And so we rumble on to malignant fate. The Christian fundamentalists and the oilers are in the saddle. The posse’s afoot. The die is cast. The cards are dealt. To war, to war, the dogs are loose and there’s sulphur in the air.

We marched for peace, we surely did. What a wondrous and magnificent turnout around the world! I took my place amongst the 100,000 in Dublin, as did, I have no doubt, many hotpress readers.

It was an extraordinary occasion. Two old ladies asked to walk with a group of my friends, asking ‘do you mind if two grannies join you? We’ve never been on a demonstration before’. One then took out a small anti-war placard made for her by her grandson...It was that kind of occasion. Mostly silent, always peaceful, clearly purposeful, the marchers quite clearly came from all strands of Irish society.

And they were not mindlessly opposing the US and the UK in their drive to war.

No, they made it quite clear, by placard, chant and applause, that they love America and the American people, that deep and immutable ties of blood and commerce bind them to America. But they were equally adamant that this did not extend to George Bush and his cabal. And there were many Americans amongst them too.

The marchers also made it clear that they carried no cans for the loathsome Saddam Hussein. But they did not see why many Iraqis should die, possibly tens of thousands, while the Americans went about ousting a man they once supported and whom they could have dealt with in 1991, but didn’t. Remember, they stood back while he wreaked his vengeance on the hapless Kurds who had followed US advice and revolted.

The marches were also notable in the way they showed that, even in these days of media massaging and spin doctoring, the streets still have their place in politics. This is a mass movement. It won’t last forever, but if ignored it will last long enough to make a difference at the next election.

The message got through to Bertie Ahern, it appears, who came out strongly if belatedly in favour of another UN vote. The President of the United States and the honourable member for North Texas were not so easily swayed.

It was a pivotal day. Something changed, though I am not yet certain what. I think it’s to do with Europe. I know that Donald Rumsfeld sneered at the difference of opinion between old Europe and new Europe. And there has been a division. But the marches indicate that old Europe is closer to how the people feel and a lot of politicians have started to feel uneasy.

One of those is Tony Blair, whose campaign to lead Europe, firstly by commandeering a lead role for the UK wherever possible, and then by becoming President, has been badly damaged. Well, that’s life. And if one of the outcomes of all this is a renewal of our European oaths, and a diminution of the UK’s cultural hegemony in this part of Europe, so much the better.

Unexpectedly, this crisis has jarred us back to the European idea, an idea borne out of the carnage of 350 years of war. The French, the Germans, the Russians and other European countries are equivocal on war because armies have been slaughtering their way across them for centuries. That’s why the EU emerged, to provide a different framework within which relations could be managed. Not so the USA or the UK. They have never been occupied, subjugated, humiliated.

Perhaps that is why they were so unwilling to listen to Dr Hans Blix, chairman of the Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission when he made the case for more time. Blix’s report didn’t suggest smoking guns, hidden stockpiles or whiffs of sulphur. It was dull and boring, but it was also impartial and based on verifiable fact, not hearsay or dubious intelligence.

And that’s the point. You have to work from what can actually be proven, not what you want to believe. I know that’s hard for a guy like Bush, who comes from a shoot first clean up later culture, and one that has no compunction about the death penalty. But that’s how it must be.

It is also astonishing that such sophisticated societies as the USA and the UK appear unable or unwilling to learn from history.

The closest historical parallel to what is unfolding is the Suez crisis in the 1950s, when the British and the French (and Israel) attacked Egypt to dislodge Gamal Abdul Nasser, a man as hated by them then as Saddam Hussein is now.

They failed. The British government fell. The attack fuelled Arab extremism and alienation. Its effects are out there still.

History is littered with the unforeseen consequences of wars and invasions. Bush and Blair think they can control what will happen in Iraq. Napoleon thought he could take Moscow. You just never know.

And what will the unforeseen consequences be? Where will the ripples of the inevitable bloodshed end? Wouldn’t it be better to put all this energy into dealing with Saddam alone? Wouldn’t one hundredth of the cost of this effort buy out enough Republican Guards to have him taken out? Why the need to expend all these resources? Who profits?

We aren’t done with marching yet, I think.