Steve, right you are, and thank you for finding the error before Gargoyle did. I went off half-cocked again, but as for the assertion that it was a description of the incompetent, rather than of violence, I think you're off there. Seldon (Asimov) was making a statement about violence, not about competence--while he perhaps wasn't excluding all possible uses of violence, he was certainly saying that for the competent can generally find many options short of violence.

The first Gulf War, for those of you who feel the second is justified, was sold to us as necessary for the overthrow of the "Hitler of the Mideast," with specific denials of the opposition's contention that it was just a war over oil. Shortly before the end of that war, I was shocked to hear an analyst on public radio say that our goal was not the overthrow of Saddam, because that would open the region for domination by Iran. At least I was prepared when the war ended as soon as the Iraqis were driven from the Kuwait oil fields. The Shiites and Kurds who were encouraged to rebel against Saddam by promises of protection certainly were surprised when the war ended and they were given no protection other than the belated enforcement of no-fly zones.

So the Hitler of the Mideast was still in power (as he probably will be after the current bombing ends), the roads and waterworks of the nation destroyed, and the genocidal sanctions begun. Of course we can blame the sanctions on Saddam--they were to be lifted when he met the conditions of the cease fire--disarming, allowing the weapons inspectors access to all sites, paying reparations, etc. But since Saddam and his family and cronies and the Republican Guard were not suffering from the sanctions, they became merely another ineffective use of violence, affecting only the innocent. Starvation is a weapon of mass destruction; the sanctions are a weapon of mass destruction, and a million children are dead because of them.