Basically, I think there are two main reasons to go to war:
1. U.S. prestige. If we fail to follow through on our stated intentions, it makes us look weak. The world won't see this as a disagreement with an administration, the United States seeing reason, or anything of the sort. They will see it as the United States backing down under foreign power and our enemies (and some of our allies) will celebrate it as a great victory.

I'm sorry, but I just cannot see any justification for ever allowing *pride* to start a war. It would be far better to allow Saddam to "plant one on the USs' chin" because the US takes the moral high road than to cause un-necessary loss of life just to avoid it.

Note that I'm not saying that the US shouldn't go to war, just that pride should never be a motive.

I have no doubt that Saddam is an evil man, nor that Iraq would be far better off without him. I have yet to be convinced that he presents an imminent threat to the US. (Beyond the SAM sites lighting up planes flying over Iraq's sovereign territory of course).

I believe that the US has to go down the UN route. Completely. Of course, we know that Saddam will make every delaying play in the book, but ultimately I believe that the backing of the UN is neccessary to prevent further anti-US sentiments in the future, both among allies and foes. The September 11th attacks on the WTC brought forward an amazing amount of goodwill to the US from around the globe. I think that it is important to realise that much of this has been squandered, and to wonder what could have been done to prevent that.

I do have to wonder about France and Germany though. Assuming for one moment that US and UK intelligence conclusively shows a pressing need for a war in Iraq, what are France playing at? You could wonder whether France has something to hide - they have been one of Iraq's most important economic partners for many years. You could wonder about the fact that France has had highly advanced NBC weapons capabilities too. Of course, this is just 'me' wondering out aloud...
And look at France's history. Twice in the 20th Century they believed that there was no threat directed against them. Twice they were wrong. Twice it took significant sacrifices by allies to save them. Twice, the USA joining the war was a hugely significant factor in their liberation. Is their memory only as long as their last bank statement?
Now Germany, of course, might just be trying to get back at the US for both wars. You might also wonder why they don't have some gratitude for the fact that they still speak German and not Russian. (Yes, I know that we're all friends now, but there would have been significant casualties in Germany had the USSR ever invaded.)

Perhaps it truely is that neither France or Germany have been persuaded as to the need for war.

Personally, I haven't been persuaded. But then, I am not privy to any of the intel that my tax payments help provide. I do have to observe that the increasing amount of media propaganda in the US is really getting on my wick. At least with the internet I can find other sources so that I can stay better informed. But for the whole part, I think that GWB is conveniently using Iraq to cover up for a lack of definitive success in bringing Osama to justice, and for other domestic deficiencies.

The one thing that does add a lot of credance (in my eyes) as to the need for war is the fact that Tony Boy is so up for a game of soldiers. He has generally been regarded as a vote-pleaser, taking the route most likely to win his party the next election. And make no doubt about it, going to war without the UN could well lose him the next election, unless something happens that proves beyond any doubt that he was correct to do so.