On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:31:11 -0800, Mitch Miller wrote:

>I take it this means the NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia, the =
>US intervention in Somalia, and the long-standing and repeated French =
>attacks on anybody they don't like in Africa are war crimes?

It seems rather common in history that the looser in a conflict becomes
the "war criminal".  War itself is criminal, but has been a part of
human interaction as long as we can remember.  The problem now is that
our technology has magnified not only the good we can do, but the
damage we can inflict on one another and the planet on which we all
must live.  I believe our survival as a species might well depend on
how quickly our ethical thinking can catch up to our weapons
development - if that is possible at all.


>Is it conceivable that we have reached a new era in foreign relations, =
>in which we no longer have to wait before a dictator crosses a border =
>before intervening?  The League of Nations failed because it did nothing =
>about the people of Ethiopia.  Will the United Nations fail because it =
>did not about the people of Iraq?

The League failed because of the self-interest of many countries,
including the United States, overruled common goals.  Nazi Germany's
demands for new territory were acceded to.  Eventually, it took a
worldwide coalition seven years to defeat it.

In '91, Iraq invaded Kuwait, but was pushed back behind its borders by
a coalition of countries with great losses to its armed forces.  Now,
it is the United States, with a few "allies", seemingly bought and paid
for, that is making demands.  The US cause for a premptive strike is
tentative at best, and sets a very dangerous precedent for future
conflicts.

Modern war, with our new technology, has become ever more dangerous as
a solution to international problems.  Proliferation of nuclear and
other WMD is a serious problem in our times.  One encouraging sign is
that the USSR, with its vast arsenal, was eventually dissolved by a
policy of containment by a coalition of allied nations, not by war.
The United Nations must now show leadership in doing the same with both
Iraq and the United States, whose current administration seems quite
unfamiliar and ill at ease with diplomatic approaches.







__Peter Feldmann