GingerV,

I would seem that I was incorrect to expect you to not continue the thread.

You asked me to provide data to substantiate my position that the WOT was effective. I did. You remain unpersuaded. Fair enough. You are not alone.

You suggested that the WOT was ineffective. Permit me to reference post #82 in this thread, your point 3.

“…my initial assertion that it hasn't done a blind bit of good…”

Asking you to substantiate your position with data – as you asked of me - is not, it seems to me, unreasonable. It does not involve asking you to prove the null hypothesis. I merely ask of you what you have asked of me.

I provided data to show that international terrorism needed to be addressed, and as best as I can tell, you agreed with me. I suggested that economic and political liberalization were the appropriate long term tools to use. I believe that you have not disagreed with me. I suggested that there are situations where force may be required.

I disagree with your suggestion that Afghanistan was invaded. Permit me to reference post #82 in this thread, your point 3.

“…a flat out invasion of Afghanistan…”

That is not, I believe correct. I have pointed out the Taliban was defeated on the ground by the Northern Alliance, which was composed of Afghans.

We also disagree what the justification was for the invasion of Iraq. I have stated that it was the existence of Iraq’s WMDs. I have provided links to the quotes of the decision makers. I have also provided a link to the BBC’s article on the Lord Hutton’s report into the death of Dr. Kelly. I do ask you to take the time needed to read Lord Hutton’s report. Page numbers here refer to the PDF from the BBC link above. Permit me to quote from page 2 of that report, item 9. “The terms of reference”

“There has been a great deal of controversy and debate whether the intelligence in relation to weapons of mass destruction set out in the dossier published by the Government on 24 September 2002 was of sufficient strength and reliability to justify the Government in deciding that Iraq under Saddam Hussein posed such a threat to the safety and interests of the United Kingdom that military action should be taken against that country.”

Again, to quote from page 6 of that report:

“The threat posed to international peace and security, when WMD are in the hands of a brutal and aggressive regime like Saddam’s is real.”

Despite this data, your response was “They aren't ANY of them relevant”. I disagree with you. If quotes from the former UK Iraq envoy, the Foreign Secretary, and a copy of the dossier presented to the Prime Minister fail to persuade you, I suspect nothing will.

__________________
Eudaimonia