From one of my comments in a thread on the No War Blog site:

Here's the case:

Force should always be the last resort. In this case, the threat of force, followed up with the use of force, is justified because:

1) Diplomacy has failed, utterly -- over a decade and 16 UN resolutions since the end of the Gulf War, Iraq has never complied with the will of the international community.

2) Economic Sanctions have failed, miserably -- Billions of dollars sit in UN escrow Oil-for-Food accounts, unclaimed by Iraq. Why? So they can scapegoat the U.S. for the suffering of their populace. Meanwhile, illicit oil trade continues with countries like Russia and China, and large portions of that money go, not for the welfare of Iraqis, but to immense WMD programs.

What options then, are left? Unless you or anyone else on this list can make an alternative case, the threat of military action, followed up by its use, seems to be the only option left.

I had a question myself, one which has not been satisfactorily answered:

Are the consequences of inaction better or worse than those of action?

Along its current course of action, Iraq will develop nuclear weapons, probably within the next couple of years. The international community has already issued mandate after mandate saying this is unacceptable. Is it, or is it not?

Every new nuclear power that emerges, every new nuclear weapon constructed, makes the world less, not more, safe. That level of danger is increased when the most powerful destructive technology known to humankind is in the hands of dictators.

If you want to use the argument that no nation should tell another one what weapons they can or can't build, then get ready for a world prolific with nuclear weaponry. Do you want to live in that world? Because I don't. Your site's "Unity Statement" says:

"...the strategies of deterrence and containment that have effectively shielded the U.S. from attack by nuclear-armed adversaries for the past 50 years."

Do you honestly think that deterrence and containment will work for the next fifty? Again, Cold War strategy simply isn't applicable to the 21st century, and to apply the same thinking is horribly, dangerously stupid.

Iraq cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weaponry because the risks are simply too immense. Force must be used, if necessary, because all other avenues have failed.

This is the case.