Amos,

"The difference between "what is the worst thing that could happen" and "what is the best path toward improving the situation" is the difference between chronic antagonistic and combative approaches using force, and energetic positive dialogue. "

I see it as more between "what could happen if people continue to act as they have in the past" and "what would happen if everyone acts just as you want them to." One of the faults of the Bush administration, as well.

The "best path toward improving the situation" may not be the one that that has any chance of occuring. Ther best path would have been for Saddam to comply- but given the loud screams by some when he was threatened with having to comply with the UNR, he was encouraged (by those most opposed to war) to actually have one, rather than comply.
Thus, the "best path" was removed from possibility by those who would have been happiest had it been followed.



"Your subscription to Big Stick policies as the PRIMARY line of relationship with the world is unfruitful."

Not as the primary, but as a possibility that should be considered, along with other possibilities, and selected when both needed and justified by the situation.