What is the mane difference in the way of acting between police and criminals? Criminals ignore official law - police acts according law. If police begins to deny law it assumes characteristics of criminals and the difference between them disappears. The question is what is legal and illegal in every particular situation. Though the answer is not easy it seems to me obvious that killing of thousands of innocent people is at any case illegal. What crime can be more awful than this? But it is exactly this that is going in the Gulf now. I mean millions of Iraqi soldiers against whom rockets, bombs and guns are directed.

You will say that they commit crimes themselves, that they serv to aggression and therefore they are criminals. I think that we have no more reasons to call them criminals than to call criminals all Iraqi nation. Who are these soldiers? Mostly common people without any distinction from others who were so unlucky to be recruited to army. They are guilty exactly at the same extent as all Iraqi people are guilty until they do not commit crimes against humanity: exterminate civil population, make genocide, devastations etc... I deny any nationalism and therefore I deny that a whole nation can be criminal one. International legislation precisely distinguishes participants of military actions into those fulfilling orders only and those committing crimes (both who give orders and fulfil them). It does not mean that there are no soldiers who can be considered as criminals. But if to use specification of international legislation it is a small part of the whole military contingent involved in battles. I do not even

speak about civil population.

During TV programs and in newspapers when the question of the Gulf is risen almost all the time commentators mention the name of Hussein as the main enemy against whom all efforts are directed. "Hussein threatens the world...", "Hussein is going to...", "Hussein ignores..." etc... They never say that Iraqi people are going to conquer somebody or exterminate somebody. And they are right because it is Hussein and his clique who are guilty in crimes of the regime. Have you ever heard that for liquidating of a criminal group consisting of ten persons hundreds of people were destroyed by police? But it does take place in the Gulf. Hundreds or thousands are guilty and hundreds of thousands are going to be destroyed. I do not know any laws that could legalize it except one law - the law of war. But at this case it is not a police action but a war and do not mix them, please. As far as I am convinced that war is a crime against humanity I do not support military actions of Allied forces in the Gulf.

It is a matter of fact that overwhelming majority of international society blames Iraqi regime. However it is divided into two main parts according their attitude to the waged military actions. One part supports them completely and the other condemns them but without any positive alternative. The paradox is that the both points of view have the common core. They are united by common belief that there are no means except war that can stop aggressor. Virtually the difference between these points of view is difference of desire to influence on the Gulf events.

It is strange that nobody put forward any other alternative means to disable aggressor. Does it take place because of absence of these means? More likely it is a result of wide scale propaganda all over the world as Roberto marks in his article. However other methods do exist and they ought to be enforced. Nonviolent strategy can be effective at this case as well as at others. When I say "nonviolent" I do not mean pacifist or without force. Force and violence are completely different things. Violence in my mind is illegal, cruel force or actions arising from hatred against enemy. And it was police force that should have being used under the circumstances.

I am not a specialist and I am aware that whatever concrete I suggest it will be dilettante and not serious. In spite of it I will take this risk and will remember that for example American secret services succeeded very well in operations of "changing of health condition" of foreign leaders when it was necessary for United States. It is only one example. Generally speaking system of secret and police services is a powerful machine that knows what and how must be done especially if that billions of dollars that are being spent for the war now had been delivered to this system.

Another instrument is information attack that could be undertaken by means of radio transmitters constructed in allied Arabian countries. Also a very good use of money. It is not my idea. It was one of the Radical proposals in connection with the Gulf problem. A very good proposal aimed to inspire rebellion from inside of Iraq. Why Radicals forgot their own proposal now? Even after beginning the war it was no late to send to Arabia brigades of constructors and radio-engineers. Why did they prefer to send military troops? It seems that they themselves believed that only violence was able to uphold justice. Very sad. If even Radicals under crisis circumstances forget about nonviolence that is propagated by their own party who else will try to enforce it?