And both were part of the same WOT. So what's your point?
So you can't credit the Normandy invasion for ensuring that the Japanese fleet didn't attack Pearl Harbor again. Duh.
But many do claim, rightly so, that Saddam aided and abetted a lot of terrorists.
And, as stated, you carefully avoid stating that the terrorists in question weren't actually those involved in attacks on American soil. You keep forgetting to add that qualifier.
One might wonder why...
ANd that's relevant how exactly?
Because your argument is that Saddam "supported terrorists" - not that he "supported terrorists who posed a threat to America" or that he and his military posed a threat - and everyone 'supports terrorism.'
Your house of cards has no foundation.
No, my argument is that Saddam was in material breach of numerous UN resolutions, that he had a program for WMD (which has been established numerous times),
I don't see anything their about the safety of Americans, or posing a threat to the US or planning a terrorist attack on Americans or...
Anyway, the statement I've been responding to this entire time was that if we had not toppled Saddam, we most certainly would have had another attack on American soil, 'because he was a gosh-darned terrorist suporter' and blah blah blah. If you don't agree with that argument, then you didn't really need to respond to me.
invade neighbors and destabilize the region.
Haha, we had to destabilize the region because Saddam (twice - once thirty years ago with our support and once twenty years ago without) attempted to 'destabilize the region'! You're a laugh riot.