Iraq's weakness was contingent upon the implementation and continuation of the post war measures taken by the US et al. Several years after waging a hugley destructive war against Iran, Iraq was poised to be the ME's second greatest power, and only a couple years away from developing nuclear weapons (according to the post-war intelligence of the Germans, I think).
Why should we believe that Hussein-ruled Iraq wouldn't have been able to rise from the ashes again after the end of containment? Again, according to those close to Hussein, this was precisely his plan.
==============
Luke I have to say I find your reasoning to be somewhat headache inspiring.
Of course, it just may be the day I'm having but this recurrent theme -- Hussein was a threat, something had to be done, the Bushies just did it wrong -- inspires almost anarchist levels of growling in response to the sound of the liberal voice.
Repeatedly, you insist that Hussein needed to be contained, lest his nuclear armed minions march upon the greater ME, bringing about oil-mageddon.
The cited evidence is Hussein's reported goal of acquiring atomics.
But you're missing a crucial piece of the story -- Hussein was a client of the West, led by Washington. His nuclear ambitions existed within a tolerant framework. Building nuclear weapons, I'm sure you'll agree, is not the same thing as building cars or washing machines. A lot of general industrial infrastructure can be dual-used into making atomic ordinance but the most critical elements are very specialized devices indeed.
In other words, if the masters had wanted to halt Mr. Hussein's nuclear program -- such as it was -- this could have been accomplished intelligently and in isolation from other parts of the modern tech structure of Iraq (medicines, sewing machines, carburators, etc). So this containment, this "something that had to be done" was not something that had to be done after all but simply an indication of the savagery of the West when it comes to making examples of wayward pupils.
Imagine this...containment built upon a generally agreed program to eliminate all nuclear weapons to, in other words contain every goddamn body -- the whole nuclear club, present and potential members alike. This would have been a credible arms containment project - not one built upon 'it's okay for our buds but not okay for you'. Why can Israel have nukes and not the Arabs they say.
Why indeed?
And there's something else you're missing...
Mr. Hussein, being a client, was only a threat to the extent his masters allowed him to be a threat. Iraq didn't exist in some fold of M-space where the Baathists could quietly build their nuclear capability away from prying eyes. It was very much in the world, the information about its program was well known but so long as he was a useful servant, a matter of no concern.
Once he went 'off the ranch' as they say, well, the personal visits from Rumsfeld and chummy phone calls of support turned to threats and sanctions.
This was a sinister marriage Luke; Hussein was not a lone gunman.
DRM