An interesting comparison, point by point, of the reasons for and against war: Here

"The Bush administration gave two primary arguments for attacking Iraq without U.N. support. The first argument was that waiting for U.N. support would make Iraq more dangerous for the U.S. and the world. The second argument was that waiting for U.N. approval would allow Saddam to continue to abuse the people of Iraq.

Two primary arguments were given for continuing to work with the U.N. to stop Saddam rather than attacking alone. The first reason was that a war without broad support of other nations will make the world--including the U.S.--less secure. The second argument was that the U.S. should not be attacking another country to gain control of its oil.

We will soon learn the consequences of President Bush's decisions. His decisions will probably find acceptance throughout the world if the following occurs:

If the people of Iraq find freedom and democracy
If the U.S. does not control Iraq's oil (either directly or through appointing leaders of Iraq) and
If a large amount of weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq

However, if the U.S. insists on controlling Iraq's oil or government, few nations will support the actions of the United States. If large amounts of weapons of mass destruction are not found, then the Bush argument that it was urgent to attack quickly to protect the U.S. will be found to be false. If weapons are not found and the U.S. insists on controlling Iraq's oil, it will appear to most nations that the U.S. attacked Iraq to gain control of its oil and that the other reasons given for the attack were not the real reasons."

Raoul