"I do not think this dossier convinces anyone that we should attack Iraq. Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that we cannot allow nations to stock-pile weapons of mass destruction and become a major threat to world peace, this all-out effort that Bush seems to be making to oust Saddam Hussein, in the manner he intends, is not in the best interests of the nations of this planet."
Sheena Williams, Wrexham, North Wales

Steve McCabe says there is nothing new in the dossier

"The dossier that has been produced by the government is a persuasive document. Its contents suggest a state capable of posing a significant threat to its immediate neighbours, including, of course, Israel. What is troubling is that all these claims do not seem new. Iraq is a state that has a long history of terror and intimidation of its people and neighbours."
Steve McCabe, Birmingham

"Many thanks Tony for the dossier! What have we learnt? Not a great deal. Of course Saddam is a threat to the world, but we knew that 12 years ago - for some reason George Bush Sr didn't feel like finishing the job off. Now Bush Jr and Blair want rid of Saddam but in whose interest? - the aggressive attitude by Bush is about oil and controlling US interests in the Mid East and looking after its ally in the region. Perhaps Bush is conscious of the fact that domestically he has been a failure in his short tenure and needs to redeem himself in the eyes of the US voters."
Imran Qureshi, London, UK

John Gledhill says there is evidence of a compelling threat

"I support Mr Blair's decision to publish the dossier. Although there are no new 'killer facts', the evidence of the threat is compelling especially when viewed in the light of Saddam's track record of domestic brutality and aggression against his neighbours. He has demonstrated a willingness to use chemical weapons against the Kurds, and has launched first-strike attacks against other countries. Saddam also has a track record of not complying with political and diplomatic measures. He does not respond to anything short of force."
John Gledhill, Kent

Simone Lewis says it's not the UK's war

"I believe Saddam is hiding weapons, I think he's got everything - chemical, germ and nuclear. But Tony Blair has done nothing to convince me that it's England's problem. I think the Americans created the trouble and they should deal with it. I wouldn't want any of my friends to have to go and fight for something that was caused by George Bush interfering in other countries."
Simone Lewis, 17, London

"I think the dossier brings nothing new to the table. It does however bring together all the facts and presents a reasonable argument for UN action against Iraq's refusal to comply with UN resolutions. Any action must be sanctioned by the UN Security Council and UK Parliament, to ensure we comply with international law."
Andrew McGregor, Edinburgh

Robin Ballantine says there is no conclusive proof

"The report is nothing more than what was expected, namely shadowy ambitions and plans by Saddam Hussein. Even if there were conclusive proof that he did have these weapons, it would not justify a war. Many other countries do have these weapons and we are are not seeking a war with them (not yet anyway....although by George W Bush's talk we may well do so!)."
Robin Ballantine, Armagh, Northern Ireland

"I think this document makes quite a compelling case. The problem is not and never has been about whether Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, but is about what to do about it."
Jerome Davies, Inverness

"Not only do I find the dossier unconvincing, I find it quite insulting. We had been promised solid evidence of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and have been presented with nothing but speculation. The majority of the dossier contains old information, the inclusion of which is clearly designed to make the reader believe that Saddam has far more weaponry available to him than he probably actually has."
Chris Fayle , Isle of Man

Tristan Ashby says we should act now to avoid another 11 September

"After reading some information contained in the dossier it is clear that Saddam Hussein is a man hell-bent on putting a set of nuclear and biological weapons together rather that feeding the starving people of his country. If we had had a dossier on Osama Bin Laden, I'm sure there would still be powerful people who would have said no to action against Afghanistan, so what do we need to do wait for, another 11 September?"
Tristan Ashby, Attleborough, Norfolk

"I think they need to exert as much pressure as possible through the UN before contemplating military action. There is more evidence to implicate Saudi Arabia as being the source of attacks on the West than Saddam Hussein. Dealing with Robert Mugabe would probably be a more justified course of action than dealing with Iraq."
Dr Andrew Kitching, Reading

"I read that Saddam must be close to nuclear weapons because he is acquiring uranium from Africa. If that is true, and it may be, then that uranium would still need to be converted to weapons-grade uranium in a gas centrifuge plant (we know he was trying to do this in the 1980s) or converted to plutonium in a nuclear reactor and then re-processed. Neither of these are exactly small projects - look at Sellafield or Capenhurst for ideas of the scale of these things. And if he doesn't have them he's a couple of years away from a bomb. If they said he had acquired plutonium or even weapons from Ukraine or Belarus that would be a different story. "
John Wright, Inverness