OldMan,

While I respect your seniority and may life experieces I'm sure I think you are incorrect. A pacifist does nothing to make our world better or improve anything, they only accept what everone else has changed/improved. We must all(peoples of the earth) believe there is a reason in this Universe to stand up for a concept -no matter how vague or undeveloped it may be of -"Rule of Law". We have international law outlining shared and agreed upon beliefs and concepts on how nations need to behave in todays world. The world is a much "smaller" place than it was many years ago. Other nations activities do and can influence the livelyhoods of nations around the globe!(Even ourselves -the U.S.A. we must behave responsibly and follow the laws as they state, it is not just "our-way" but we might see the laws as not being protected...?)

*Case in point, we only need to look at commercial fishing on the high seas to see the impact of some "people-choosing to do -whatever-they wish" and the ramifications of not following agreed upon "rules of International Law". These MUST be respected and abided by(in the end it only serves to hurt us all) otherwise, yes indeed WAR and fighting CAN be the ultimate outcome. What do you think about, let's say "IF" the Chinese and the Tawainese decided they wanted all the salmon, tuna and makerel of "Our"(U.S.) coasts "international-waters" like lets say -150 miles off our Washington coast and netted to their happy hearts content -NO! that is rediculous. Imagine if those same nations also decided to harvest all the grey whales or even some of them -right of our coast just beyond the boarders of our U.S. waters? Do you not think such activity would first start a debate, then a fight then if not respected and followed as the international laws outline a possible war? I think it could be so......

Messages sent out by the world such as 1441 in the UN Charter post a "warning" to nations (such as Iraq) now and in the future that international law is to be repected for it's clear means to an end. And yes, it is right to let nations do as they see fit "within" the confines of their own boarders(which can be unfortunate -human right violations etc.) if it does not have serious potential impacts now or in the future on other nations. (Remember, in th case of Iraq the Gulf War of 1991 which the UN supported and outlined law, President George Bush -Senior acted in "restraint" and di dnot seek American "Imperialism" and a take over -if you will -of Iraq or any part of it. He ultilmately resepected UN Law) Today these same "Laws" and improvements made to them, are being disrespected and ignored by more than just Iraq.

Most importantly nations which have shown to have very "bad" records(credit in the international community) or let's say, "police reports" for the sake of analogy, are to be on probation by all the nations of the world expecting them to behave more responsibly "to" the world community. Now, if nations pose no threat or defience to any of those internationally recognized "Rules of Law", or have no "bad" records -then they should be left alone to live in Peace as they wish and can and should be allowed to govern themselves as such and ordain themselves in any cultural and traditional ways they wish..

Those are my thoughts.......

Good Fishing, Darin