Sorry, Arra, but I don't get what you're saying. Are you suggesting that peace activism should be the sole focus of protest (this would ignore all the violations of civil, social and environmental rights that fall short of war)? Do you think the (so-called - I for one would reject the name) 'anti-globalisation' movement is pointless (anti-Western corporate capitalism might be better, and as such it is intimately bound up with anti-war struggles)?
And why, in either case, is it wrong to be advocating peace now that a war is about tobreak out (or has already broken out, depending on your point of view)? What else would you suggest we do?
Your comment seems ill-thought through and overwhelmingly negative - what are you, personally, engaged in at the moment? (In case you're interested, I work for an anti-corporate organisation and am also getting involved with local peace protests)

as you said 'Someone once observed that each war begins as a contiuation of the previous one, and ends as the prelude to the next. '
so war has never stoped somewher on the planet people are killing each other and you say , and war has broken out; to talk of peace now is like the proverbial stable door.
the fuckin horse went centurys ago
make up your mind either its broken out or its continious

what do you want people to do???nothing?????
and even though it has,maybe we can do somthing about
it in many different ways from sit down demos thru to international brigades(Spain 1930's)(in extreme circumstances) to alter the outcome

you mentioned the FT are you a stock trader or perhaps a
janes defence weekly subscriber.

When Kurt Vonnegut was writing slaughter house 5, a friend of his suggested that he might as well write an anti-glacier novel as an anti-war novel, the implication being that war is inevitable. However, the protests in the US during the sixties effectively bought the war in Vietnam (and Laos, Cambodia etc.) to an end. OK, so the Yanks knew they were loosing, but the movement still helped. If that same movement had been so active (and at times violent (in self defence)) before the invasion, would it have gone ahead anyway? Tragically, probably.
As for the FT saying that the governments are more powerful than corporations, what do you expect these twats to say? That the great unwashed were right all along? I fear not.
So, while I support real massive protest, the rulers of the free world are going to go out and kill many more millions of innocent people, no matter what a bunch of civilians think. I wish I could be more upbeat. Sorry.

Multinational corporations contribute to, and benefit massively from war. Arms manufacturers, to name but one industry, must be rubbing their hands in glee at this moment.

Governments don't commit themselves to conflict without reference to protecting existing or exploiting potential economic interests. One would have to be naive in the extreme to believe that US oil interests played no part in the Gulf War, for example. No nation has ever commited itself to a war for purely idealogical or humanitarian reasons. War is about protectionism - protectionism of economic power bases.

By suggesting that the anti-globalisation movement is a distraction, perhaps you should first define exactly what you believe it to be distraction FROM. You haven't articulated any credible argument for this assertion. Now, more than ever, the so-called anti-globalisation (or, more accurately, anti-corporate/capitalist) movement needs to make its presence felt.

Get down to Brighton next Sunday and be LOUD!

Errr, I think the Taliban are sitting on quite a lot of oil. And I don't think they're that bothered about selling it, particularly to the US.

The war against the Taleban should be seen in the context of the US/UK fighting against higher oil prices and the desire to access lucrative deals for their closest multinational friends.

And the rest of the capitalist (scum) world government can go and take a flying jump as well.