MANY people say that we should not consider attacking Iraq, or even attempting to kill Saddam Hussein. I say that there is a greater principle at stake here, which is why we must act to dispose Saddam.

To illustrate this point, on March 7th 1936 German troops marched into the Rhineland. This was Hitler's first illegal act in foreign relations since coming to power in 1933.

It is easy to say that the Versailles treaty was unfair, forced upon Germany by victorious and bitter foes, and that its provisions were unjust. Certainly, Germany could not hold all of the blame herself, but by far the greatest share of the blame rests with Germany and her leaders. It was their decisions that led to starving German people, the collapse of the democratic government and the rise of Hitler. The failure to stand up against Hitler in 1936, when it would have been relatively easy, could have saved thousands of lives.

The cost of World War Two is immeasurable. Thousands of people were killed. Millions more were ruined, made homeless, or trapped behind an iron curtain. All of this horror happened because the French and British leaders bowed to pressure, the terror of a repeat of the mass slaughter of the first war and the sincere beliefs of many people who knew that the terms forced on Germany were unfair and led to huge suffering.

Saddam Hussein has had his Rhineland. In 1991, he invaded Kuwait, a peaceful, , state that could not pose a military threat to anyone, let along the huge Iraqi army. An international coalition was formed and pushed the Iraqis back out, but they were afraid to take the decisive step of squashing the threat forever.

Its also easy to blame sanctions imposed on Iraq for the sufferings of its people. The blame must be placed squarely on Saddam. He has attempted to massacre the Kurds, Muslims and now partly homeless. He has imposed a police state and attempted to crush freedom in Iraq. The cowardice of the international leaders in not removing Saddam merely prolonged the process, not started it.

The Arab leaders claim that military action will destabilise the regain. They are right to say this from their point of view, because a success in Iraq would destabilise their reign. What if the US succeeds and Iraq becomes democratic? What message does that send to the people of Saudi Arabia (a monarchy) or Iran (a theocratic state)? Would they not be encouraged to seek freedom?

Saddam must be stopped. The longer the world delays, the more the cost that will be paid. It will be paid in human blood, the blood of the American and British warriors who will be fighting, the blood of the Iraqi troops, sent out to fight against overwhelming odds by a callous leader, it will be paid by the citizens of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Syria and Israel, who Saddam will fire Scud missiles at once the end draws near, and, most of all, it will be paid by the Iraqi people, who have suffered enough under Saddam. Have they not suffered enough?

We have free will, God's precious gift to us, but, when faced with evil, how many of us would do nothing? How many victims before it becomes acceptable? If you do not want to be involved, then don't be. Stay home, don't vote, and don't fight. But remember, in everything you do to prevent war, remember that you are aiding a tyrant who will not allow his own people to live free. I hope you can live with yourselves afterwards, because I know I could not.

Christopher Nuttal

Via E-mail