>To be fair, Dennis wasn't saying that war on Iraq would achieve something
>positive. He was arguing that if we STOP the war on Iraq, that is not
>'something remotely positive', that 'no war on Iraq' is not a 'positive'
>demand.
"No war in Iraq" is probably not the really important thing, by itself. The "something very important" that you think I might be onto is simply the growing world-wide public resistance to the idea of war as a means to solve disputes.
My impression is that this exactly the sentiment that is emerging. Clearly there are millions of who are outraged by the notion that the nation with the superior military might is entitled to impose its will on the rest of the world. This used to be accepted, today it is regarded as unacceptable. It seems to me that is a huge subjective change and one that makes sense historically.
It doesn't directly address the internal problems in Iraq or any other nation. But it is still a positive thing in a much larger sense. The implications are tremendous, I can't really get my head around them all.
But it surely doesn't imply that no attempt will be made to resolve disputes. As Dennis keeps suggesting. Simply that other means will have to be devised. War is analogous to the custom of resolving disputes by a duel to the death, now replaced in civilised societies with a system of civil law. Or democratic elections as a means of removing political leaders, instead of violent coups by a bunch of armed plotters.
The alternative to an automatic resort to violence in international dispute resolution is the emerging system of international law. Its still in its infancy and for socialists like me it is just a small step towards a just and civilised world. But a civilised world, one where people have rejected the notion that might makes right, is a necessary pre-condition for a just world.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas