THIS morning the Government presents the dossier of evidence against Saddam Hussein that Tony Blair promised at Sedgefield two weeks ago.

Unless Mr Blair pulls a rabbit from a hat, it seems unlikely that he will be able to prove that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and is going to use them in the very near future against British interests.

The dossier will probably contain plenty of detailed evidence of Saddam's past misdemeanours. If nothing else, this will remind us of how unpleasant a dictator Saddam is.

That aside, the dossier about the past is probably not as important as Mr Blair's statement and the Parliamentary debate that follows. These, hopefully, will look at the future that we are all about to live through.

The debate will, rightly, express anxiety about innocent Iraqis dying and whether we have the right to act as global policemen by removing any dictator who displeases us.

We would also like a few more practical questions answered.

What threat does Saddam really pose? He's a sly old fox. He's an expert in self-preservation, so are we to believe that he is contemplating suicide because he knows that even if he does perpetrate an outrage, the response from the US will be swift and bloody?

If we do bomb his weapons installations, are we sure we are not going to make the problem far worse by releasing clouds of gases?

Mr Blair says that what makes Saddam dangerous is his past record of attacking his neighbours. That record also shows that during the Gulf War he fired 39 Scud missiles into Israel. Commendably, Israel did not respond then but Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has already pledged to retaliate. How are we going to stop this escalation?

There is also the question of the future government of Iraq. The US is already struggling to bring itself to commit enough troops to Afghanistan. Can we be certain it will assist a new Iraqi regime, and where is the equivalent of the Northern Alliance to make up that regime?

There is, though, polling evidence that the country's outright hostility to war is softening. This may simply be because the shock of the prospect of war is also fading.

But those speaking against attacking Iraq will also have to say what they would do if Saddam continues to flout United Nations resolutions. Is leaving him unchallenged an option? Can you really trust someone like Saddam with weapons of mass destruction?

And, as important as today's debate is, it is even more important that the United Nations addresses itself to these questions.