> “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.
Well, I’m somehow agree that you couldn’t imagine how things would be in the Middle East but one thing for sure is it would have been absolutely different. No ISIS for sure. As for North Africa it was all more predictable and the result is total disaster. A stable middle class nation of Libya which served as a floodgate for African migrants to Europe was destroyed. Also Libya had numerous humanitarian and development programs in Black Africa which had real results at a fraction of cost of UN programs which had mostly generated corruption.