN agreement before using force against Iraq? How do you interpret his statement? Does collective action through the UN seem more likely again?

Thank you for your e-mails. This debate is now closed. A selection of your comments is published below.

How can a person claim to support human rights and democracy (or non-dictatorships at least) and still claim that it is wrong to remove Saddam? It's nice to have your confused ideals sitting comfortable in Europe under the US blanket of protection for 50 years, but just try to imagine the life of a normal Iraqi! I'm sure that they have no problem with us removing their leader.
Phil B., Chicago, US

His rush to send his troops to war is costing the US people millions and millions of dollars a day Howard, Sydney, Australia

Bush can't wait for the UN. His rush to send his troops to war is costing the US people millions and millions of dollars a day. Hardly surprising Bush is so impatient to get on with it. So the US will proceed to war regardless to cover up for US tactics being an arrogant mistake. The US states that the Iraqi army is significantly weaker than the US, and so the war will be over "quickly and decisively". Why then is Iraq such a threat to world peace, even if it has WMD? How will it ever conquer and control another major country?
Howard, Sydney, Australia

President Bush has not yet acted in any way that is out of synch with the UN or international opinion. Bush has so far remained open to pursuing the avenue of international diplomacy and up to this point has avoided military action against Iraq.
However, it is quickly becoming apparent that Iraq is uncooperative with the UN demand to disarm and is continuing to stockpile and hide weapons of mass destruction. We have seen evidence of this in Bush's State of the Union Address and we are sure to see more evidence in Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council on Wednesday. Bush has made it clear that he in no way deems the UN or international opinion unnecessary, only that he does not need the permission of the international community to defend his country, which is his duty as the US chief executive.
Ryan, New York, USA

No one is saying Saddam is good. Recently I spoke to an Iraqi refugee who had been tortured by Saddam in 1991 after the US withdrew support from the coup it had initiated. But even the Iraqi refugee did not want to see Saddam removed by the US, because most people in that region no longer trust the US. After all, according to a senior military official in the US, Saddam has chemical and biological weapons only because they supplied him with these weapons during Iran-Iraq war: The problem should be stopped at the source.
Bahman, UK

Even if we don't go to war there will always be a threat of terrorism over here now. Will we ever feel safe in our own country again? The USA has never let people into its country like we have and you can see why now.
If there is any evidence to suggest that Iraq has these weapons then I'm totally in agreement with taking out the weapons with force before they get chance to use them on someone else. I think both Bush and Blair have spoken out too much about what they intend to do - just get on with it and get the job done, hopefully with minimum loss of life etc. Let's face it - that's the sad side of this. Some poor people are just doing their jobs and the people at the top give the orders. Why can't we all just live together?
Tracy Lockett, UK

I don't think anyone needs convincing that Saddam Hussein is a thoroughly nasty character. The fact remains though that he isn't being threatened with attack for being nasty otherwise there are plenty of other countries that could be looking down the barrel of a US/UN invasion. The US is by far the largest power this planet has ever seen. If some of the "weak countries" (Dave, Vero Beach, USA) have doubts about this strength and would like this matter to be decided by the UN instead then good for them. If the US really wanted to just disarm Iraq then why hasn't it presented all of its evidence to the UN weapons inspectors? In a criminal investigation that could count as aiding and abetting.
Jamie, Copenhagen, Denmark

As much as I dislike the lack of Presidential calibre I see in Bush, and as much as I dislike my adopted country's aggression in this situation, Saddam DOES need to be taken down, which surely must be agreed by any civilised opinion. Please, this man has murdered innocent women and children in his own Country, utilising some of the cruellest methods known to humanity. If you can give me one reason to allow him more opportunities to procure the ammunition necessary to kill many more people, I'll give you equal number of reasons why anti-US sentiment is the greatest contributor to anti-War campaigners.
Kiro, USA

It is very likely President Bush will strike Iraq without waiting for a UN resolution. This is the American attitude: "We don't need the rest of the world". Americans should advise their not very wise president that the larger international community is against this war. In any case, who armed Saddam Hussein during the Iran/Iraq war?.
Thomas N Kimaru, South Africa

If the US do not wait for the UN backing, they will become what they fear the most themselves, a rogue Nation, that feels that it can bully others around. I am sure that this is not what the US want, on the contrary. The UN is there for a reason, even if it is slow and takes time. Despite of what many people say, the US is not able to face all the "Iraqs" of this world, the costs alone would be enormous. Yes, the US will wait for the resolution. Iraq will have one last chance, after that he must face the consequences of his actions. It hurts to say this, but sometimes war is just the only way left.
Marc Lejoly, Brussels, Belgium

Iraq has been flaunting UN resolutions for 10 years. The UN now has Resolution 1441 and Iraq is not complying with that either. Is the UN impotent?
John Howe, Mirfield, England

The US has never paid the UN its dues, in terms of money and respect. In regard to Iraq and Israel, the US has failed to recognise that terrorism exists because conventional confrontation against a mighty military would be useless. I can't see the Bush waiting for the UN, and the consequence, I'm afraid to say, will be increased acts of terrorism against the US - not the reverse.
Matt, UK

If Bush has to wait for UN backing we wouldn't be disarming Saddam until 2025! No backing needed; I say we just go in and get this problem taken care of right away. We don't need the approval of Russia, China, France and Germany.
Dan, United States

The UN is fast becoming unnecessary to the US Mark Collins, Glasgow, UK

Bush will not wait for UN backing. The US is already guilty of starting a bombing campaign in Yugoslavia (1999) without UN approval so why should they wait for international support this time? They have already proved that they can get away without it. The UN is fast becoming unnecessary to the US.
Mark Collins, Glasgow, UK

There is no doubt Bush will now wait for a second resolution. Unfortunately he seems to be giving into the dissent of France, Germany, India, etc. Following these weak countries will only give current and future dictators the power they want. Even with another resolution there will be no collective action from countries like France or Germany. Both countries have billion dollar oil contracts with Iraq and will never agree to any hostile action against Iraq.
Dave, Vero Beach, USA

President Bush has done everything he said he was going to do in the international arena since coming into office so why doubt him now?
Andy Paterson, UK

World opinion has been known occasionally to be wrong Charlotte Smith, USA

Some people thought it a bad idea when the US attacked Afghanistan. Bush went ahead and defeated al-Qaeda swiftly, after which the evidence, from the Taleban or on tapes, was undeniable. "World" opinion has been known occasionally to be wrong. There is no war going on in Iraq, just an intimidating military build-up. Isn't it possible that intimidation itself may be a strategy to drive Iraq to compliance?
Charlotte Smith, USA

If the UN sanctioned an invasion, then the UN would assume responsibility for Iraq, not the US. Since the US would have been seen to do the major share of the work, it would seem natural they should get the biggest say. Countries who did not participate in the invasion would be seen to lack a moral platform to object to the outcomes of a US-led 'liberation' of Iraq.
Richard, Australia

If the UN passes an attack resolution before the scheduled attack, Bush will like it. But no UN resolution or inspection results will change the US war plans. The UN is nice when it agrees but irrelevant when it disagrees with Bush.
Ken, US

A decade of dysfunction and do-nothingness from the UN Nate Barker, Wichita USA

What we have seen is a decade of dysfunction and do-nothingness from the UN. If Bush decides to wait, it will only be to give the UN one last chance to comply with its own resolution and agree to disarm Saddam by force.
Nate Barker, Wichita USA

If the UN rubber-stamps an unnecessary and illegal war of aggression, then the UN is finished for good. The best outcome in my eyes would be three vetoes, and the US and UK war-mongers with mud on their faces. There would be a slight chance to stop the juggernaut in that case, and if not, sooner or later Blair will find himself in the dock of the ICC.
Michael, Copenhagen, Denmark

There is no argument that can convince the US that it has no legal or moral right to attack Iraq. The possibility of being wrong won't be contemplated in a country where a sense of accountability is alien to the national mentality.
Steve, UK

Bush is not listening to the voices of caution at home, including many experienced military personnel, world leaders, and clergy. He acts as if it is his God-given right to pre-emptively attack another country. His rhetoric has done nothing but cause ill feelings around the world. As a member of the UN, it is the right thing to consult its members before starting a war that could become catastrophic, and cause irreparable damage to that region.
Roseanne S, NJ, USA

Blair must have initiated the new approach Agha Ata, Houston, USA

I think there has been a major shift in the stance previously adopted by Bush to attack Iraq, despite oppositions. Blair must have been the one who initiated the new approach. The interesting thing is that there seems to be no point in asking for the second UN resolution if the substance of the resolution is to be dictated by anyone. How can you ask members of the UN to sit, discuss and come to the conclusion that I want you to come at? Bush didn't want to give an impression that he is changing, but he is.
Agha Ata, Houston, USA

I suppose it really depends, someone will have to explain to him what the UN is and how to spell it first. Still we shouldn't "mis-underestimate" him, should we?
David Lockhart, Glasgow, Scotland

The anti-US group are totally out of ammunition and are reduced to making such pointless snipes such as that posted by David Lockhart. If they want to prevent a war they will have to convince people like me that they have a solid argument which deals with reality. They have not even come close yet.
Ken, London

I have to ask Mr Lockhart why he directs such spite against Bush, but doesn't have a bad word to say about Saddam Hussein, a man who, as well as paying far less heed to the UN than Bush, actually tortures and kills his opponents, and has waged a genocidal campaign on ethnic minorities in his own country using chemical weapons.
Paul, UK

To Paul of UK, it is true that Saddam is a tyrant guilty of torture and poisoning of his own people. But all these acts fade into oblivion when comapared with the enormous misery that has been caused to the people of Iraq by the US sponsored "Sanctions of Mass Destruction". This is only one of the multitude of examples of the devastation and destruction caused by US all over the world during the last century. In contrast Saddam sure is a lesser evil and lesser nuisance. For further information please contact Nelson Mandela.
Abraham K, Canada