First, let me state I believe that Saddam Hussein has no nuclear capability and is, under a policy of containment, unlikely to get any.
That established, I think the below is reasonably accurate and worthy of consideration before pushing for war:
un.org
msnbc.com
fair.org
worldnetdaily.com
arabmediawatch.com
However, I also believe--and this is just my gut feeling, I have no evidence to support this except my own interpretation of the history of the matter--that Saddam is holding back a minimal quantity of chemical weapons which he'll use for defensive purposes.
Now, should he disclose this and have those weapons destroyed? Personally, I think so. However, I'm not the leader of a nation sitting on the world's richest supply of oil in a region renown for warring disputes of varying kind.
Let me try to crawl into his brain, not that any such thing is possible. But I'll give it a fair bid. Here goes:
Were I sitting on some weapons of this nature, which could be construed as crucial to self-defense (much like America's reliance on nukes) and I were aware of the militant and aggressive behavior of Israel or that an Iranian war could break out again, I might wish to do all I can to keep such weapons because they might be needed. This in mind due to the fact that the Iranians once overrode Iraqi positions and were only pushed back by the use of chemicals. I'd also consider that Israel has not signed on to international treaties with regard to WDM and itself is in multiple violation of UN resolutions.
Now, is it possible that he could try (emphasis on try 'cause Bush has ulterior motivation) and disclose most of what he's obtained and that he's destroyed the bulk of it, but that he wishes to keep some for defensive purposes? Yes. I think this is a realistic viewpoint, but certainly not one worth going to war and actually finding out if he's holding some for defensive purposes. In fact, that'd be stupid.
Regarding biologic agents? I think were he intent on doing this he would have done that long time ago, like after Sharon's election, for example?
My base opinion is that, yes, Saddam is a monster of a dictator. But he's not what the US and the Brits are making him out to be. He's certainly not worth recreating Stalingrad. Agree? |
