The recent row about the U.S. Holocaust Museum advertisement reminded me of an interesting political cartoon from last spring. It depicted President Clinton at the museum's opening. He first looked toward the Vietnam Memorial and remarked "We cannot afford to go into Bosnia," and then looking back to the museum, added "Yet we cannot afford not to."

I'll detail several compelling reasons for us to take the bold step forward and play a direct role in ending the unnecessary bloodshed in Bosnia. Meanwhile, I'll also tackle the main arguments for not interfering and show how weak these are in comparison.

The most common of these arguments is "What direct interest do we as Americans have in Bosnia?" This would be a good question if we planned to intervene as the U.S. armed forces. But, we being under the banner of the United Nations symbolizes that we act as human beings first, leaving national and ethnic divisions secondary.

This argument based on moral high ground may sound like "fluff" covering up something contrary to American interests. But this is not at all true. We will be in Bosnia for principles that Americans have always held. These simple principles such as preserving basic human rights and preventing exploitation of the weak have always been part of the American way. In fact, for decades, the whole world has looked for our leadership in protecting such values.

Being the world's greatest power entailed many economic and political advantages for us. But, we must also bear some of the responsibilities going along with this power. Of course, the American image is revered in many parts of the world. American businesses get a huge boost from this. Franchises and U.S. subsidiaries abroad (such as McDonalds and Coca-Cola) are prospering as a result of the world's love affair with the American way of life.

It is important to maintain this image by acting in the responsible way. Economic power must be supported by political leadership, which is what we need to demonstrate.

Another argument against intervention is that "We cannot be the policemen of the entire world." This is as ridiculous as saying I shouldn't attend Penn State, because now I should be attending every other university. There's nothing committing us as a nation to more than one cause. Sure, there'd probably be more requests for our help, but there is nothing stopping us from evaluating these situations on a case-by-case basis. It is unlikely we'll be confronted by an issue as large as the civil war in Bosnia, not in the near future at least.

In fact, this two-year war is already the largest conflict Europe has seen since World War II. In beseiged Sarajevo alone, 60,000 of the cities' 300,000 remaining residents have been wounded.

Sniper fire and shelling continue to be blatantly aimed at the city's Moslem civilians; this was best exemplified by last week's deadly attack on the city's Markale marketplace. Over the last few weeks, there have been scores of sniper shootings even when the citizen's are attempting to bury the dead. Many of the marketplace's 68 dead were buried during the night.

Until recently, it seemed the West had resigned itself to being a helpless spectator of this slaughter that was founded on the abhorable notion of "ethnic cleansing."

But first the Winter Olympics -- yes, the games were hosted by Sarajevo a mere decade ago. Europeans still remember Sarajevo as a beautiful and pleasant city that didn't seem to belong behind the Iron Curtain. Now, as they follow their sporting heroes, they are being reminded of the atrocities being committed in what was their neighbor's beautiful front lawn.

Second, and this one applies more to Americans -- the movie Schindler's List has brought back horrors of the Holocaust. We can hardly help but feel uneasy about sitting aside and watching it happen all over again.

Finally, the shell attack on marketplace -- the worst single incident in all the war -- has compelled even Clinton to consider serious action. He was reported to have asked National Security Adviser Anthony Lake,"If we don't use air strikes now, when will we use them?" Last week, Clinton put together a NATO mandate threatening air strikes unless the Serbs stop shelling and withdraw their weapons to a 12.5 mile radius from Sarajevo within 10 days.

Let's hope the Serbs do comply and we see the end of the conflict soon. But if they don't, we cannot condone their actions any longer.

After all, we've tried the logical first steps for a resolution of the conflict -- diplomacy, embargoes and even U.N.-mandated peacekeeping zones and safety havens. Yet, the Bosnian Serbs have snubbed all attempts for peace. They continue to boast of their military successes and want to continue until the Moslems have been completely subjugated and have lost all negotiating power. "Sarajevans will not be counting the dead," Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic recently said in an address to his parliament,"They will be counting the living."

Surely, we don't have to put up with this atrocity; we can stand up for our principles and greatly help the Bosnian Moslems. If we couldn't, I -- as a Hindu, traditional religious foes of the Moslems -- wouldn't have just written this column.