and political analysists are considering a new offensive in the region to remove.
This offensive is response to the growing.
imminent threat Iraq is posing with it's current and obtainable capabilities with.
weapons of mass destruction. "The argument is in favor of taking action now,.
whether it's to compel Baghdad to accept inspectors or to use military force to.
change the regime, is that it's better to act when those capabilities are still short.
of reaching their ultimate objective," said Gary Samore from the International.
Institute for Strategic Studies. The risks of inaction outweigh the risks of action.
and it is for this my partner and I stand to affirm the resolution. Resolved: By.
2004, the U.S. should invade Iraq and depose of Saddam Hussein's regime. First.
I contend. .
1. Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The evidence published by a number of think tanks and.
governments indicates that Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons and.
that it could one day develop a nuclear device. Richard Butler, former United.
Nations (UN) weapons inspector, warns that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is.
actively developing weapons of mass destruction and has stepped up the.
production of biological and chemical agents since inspections ended four years.
ago. .
.
a. Iraq could have nukes by 2005.
A former Iraqi nuclear engineer told a senate hearing Wednesday.
that Saddam could have nuclear weapons by 2005. Khidir Hamza, who defected.
from Iraq in 1994, and other experts on Iraq testified before the Senate Foreign.
Relations Committee at the start of two days of hearings on the Iraqi threat to the.
United States and possible U.S. responses, including an invasion. Citing German.
intelligence estimates, Hamza said Iraq had more than ten tons of uranium and.
one ton of slightly enriched uranium. Hamza said that could give Iraq enough.
weapons grade uranium to build three nuclear weapons in three years. In.
addition, Hamza said, Iraq is trying to extend the range of it's missiles in order.
