[B1ade]

The thing about 'weapons of mass destruction' is this - the reason a lot of countries keep them is to do with the balance of power, i.e. if I didn't have any and my neighbour does.....scenarios, and then you get the whole arms race.

Now, Iraq is hardly the only country with these type of weapons - the anthrax released in the USA was MADE in the USA, Britain sells arms to other countries and a large proportion of our budget is spent on defense, Israel has plenty, I'm sure Russia has some about somewhere and Pakistan and India do too, just to name a few. The USA has determined Iraq as a threat and want something visual to go with their 'War on Terror' campaign. After all, why now? Hasn't this issue been going on for years?

Also, the US have already decided on war as being the only answer- most political journalists have described the diplomatic 'motions' as just that. If they want to go to war in someone else's country and displace their (dysfunctional, it's true) government, they better make sure that they have some kind of long term plan, as opposed to 'go on in, bomb them and leave them to sort it all out'. That's how the Taliban got into power after America trained people to get rid of the Russian presence, and we all saw how well THAT worked out....

The situation in the Middle East is already at a critical point. Taking another war into the region as opposed to actually SOLVING the problems would be an act of stupidity, and poorly thought out. The people have incredibly high levels of leukaemia and other such diseases, deformed babies and serious problems from the Gulf War, even the soldiers suffered and they were much better protected.

The bottom line is this, if other alternatives have been tried (and demanding for an inspection while never having been inspected yourself is hardly what I'd call the diplomatic approach), there is some proof about the need to act NOW and there is consideration to the country afterwards and the high price of innocent lives - surely the world will agree. If the war begins without the UN's support, it will be for all the wrong reasons - a personal vendetta instead of focusing on the Iraqi people who are surely the most at risk, as well as people on other shores.

What right do the USA and the UK have to start an action that affects the world and without consulting the people they are supposed to be representing? I know from some polls I've heard that the majority of us Brits don't want this to happen and by Tony Blair encouraging it, he is not representing the voting public who'll be paying for this war, and who will have it on their collective conscious.

Sorry that went on a bit, but we all know that this war is not just about the accumulation of weapons, but all kinds of political issues from oil to power. In this case, the ends do not justify the means.