|
That is a very interesting article. I would agree that there is strong evidence that Saddam was seeking to develop bio/chem/nuclear weapons. He was certainly in violation of UN regulations on his country. I doubt many people would be in favor of Saddam developing a Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever weapon.
But controversial questions remain.
There do not seem to be any weapons ready for delivery, just R&D: was there an imminent threat?
For what purpose would Saddam have used such weapons, knowing that such use would lead to certain retaliation?
How many other countries have active WMD R&D that we aren't willing to invade them over?
Why don't we have a problem with certain countries that are known to have actual deliverable WMD (eg. Israel, Pakistan, the United States itself)? What gives a country the right to produce such weapons?
|