N.Z. Bear has thrown out a proposal for a cross blog debate on war with Iraq. Some of the good folks at Stand Down have accepted the challenge and are coordinating the anti-war side.

Over the next week or so, each side will come up with five questions to be presented to the other side. Anyone is then welcome to answer those questions on their own sites. Feel free to post questions that you may want answered. There are already some gems out there.

From the anti-war side:

Do you believe that the Bush Administration can democratize or significantly improve Iraq's government after invasion? If yes, are there any precedents in American foreign policy generally and Bush Administration policy particularly that lead you to believe this?

Do you believe that war and its attendant effects will cause less suffering, in the long run, for the people in Iraq than leaving Saddam in power? If so, why?

From the pro-war side:

If you lived under an oppressive and murderous regime without freedom of speech, would you want another nation to come in and liberate you by force, even if it put you and your loved ones at risk?

Are all nations ( or regimes ) to be judged equal in the eyes of the international community? If not, what distinguishes one from another?

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?

Well, should make for some interesting reading anyway. It sounds like the schedule is to have five questions for each side selected and posted by next Sunday.