Do “feel good” demonstrators promote peace and help the Iraq people, or do they contradict their own purpose?  Could a war against Iraq be justified?   

Civil wars and wars between nations are the ultimate result of failed politics and eroding socioeconomic conditions.  People of our western democracies spend a couple hours feeling good by marching and demonstrating and throwing accusations at the US president and England’s Prime Minister. This requires no effort and does nothing to solve the larger underlying problem.  Little attention is paid to the issues that, unsolved for decades, are allowed to escalate into adversity and ultimately war.   

Where is the western solidarity for the people in Iraq, who lack any of the fundamental rights and freedom that the marchers in western democracies can take for granted? Where is the demonstration against the regimes in Iraq, North Korea, Zimbabwe and numerous others countries that violate every letter in UN’s declaration of Human Right?  Where is the marchers’ concern for the increased disparity in the world that fuels war? Where are the demands for a twenty-year long overdue reform of the UN, and the demands that their governments support such a needed reform, so that UN can do its job?  

This writer is born and raised in a European country. A country that Adolf Hitler’s regime invaded and occupied, under the label of liberation and protection, in 1940.  Under the same label that Saddam Hussein used to invade Kuwait in 1991, escalating the unstable situation in the Middle East up to the present day crises.   

This writer and billions of others, can thank their life and democratic freedom given to them by the US and its’ allied decision to go to war.  While there are differences in the Iraq case, the fundamental issues are the same, a totalitarian regime that imposes adversity on its own people and those outside it’s border.    From 1932, eight years before the Second World War broke out, Churchill openly and furiously opposed Hitler and his Nazis. In vain, Churchill appealed to the public and the voters to do something about it, before it was to late. The British public and voters failed Churchill, and the outcome was war.  Today, the British Prime Minister has the courage to oppose tyranny, sadly again the voters fail to support the proper action against a tyrant.  

Saddam Hussein and Iraq has been given twelve years to meet the UN’s resolution.  The regime has not taken any steps to implement a civil society and improve the social conditions for it’s people.  Iraq’s people lack all fundamental rights and freedom.  Saddam Hussein and his regime continue it’s violation of the UN’s declaration of Human Rights, and continue the win-lose approach, - all will lose.  

Obviously, Saddam Hussein cannot win a war, only lose and fuel further adversity and inflict more suffering on its own people.  No stone should be left unturned to solve the problem in Iraq peacefully, including finding an asylum for Saddam Hussein and his aids, as the US in vain has proposed. Protesting against a incursion of Iraq as the ultimate outcome of Saddam and his regimes behavior, the marcher encourages Saddam to stay in power, and by that, weakens the chance for peaceful alternatives. 

The Iraq experience also stresses the question - Will governments of the US, France, Germany and also Canada - learn from history? Will they make changes in their politics and foreign policies that fuel autocratic regimes and adversity, such as Saddam Hussein’s, that created the problem in the first place?  If not, will the voters and demonstrators focus theirs effort on these issues that is fueling decades of socioeconomic misery and disparity that, unsolved, will escalate into adversity. 

 The risk is, as long the regime in Iraq believes that the US and its allies are not united, the win-win approach and a peaceful solution under UN have less chance of working. Unilateral actions that make the UN Security Council irrelevant, is not what the world and the marchers need.  It is not reasonable to believe that is the legacy the US President and Britain’s PM want.  

Therefore, throwing accusations at the US president and England’s Prime Minister, and fueling anti American sentiment per our Canadian MP’s inexcusable defamatory statement of the US, contradicts it own purpose and become a selfish march of follies?

Marchers show concern for innocent civilians in Iraq losing their life in a war, but little concern for the brutal conditions which Iraq people are forced to live in.  Marching for peace is good… educated marching against the political, and socioeconomic causes to adversity and war - that would be better.  

Would not the marcher better contribute to a peaceful solution and be of help for Iraq people by shouting, Saddam comply with UN’s resolutions and Saddam go away. Demand that a transitional government be installed in Iraq under UN’s mandate?  That would give the marcher a better reason to feel good.