Last week saw Oxford's contribution to the anti-war movement across the world: a candlelit vigil in Cornmarket Street. Such smug Western complacency seemmingly knows no bounds: there is certeinly no better inspirarion for becoming a hawk than such an illinformed, intellectually confused display of vague, anti-American pacifism. Thwe case for war on Iraq is indisputable, with every objection being either irrelevant or just plain wrong. First, why must er toople Saddam? Second, why are the whinges of the anti-war lobby so pernicious and damaging?

Saddam must be destroyed for two reasons. Firstly, regardless of what the ludicrously under-resourced inspectors may find on this occasion, there can be no doubt that his is a regime bent on procuring weapons of mass destruction. The only question is wheter he is currently hiding them, or whether he has still to develop them. In either case, the main danger to the West lies in such weapons falling into the hands of terrorist groups who will use them to create as much destruction as possible. When acquired, it is almost impossible to guard against the use of theseweapons: amidst the tons of drugs succesfully smuggled into America, it would be easy to take a suitcase bomb. Saddam is succesfully smugled into America, it would be easy to take a suitcase bomb. Saddam is not the only potencial manufacturer of these weapons, but he is one with a history of aggression and a proven willingness to use them, even on his own people. He must therefore be stopped as soon as possible, and certainly before he gains nuclear capacity, by which time it may be too late. North Korea shows the danger of allowing a despot to develop nukes and thus the world to ransom. And Al-Quedais not the only organisationcapable of delivering terror: if the weapons are available, there will undoubtedly be some section of the terrorist world ready and willing to use them.

Secondly, even disregardingthe whole question of threats to the West, Saddam must be toppled out of an humanitarian empahty with the people of Iraque. Yes, innocents would suffer in any way. But far more innocents do, and will continue to, suffer under a regime where goverment outrages and well-intentioned sanctions only further the plight of the peple. Brutal human rights abuses, systematic violence and a bloodthirsty regime can only end with Western force. The internal opposition in Iraq might just be strong enough to form a credible future government (with plenty help) but there is no realistic chance of an internal revolt ending in anything other than bloody supression. Even if we are prepared to risk our own destruction, we fail in our duty as human beings if we allow the status quo to continue unchecked.

So, what are the objections to war? `America is only doing it for political reasons/for oil/for an easy target`. Maybe. But doing the right for the wrong reasons is still doing the right thing. And while andlelit vigils may be able to survive without oil, the rest of Western life grind to a halt. `We were the ones who funded Saddam and gave him lots of weapons in the past`. True, to an extent. And therefore we are under an even greater duty niw to rectify our mistakes and avert the dangers allowed to develop under past policies. `It will destabilise the Middle East`. An ominus sounding phrase: but what does it actually mean? There are few greater of instability than an armed-and-dangerous Iraqi regime. Problems such as the Arab-Israeli conflict will not be solved by war with Iraq, but crucially there will ve a real chance of ceating a truly liberalised and democratic Arab country. Arabs living under neighbouring despots will see how freedom can work, and if this destabilises their undelected and unaccountable leaders then so much the better: I have yet to hear a convicting argument that spreading freedom is a bad idea. And in terms os anti-Western feeling, the long-term result of regime change will be the ending of sansactions, one of the key stimuli for Islamic discontent. Finally, `the authority of the UN will be undetermined by unilateralism`. If the US and UK gain Security Concil support then this will not arise. If the y don't, then so what? A war is not made morally right or wrong by whether diplomatic horse-trading does or does not result in declarations of support. If Saddam is a clear and present danger both to the West and to his own people,and if the UN fails to get its act toghether and stop him, then perhaps it deserves to lose its authority. The question should not be consequences on the US of losing UN support, but rather the consequences for the UN of losing American support. Doesn't anybody remember the League of Nations?

In short, Saddam Hussein is brutal, oppressive despot who would glady destriy most of the rest of the world if he could get away with it. Now the spectre of extranatinal terrorist organisatiins giver him exactly that oportunity: supply the means, but not risk his own destruction since he himself would not deliver the blow. If well-meaning protestors are prepared to wake up to reality, they should turn their minds to ensuring that proper post-war support is given to the new Iraq. But first, let's make sure we are all behindd the brave troops who will soon get rid of the old one

Fraser Campbell is President of the Oxford Union and European Debating Champion.