Of course, at first my heart goes out to those that risk their lives for their convictions and for peace. But then I start thinking about what the consequences of their action will be except for them feeling good.

According to the Geneva convention the use of human shields is a war crime. Usually, in war history, the human shields have not been asked politely to act as such but have been forced to do so. At the time of the Geneva convention, nobody had really thought about volunteer human shields. In the few volunteer cases before (first WW, for instance), the power offered that opportunity had said thanks, but led the volunteers away from danger. To accept such an offer and even to invite it is another of Saddam's crimes same as using a part of his population for that purpose.

Nevertheless, if the attacking party knows for sure that human shields are used, they may not attack that particular position shielded according to the Geneva convention. In case of war, that'll prolong the action and can easily be argued to cost more (civilian) lives than otherwise.

Sad as it is when considering the good intentions of those people, I think Gareth is right here when warning that this action may even cost more lives in the end. From Saddam's point of view they may be called 'useful idiots'. From the perspective of what the effect of their actions will be in case of a war, you even may consider them 'useless idiots'.

I know that's hard and sounds heartless, but I think that the probability of war or peace will not be influenced by this action, but the suffering will be greater due to these people in case of a war.

Wolfgang