The march in London seems to have generated some strange responses in the blog world.
Peter Cuthbertson thinks that everyone on the march (and I presume anyone who opposes the war in the country at large) is a moron.
Chris Betram, who says he is opposed to the war, brings up the hoary old argument that the protest will give comfort to Saddam. One often hears this when there is the threat of war in the air, but it is unclear what is meant by it. For a start as an expression of British democracy, which let's face it has has hardly been very evident in this whole war saga, presumably it will annoy the dictator Saddam, who as we know hates democracy. More fundamentally, where does this argument end? If Tony Blair threatened to nuke North Korea, would protesting against that be criticized on the grounds it would give comfort to Kim Jong-il? Is no protest allowed in case it gives succour to our enemies? What makes Chris's comment stranger still is the link below shows clearly why Rumsfeld (who is one of the driving forces behind this war) can't be trusted, and lays clear the hypocrisy in the west's view that Tony Blair (who can't be blamed for this) repeated when talking yesterday of the million who have died in Saddam's wars.
All in all the pro-war camp have the 'debate' the wrong way around. It is not the anti-war protesters' job to give reasons why we shouldn't invade and occupy Iraq, it is the pro-war protesters (and if you look at many US sites you will see that the term 'pro-war', so often misleading, is very apt here) to give reasons why we should. Sadly so far all we have had is Colin Powell's half-truths to the UN and the Senate, and our PM sounding ever-so-slightly deranged yesterday.
The case for war, at least for the UK, is fading every day.
ps More blog news.
Peter Briffa seems to think that a million people isn't many, given 70,000 watched Man U play Arsenal. Funnily back in September he seemd quite excited when the Countryside Alliance got 400,000.
