Tinker, I read with interest your comments.

"A non-violent philosophy is a nice thing to have, but it seldom accomplishes much in the real world, which is why we glorify the exceptional leaders who can succeed with it, e.g. Ghandi."

The "real world" depends on which "reality" one subscribes to.
Actually, when Ghandi or King used it, it worked. The problem is that it is often dismissed out of hand without grounds to support that hypothesis.


"But years of sanctions and UN resolutions meant nothing to Saddam, a dictator (sorry, BBC, but that's what he was) who slaughtered thousands of his own people, made war on at least three nearby nations (Iran, Kuwait and Israel), permitted torture and rape as his sons' birthright, etc., etc. Yeah, they haven't found the WMD's, but they found a lot of mass graves. Is that somehow more acceptable?"

These graves were considered acceptable when the Reagan and Bush administrations condoned his actions as a deterrant to Iran.

"It's so easy to slam Bush, especially from across an ocean. But what would you have suggested, instead of the war, that could have removed Hussein from power? What exactly would have been a better idea that would have accomplished the same goal in the same time frame?"

Number one, involving the World Community in the process rather than for the Bushies to go it alone. The inspections quite to the contrary to some propaganda were working. They were neutralizing his power.

"Ask any parent. Threats of punishment carry no force unless the punishments occasionally occur."

As a parent I disagree. Punitive responses may have an inverse affect to acceptable behavior. The spate of child abuse cases that we see today are evidence of this. The child grows up to be another molesters Actually, many children can become innured to punishment that is meted out with regularity. The way to handle child rearing has to do with opening options that include more than punishment. This was not done in Iraq, sorry to say.

Frank