1. United Nations credibility, and efficacy, in resolving international crises;

2. Containment of Saddam Hussein's imperialistic ambitions;

3. Ensuring stability in global oil supply to ensure economic growth;

4. Fight against terrorism;

5. The necessity of trust in alliances.

For a start, the United Nations (UN) has endeavored to reason with Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War of 1990. Despite numerous resolutions and inspections, Saddam Hussein has never complied to global leaders' demands to destroy his nation's stockpile of WMD. In 1998, when Saddam Hussein unilaterally ejected UN inspectors out of Iraq, he was already known to have had a stock pile of chemical and biological weapons.

This is a documented fact.

However, Saddam Hussein will not detail where these weapons are now. If they were simply destroyed, he should be able to produce documented proof of that action; he cannot. He is also known to be attempting to produce a nuclear weapon. This is not conjecture; his attempts to purchase the necessary materials to construct a nuclear weapon are well documented.

For those of you who claim the need for the UN to carry out further inspections for WMD, and/or to impose more resolutions on Iraq, it should be self evident that Iraq has made a mockery of such actions. As a result, the UN has lost any power it had to impose its will. Simply continuing on a failed path would be folly. Twelve years of inaction and paper threats have only emboldened Saddam Hussein. Today, he continues to thwart the attempts of UN inspectors to carry out their mandated duties.

As most parents understand, hollow threats of punishment on an errant child have no effect other than to undermine the respect and obedience of that child for authority. Projecting this analogy to the current crisis with Iraq, as a result of its inaction to enforce its resolutions on Iraq over the last twelve years, the UN has proved itself an impotent body of global representatives.

This state of affairs needs to be changed or the UN will cease being an organization that can affect change in the world.

Voices of reason argue, Other nations in the Mid East, such as Israel, have WMD. Is it reasonable that they are allowed to keep their WMD while we demand that Iraq give up theirs?

The answer to this question is that Iraq, under the despotic leadership of Saddam Hussein, has demonstrated its intent to use these weapons without slightest hesitation. Saddam Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons in his own country in the mid 1980s and annihilated a village of several thousand people. While other nations, with stable, pluralistic political systems, hold their weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent against attack, Saddam Hussein views such weapons as a tool to regional domination. He has imperialistic desires of annexing other Arab nations and gaining control over vast oil reserves. There can be no doubt as to his ambitions in this regard. His invasion of Kuwait in 1990 proves this fact.

Because of the imperative of maintaining stability in this geopolitical position and the lack of cohesiveness among Arab nations. It is vital to the global economy that oil supply flows unimpeded, and this requires peace in the region.

In some ways, yes. But not just for the gas-hungry Americans as some so loudly shout. The U.S. is the largest economy in the world, and the largest user of petroleum products, but it is also the largest producer of goods and services in the world. In other words, the entire global economy will rise or fall on the fortunes of the U.S.

Japan, the second largest economy in the world, relies on Saudi Arabia for almost all its oil supplies.

So, once again, it should be self evident to all reasonable people that regional stability, and the guarantee of the free flow of oil, is imperative to maintaining global well being. Like it or not, the ready supply of oil is vital to economic growth; this fact is proven by history.

For example, in 1974, and then later in 1979, world oil supplies were severely disrupted by OPEC actions and political unrest in Iran. The price of oil shot up dramatically with the result that the global economy suffered inflation and stagnation at the same time. In the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was elected as President of the U.S., he vowed that never again would the politically ambitious forces in the Middle East be allowed to disrupt global oil supplies.

His implication: Keep the oil flowing to maintain reasonable prices or we, the Free World, will come and ensure its supply.

That time has come.

So, it all comes down to oil supplies and containment of the proliferation of WMD, right?

Not entirely.

As pointed out before, it is imperative that the UN regain respect and obedience of its resolutions if future global conflicts are to be resolved peacefully. Without achieving this goal the world could fall into regional anarchy. Errant nations could invade their weaker neighbors without fear of retaliation or imposition of the combined military will of nations.

The only way to ensure global economic growth, and to improve the plight of less fortunate countries, is to ensure peace in economically important regions. Ironically, this can only be achieved under threat of violent interception by UN forces.

Less important regions, like some of those in Africa for example, that are historically unstable, may be left to their own devices. These nations will be encouraged to form stable governments, and will be given direction and economic assistance, but will not be militarily forced to do so. In essence, they must evolve into order as many other nations before them have done over the centuries.

There is also the specter of terrorism and the need for the Free World to demonstrate its resolve in delivering justice to the innocents murdered by religious zealots. While there has been no concrete evidence that Iraq has Al Qaida ties, there is documented proof of Iraq's support of other Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups. There are also strong allegations that Iraqi agents met with several of the 911 terrorists in Europe before the attacks on America. These facts were reiterated by Colin Powell in his recent address to the UN.

Terrorist acts, from the bombing of PanAm 103, to the blowing up of embassies, to the previous bombing attack on the World Trade Center in New York in 1993, and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, have demonstrated trends of growing terrorist activity against nations of the Free World.

The latest acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001, and later the bombing of the night club in Bali, have proved, beyond a doubt, that terrorists now consider ordinary citizens targets.

After the U.S. attacks, President Bush not only vowed revenge for the aforementioned atrocities, but promised that terrorists would be pursued to the corners of the earth and destroyed. However, that promise proved easier to verbalize than carry out. Despite vigorous, multinational attempts to rout terrorist camps from Afghanistan, some still remain. Some terrorists fled to Pakistan. Still other terrorists exist in various other rogue nations.

So the President is left with a dilemma.

In all forms of life, from schools to the courts, when there are widespread perpetrators of crime, it is a common, effective tactic to make an example of a guilty party to show all others that such behavior will not be tolerated. In a global perspective on terrorism then, the answer is to make an example of a country known to support terrorists; one that is already guilty of other punishable crimes. Certainly, other Arab nations support terrorism, but there is currently no legal case to attack them militarily. Iraq, on the other hand, is a regional bully with WMD, that has defied UN demands, and is, therefore, a suitable target.

The message to other nations that harbor terrorists will be clear: Give up your support of terrorism or suffer the same consequences as Iraq.

Herein lies a very important political point. The U.S. does not unilaterally support Israel. In fact, there are many in the U.S. political arena who are dismayed by Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. However, and this is vital to remember, Israel is our ally. It is also the only effective democracy in the Middle East.

Allow me to use the analogy of paper currency to prove the importance of alliances between nations.

Money has very little intrinsic value. What value is placed on notes and coins comes only from trust. Trust between individuals and governments that the face value of currency will be honored and respected in commerce.

The same is true for alliances between nations. Alliances are only words printed on worthless pieces of paper. They are only as good as the will of each nation to support the other.

That is, trust.

Therefore, between alliance partners, even when one nation has reservations of the other nation's actions, it is imperative that support be given when asked; otherwise the alliance is null in void. An alliance is like a house of cards. Remove one element, in this case the promise to support an ally, and the whole structure of the alliance will come tumbling down.

While in extreme circumstances this may prove necessary, it is hardly the case here.

Projecting this fact into present circumstances, Britain, Australia and other allies of the U.S. have proved their dedication to the alliance by supporting the U.S.'s actions against Iraq. By demonstrating their support they have strengthened the alliance and reinforced global stability.

In a world without alliances, one nation could be seen as a viable target for invasion by another, stronger nation. Take Australia, or Taiwan, for example; each is inherently vulnerable to invasion. However, with each of these nations allied to the U.S., those nations that may harbor imperialist ambitions are held in check.

Unfortunately, by their lack of support of the U.S. and other like minded nations, Germany and France have intrinsically weakened the NATO alliance. Even though the NATO alliance has nothing to do with the current predicament before the UN, it is, however, weakened by the loss of trust and support among critical members.

I believe that ultimately these two NATO partners will come to their senses, however, it they do not, then NATO is effectively finished; and with the end of NATO, stability in Europe is not guaranteed.

While war should be considered the last option, in the case against Iraq, for all the reasons articulated above, I believe that the last option has arrived. However, when the U.S., with or without the backing of the UN, does initiate military action against Iraq the repercussions could be dire; and this is what really frightens a lot of people, myself included.

The imagined scenarios include Saddam Hussein using WMD against U.S. forces, Israel or even other Arab neighbors who have supported the attack against Iraq, destruction of oil fields which result in dramatic increases in the price of oil, and/or an increase in retaliatory terrorist attacks against innocent civilians of those countries involved in the assault.

On top of these serious consequences, Kim Jong Il, North Koreas despotic leader, is already taking advantage of the U.S.'s distraction with Iraq. By using the threat of constructing and deploying nuclear weapons, and by amassing troops along the border with South Korea, Kim Jong Il is, by all accounts, endeavoring to blackmail the U.S. and other free nations into vastly increasing the amount of aid to his countrys crippled economy. He could even invade South Korea, some speculate, when the U.S. and its allies are actively engaging Iraq's forces. This has led members of the U.S. administration to publicly verbalize the U.S.'s ability to fight a war on two fronts.

This escalation of violence, particularly on two fronts, could lead to the use of tactical nuclear weapons by the U.S., Israel, North Korea, or any other nation which perceives the threat dire enough to respond in such a manner; a dangerous precedent to set. However, worse still, this would cause a dramatic increase in the amount of collateral damage; that is, civilian loss of life and property damage.

So, the worst case scenario is that a conflagration that begins in the Middle East could spread to other global regions - in effect, another World War.

But, the truth is, we have to confront the threat that Saddam Hussein has placed on regional peace and global economic growth. Either we do it now, or we do it later. Just wishing the problem would go away will not make it happen. Confronting the problem sooner, rather than later, will make success more likely simply because Saddam Hussein will only continue his efforts to manufacture nuclear weapons. If we leave it to later, his ability to strike us with nuclear warheads could be very dire indeed.

He has used WMD in the past. If he had a nuclear weapon, there is no doubt that he would use it, or at least threaten to use it, against retaliatory forces that try to contain his imperialistic ambitions. If we let that happen before we forcefully disarm his country of WMD then the worst case scenario is more likely an outcome.

In looking to history we can learn many lessons. History has shown that despots, such as Hitler, who were not confronted early enough, went on to wreak havoc on the world. On the other hand, when Saddam Hussein's forces invaded Kuwait in 1990, a swift and forceful military response quickly ended his transgression.

Before the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein warned of vast ally casualties if his country was invaded. Western antiwar factions called for time to let economic sanctions work and voiced concern over a long, drawn out war that would expand to engulf the entire Middle East if Iraq were attacked.

Economic sanctions do not work; just look at Cuba, for example. Inspections do not work as proved by twelve years of UN inaction in following up its mandate. The only option left available back in 1990 was to forcefully evict Saddam Husseins forces from Kuwait.

When the U.S. led invasion came, it was swift, devastating and decisive. Iraq's forces were quickly overwhelmed with minimum ally casualties. And none of the dire predictions of those who opposed the military action came to pass. Oil prices, that increased temporarily in the wake of military action, quickly came back down and actually fell to their lowest level in over thirty years. The ready supply of oil, at low prices, went on to fuel the extraordinary global economic growth of the 1990s.

While every war is different our experience with interceding in Kuwait, and stopping Saddam Hussein's imperialistic ambitions, demonstrated that such action is likely to ensure regional stability and fuel global economic well being.

At time of writing, it is still possible that Saddam Hussein will voluntarily step down into exile or be overthrown by his own military. After all, his military leaders must be scared at having to face the military might of the allies, particularly when they have witnessed, first hand, how their forces were overwhelmed and destroyed just twelve years ago. If Saddam is deposed then the world could breathe a sigh of relief, but this is unlikely to occur.

As for Kim Jong Il and other potential despots, including terrorist leaders, an overwhelming military action against Iraq will demonstrate the Free World's resolve to act on its threats. The implication will be tacitly understood by those who would seek to disrupt peace.

In the history of mankind there has always been those who covet their neighbors' resources or who have violently tried to enforce their ideology on others. The only way to contain these people is to be strong enough, and to demonstrate the strength of will, to defend one's territory and ideals.

There is a pop-culture saying in Texas that says, Don't mess with Texas!

This message is succinct. If we were to adopt a similar adage on a world basis, then those who would attempt to disrupt the global economy, or attempt to blackmail the Free World, would be aware of the consequences of their actions.

Okay, so let's assume that the U.S. led assault on Iraq occurs in the near future and is successful.

What happens then?