Doc Searls, in a post in which, in his inimitable style and consistent effort to be balanced, he pushes back at some of the criticism of the Marine who apparently shot an injured and unarmed Iraqi, talks in terms of the beginnings of World War III happening in Iraq
I found myself thinking how similar my own views might be to those who opposed Britain taking up arms against the Germans and whether, looking back, history would condemn myself and others like me as being naive and idealistic in the face of what turned out to be a very real threat.
I would still maintain that war is a last resort, justifiable only when a group of people are collectively under real and imminent threat for their lives, and that we were nowhere near that point when we went into Iraq. The amount of damage and suffering our intervension has caused and is causing - even just in the number of deaths - far outweighs the possible threat that we faced from Saddam. Even if the actions of the US were in fact retaliation for 9/11 we have responded with violence many times that of those original deaths.
The more of us who keep fragmenting world views down to a political lowest common denominator of one the better - and if we manage to at the same time walk the talk of a spiritual message which sees everything on the planet as manifestations of one indivisible whole, the less chance there is of some mad buggers convincing enough of us to start a world war ever again.