The thoughtful and tough-minded article on nonviolent resistance by Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall was excellent. I liked all of itexcept the first paragraph. The authors say that anyone who opposes military action must come up with another way to achieve the goal. If you and I are both concerned about some of the negative effects of modern technology, I DON'T have to have another plan to know that sending letter bombs to people involved in technology is a very bad idea.
The authors make a good case that Saddam is vulnerable and compare him to Stalin. If Stalin were alive, and nonviolent resistance to him did not seem practical, would we then be required to support an invasion?
Sometimes we don't have a good solution to a problem; that does not mean that a bad solution, fervently supported, automatically wins.