Should the US attack Iraq some say yes and others say no, in this essay I will look at both sides.Thefirst side of this argument I will look at is why America should attack Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is back with avengeance, and his threats of world destruction aren’t to be taken lightly. The United States tried unsuccessfully to target him during the Gulf War in February 1991, however, they confidently expected the Iraq leader to be gone within months. Now, seven years later Saddam has shown a remarkable ability to survive and to rebuild his military to almost its peak potential and the US are threatening to lead air strikes over weapons inspections.
Iraq is able to produce chemical and biological weapons within weeks, a long-range missile within a year and a nuclear weapon in five years. It would also be enough time to make up 350 litres of Anthrax a week, enough for two missile warheads, or enough to kill hundreds of thousands of people. The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) has verified and destroyed 817 missiles, 30 warheads, 75 launchers and launch pads, 38, 537 munitions and 690 tonnes of chemical-weapons agents.Dr Germ has produced 10 billion killer doses of toxins… However, they believe that a further 2 missiles, 45 warheads, 31 658 munitions and 130 tonnes of chemical-weapons agents still exist. Dr Rihab Taha, aged 42 is at the centre of the growing Iraq crisis, and is the person who persuaded Saddam to launch his controversial germ warfare program back in the 1980’s.
In an extraordinary decade, the woman known as “Dr Germ” has led the production of 10 billion killer doses of toxins, including botalinum, a vicious food poisoning bug that provokes a swollen tongue, frothing at the mouth and dizziness before a victims rapid death. UNSCOM has also established that Iraq has produced 8400 litres of Anthrax – which dissolves the kidneys, liver and lungs lea..