Human Shields and Choice

[kandrathe]

Hi,

Just a few thoughts.

The Cold War was an evil necessary to prevent the greater evil of world communism.

While communism was communicated as the threat, and surely it is a bankrupt economic philosophy, the real danger (IMHO) was global totalitarianism and subjugation of the masses by the State.

Pacifists can be enslaved, they can be killed.

Exactly, and in Iraq *ALL* dissent is crushed. That brings us back the the subject of this topic, "What use are the 'pacifists' in Iraq?" My answer is they are contributing only as Saddam's useful idiots.

On my drive to work today I was reflecting on the responsibilities of powerful nations. Understanding that there are crimes of commision, and crimes of omission (complicity if you will). Not that I believe the US can, or should intercede in every skirmish in the world. But, I think they should work toward making the UN into the forum in which to resolve conflicts. The US and other powerful nations should take a position that is consistent with international law and support their case. That is what I think the US *is* doing with Iraq. I think that closing your eyes to the crimes of tyrants only makes you guilty of complicity. We (the west, the US) are *guilty* of closing our eyes to the use of poison gas by Iraq against the Iranians and the Kurds. We should press the case that NO NATION should be dealing with criminal tyrants. But then, the 20th century is filled with atrocities that we chose not to stop, and worse not to acknowledge. Can we stop them all? I don't think so, but we have a duty and responsibility as a civilized nation to plainly state, then stand on our principles, and to hold tyrants and their criminal accomplices responsible for their crimes against humanity.

If talking doesn't resolve the conflict, then the UN needs to up the anty, and apply economic pressure (sanctions). They are in effect saying, "We think you are wrong, and so we won't deal with you until you make it right." We did that and it is not working. So, the UN ups the anty again, and applies the *credible* threat of force. Then saying "We feel you are wrong, and if you don't make it right, then we will." It does not seem to be working (and had very little chance in the first place). When that doesn't work, you need to follow through and go to war. So then finally the UN says, "We asked you to make it right, and you did not. Therefore, suffer the consequences."