” for purported attempt on his father by Saddam”
A very bad reason for a war.
“Also 9-11 — an attack on the United States that killed more persons than at Pearl Harbor — happened BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. “
And what exactly ít has to do with Saddam?
“Before the invasion of Iraq the situation in the Middle East was producing all kinds of harmful — and in the future possibly even more dangerous (e.g., from nuclear weapons) -—consequences. The fact that things were screwed up afterwards doesn’t change that.”
Before which invasion? In 2003 Iraq wasn’t in a position to cause big troubles. It wasn’t that much a deterrent against Iran though. Although it is rumored chemical weapons were moved to Syria no traces of nuke program were shown ever.
> “And what exactly it [the 9-11 attack] has to do with Saddam?”
I cited it in reference to the alleged stability of the Middle East before the Iraq invasion. The United States was hated before then, and at great risk from its enemies before then. Since the invasion of Iraq we’ve had no attack on that scale (though I expect one because of the incompetence with which our wars and policies against our enemies have been conducted).
> ...no traces of nuke program were shown ever.
There was plenty of evidence that it had existed in the past. (Saddam’s son-in-law had defected and revealed the secret development that had been taking place, then later killed when he returned to Iraq.) That’s not even under dispute. What was not shown was that the nuclear development continued during the inspections. As I said, though, Iraqi nuclear scientists (who had been part of the nuke program) testified that they expected it to be resumed after the inspections ended.