There were 6 options:
1) Going to war with Iraq needs to be done.

2) Hopefully a peaceful solution can be found but if Iraq doesn't let the inspectors back in unconditionally (really) then the US/UK needs to be able to launch military action even without the UN.

3) The UN needs to be the mechanism in which all dealings with Iraq are handled.

4) Bush and his cowboy diplomacy is the problem here.

5) This is just a scheme by Bush to help out his oil buddies.

6) Iraq is a sovereign nation and hence inspections and other nonsense shouldn't apply to it.

Put another way you could say:
1) Advocates military action as necessary
2) Supports military action if all else fails
3) Supports military action only if the UN okays it.
4 and 5 and 6 are against any kind of military action.

Option 1 received 30% of the votes
OPtion 2 received 23% of the votes
Option 3 received 6% of the vote
Option 4,5,6 combined received 40% of the vote.

Interpreting poll results can be tricky. There was definitely a large enough sampling (1017 respondants) for it to be statistically valid. By what does this mean?

Well, 30% of WC users believe Saddam has to go no matter what. That is, unconditional support of military action.

Another 23% support military action as well but only if UN resolutions are truly obeyed. That's a thin majority of people who could be described to support military action against Iraq in some form (53%).

You also have 40% of people who are solidly against military action.

The remainder feels that the whole thing should be handled by the UN.

So it's pretty evenly divided with those who are open or advocating military action having a slim majority.

Now what would be interesting would be to see a breakdown of American users, European users, and others.