Agreed. France and Germany in particular had a responsibility to help, as they gave him many of the weapons used in Iran and the Gulf War. The UN security council is made up of many nations though, GB and the US being the most powerful. They had to act in unison to effect any sanctions or no fly zones, so I doubt it was only US.
Like I said, most experts think that by 1998, 90-95% of his weapons capabilities had been destroyed. The biological weapons we gave him died long before then. Most of the chemical weapons were also inactive by then. It is very probable that he had a small number of chemical weapons left over. However, most nations do then, especially in that area. Again, nothing here makes Iraq stand out as worth the cost in blood in credibility.
Concerning Iraq's nuclear capabilities: As far as I have read, all the supplies we know of him possessing or buying from others was the wrong kind for nuclear weapons production. Perhaps if you tell me what evidence you're referring to, I can comment further on this?
I know that the 500 tons of enriched Uranium he was supposed to have bought from Niger (according to the 2003 State of the Union Address) is based on fake documents (according to the IAEA and our own intel.). The fakes were so crude that the CIA knew they weren't legit in 2001. Congressman Waxman (D-CA), who voted for war, later wrote the White House expressing concern about the use of these documents as evidence for WMD's. He noted that the CIA had proved these documents were fakes, yet the administration relied on them in making their case to us and the world knowing full well that they were. This episode cannot be blamed on the intelligence community; the buck stops in the White House as far as I can see.
It is possible that there were other weapons there that were either well hidden or destroyed when we attacked Iraq. As there is no evidence one way or the other, I have to withhold comment here.
