The British government on Wednesday proposed six "benchmark" steps it says Iraqi President Saddam Hussein should be forced to take if he wants to avoid war.

The United States wants a vote this week on its resolution threatening Iraq with war if it doesn't immediately disarm.

Laying out specific conditions for Iraq could help swing undecided votes on the Security Council, but a lot will depend on the length of time Saddam would be given. The proposed resolution sets a deadline of March 17, which appears to be unacceptable to a majority of the council members.

So, what should we do next?

Iraq the vote: Take of forsake?

A sample of your responses:

I'm sick and tired of the whole shebang! This guy has been a thorn in our sides for over a decade and needs to be dealt with. And if he is saying that we are in for a big surprise going into Baghdad, then doesn't that mean he has some weapons he shouldn't have?
Tamara G.
Pennsylvania

Our soldiers cannot wait any longer! We must roll now.  With the sandstorms, the warm weather, the French, Germany, Russia and Chinese opposition, the lack of support from the United Nations, and the blitz from Hans, it is past time!
Vicki S.
Ann Arbor, Mich.

As I see it we should see this next vote through notwithstanding the likely negative result.  It was a tactical error, though understandable given Tony Blair's difficult position, to propose this next resolution.  The US has acted without U.N. support numerous times and in this, the most pressing for our own interests and safety, must go even if alone.
Mike B.
Maryland
 

Let's do it alone! I didn't vote for the folks running the United Nations so I am comfortable with the decisions my elected government is making!
Linda S.
Glidden, Wisc.

Peace activists talk about human rights. They say that if we go to war many innocent Iraqi's will die. That unfortunately is true. But if we don't go to war, many more innocent Iraqis will die at the hands of Saddam.
Alan W.
Edison, N.J.

Any delay is needless. The United Nations has become a breeding ground for extortion and the United States is the victim! As a Gulf War Veteran I remember the wait and how frustrating it was to sit and wait for diplomacy to take place.
Paul M.

I believe we should forsake the vote. Tony Blair is not going to fair well no matter what happens within the Security Council. The only thing that will save him, along with the Bush administration, is to go in and find the weapons of mass destruction. Let's do it now and prove to the world what is truly going on within Iraq.
George G.
Kernersville, N.C.
  

Postpone the vote until after we take out Saddam. Then everyone will vote yes! 
Dorothy
Chesapeake, Va.

Bush is not Clinton. Mr. Bush said he would put it to a vote, so now U.S. credibility is on the line.  He has to put it to a vote.
Mark S.
Allendale, Mich.

I say forget about a new vote by the U.N. Security Council. Secretary Powell should announce this week that we are sick and tired of all the delays and have decided to disarm Saddam Hussein by force in accordance with Resolution 1441 -- period!
Chuck H.
La Mesa, Calif.

We should take the vote because whether we win or lose, we will still be looked down as the bad guy. Sometimes the right thing has to be done for what is perceived as the wrong reason.
George
Jacksonville, N.C.

What are we really debating about in the United Nations? It seems clear to me that Hussein is a threat, so why are we waiting to do the inevitable? I say enough tap dancing in the Security Council. Put it to a vote. If the resolution fails, we go alone. Simple as that.
Neil S.

We should go now. We are wasting time and the United Nations proved to be irrelevant years ago.
Ross C.
Aberdeen, Scotland

I think we should skip the vote and get on with kicking some Saddam butt!  This has gone on long enough and it's time to clean house.
Rodney F.
Bicknell, Ind.

- Send your comments to: friends@foxnews.com

- Note: The views and opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of FOX News or its subsidiaries