NZ Bear is soliciting input for an upcoming blog-vs-blog debate over intervention in Iraq; in the opposing corner, we have the folks at the anti-war blog Stand Down. each side will present five questions to the other side to the other side, and the Ursine One wants suggestions for the list.

My suggestions:

• In the general case, do you believe that extreme human rights violation alone -- e.g., genocide -- is sufficient cause for armed intervention? If so, what standard should apply, and how far is Saddam Hussein's regime from that threshold?

• If Saddam Hussein obtained a nuclear weapon -- either by building it or buying it -- what do you believe he would do with it?

• Do you believe Saddam Hussein's regime is becoming more dangerous to the West, less dangerous, or neither, with the passing of time? Would a reversal of the US/UK buildup for invasion alter this trend, and if so, in what way?

• What do you believe is the proper and appropriate US response to an attempt by a foreign power to assassinate a former US President?

• Do you believe it is appropriate for the US and/or the UN to pressure (by non-military means) Saddam Hussein's regime to forsake WMDs? If so, what means should be used, and what evidence is there that such means may be more successful in the future than they have been in the past?

• If the US and UK were to agree to forsake military intervention in Iraq, and pursue other means of pressuring Iraq to disarm, do you believe that it would be possible to maintain solidarity among our allies in maintaining such pressure, or would some -- let's be frank, we're talking about France here -- push for complete normalization of relations? If so, would they be right to do so?

• To what degree do you believe that French, German, and Russian opposition to war with Iraq are influenced by those countries existing oil business relations with Iraq?

• Should the United States pursue a peace treaty with Iraq (in place of the cease-fire that has been in effect the last eleven years); if so, with what terms, and with what means of assurance that Saddam Hussein's regime honors its commitments under such a treaty?

• Inasmuch as opposition to armed intervention in Iraq is based on the need to respect national sovreignty, or opposition to colonialism, or the need for UN approval of armed intervention, to what degree do those same objections apply to France's ongoing, non-UN-approved, armed intervention in the sovereign nation of Ivory Coast?
  

If you have any suggestions of your own, please add them to the comments on this post at The Truth Laid Bear.