A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
The protests were an example of people around the world expressing their disgust at the invasion of a sovereign nation by a superpower without a "good reason".
I personally disagree that there was no "good reason" and I think that those that will only see injustice perpetrated by the west have a somewhat warped sense of the world. When confronted by anti-war groups at uni I asked what they though about the prospect of millions dying well into the future due to the UN Sanctions that were essentially used as a weapon by Saddam against his own people and all I got were blank stares and the occasional "this is a war for oil". Very few on the anti-war group had the capacity to reciognize that there are some legitimate reasons to intervine in Iraq and then justify there case against the war in light of that.
Being pro-interventionist is an unenviable position to justify because you are invariably labeled pro-war (a highly dubious name since barely anybody truly wants war, it is the anti-thesis of life) or called a liberventionalist as if it is a bad thing to be (I wear the name with pride). When we bring it all down to the world view between some pro-war and the anti-war movement it is about how to guarantee peace. The anti-war movement feels that peace must be attained through multilateralism and diplomacy and that war must only be used after a massive and rapid event has happened, I do not agree with this concept that we should stand by while people die all over the world. I think that the "peace" brought on by this is really an illusion that leads to a two-tier human rights system where the west gets peace and stability while the third world is left to destroy itself and nobody cares. I think the only way to a true and just peace is through action. It doesnt have to be millitary and it must usually be economic actions as well as diplomatic. The final goal of such actions would be to create a world of co-dependence where countries rely on eachother and will not go to war lightly. It may be utopian but it is the next step of human society. We have gone from warring tribes to nation-states to nations to communities of nations. The next logical step is a global government and it should be the cause of all the free peoples of the world, it would ensure peace and allow humanity to move forward as a whole.
I personally disagree that there was no "good reason" and I think that those that will only see injustice perpetrated by the west have a somewhat warped sense of the world. When confronted by anti-war groups at uni I asked what they though about the prospect of millions dying well into the future due to the UN Sanctions that were essentially used as a weapon by Saddam against his own people and all I got were blank stares and the occasional "this is a war for oil". Very few on the anti-war group had the capacity to reciognize that there are some legitimate reasons to intervine in Iraq and then justify there case against the war in light of that.
Being pro-interventionist is an unenviable position to justify because you are invariably labeled pro-war (a highly dubious name since barely anybody truly wants war, it is the anti-thesis of life) or called a liberventionalist as if it is a bad thing to be (I wear the name with pride). When we bring it all down to the world view between some pro-war and the anti-war movement it is about how to guarantee peace. The anti-war movement feels that peace must be attained through multilateralism and diplomacy and that war must only be used after a massive and rapid event has happened, I do not agree with this concept that we should stand by while people die all over the world. I think that the "peace" brought on by this is really an illusion that leads to a two-tier human rights system where the west gets peace and stability while the third world is left to destroy itself and nobody cares. I think the only way to a true and just peace is through action. It doesnt have to be millitary and it must usually be economic actions as well as diplomatic. The final goal of such actions would be to create a world of co-dependence where countries rely on eachother and will not go to war lightly. It may be utopian but it is the next step of human society. We have gone from warring tribes to nation-states to nations to communities of nations. The next logical step is a global government and it should be the cause of all the free peoples of the world, it would ensure peace and allow humanity to move forward as a whole.