Those who are anti-war are notorious for bashing the United States and its allies for waging war and remaining silent when other countries wage war. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the anti-war crowd protested against, not Iraq, but the United States, and they did this before the U.S. had actually engaged in combat.
Now they have the chance to redeem themselves by protesting against the attack by North Korea of an island near their border. Of course, they won't. They will offer a laundry list of excuses for why they won't engage in protests, such as claiming that their protests won't influence North Korea and that in any case South Korea is to blame. Regarding the first, the point here is not to influence North Korea but to show people here in the West that one is sincerely against war and not just against war waged by the United States. Regarding the second, all one has to do is to imagine how these people would react if the facts were reversed: would they then blame North Korea? Almost certainly not. The facts don't really matter, because the U.S. and its allies are always to blame.
Down through the years we've heard lots of tired rhetoric about endless war being waged because it helps the arms manufacturers or because it's about male pride or some other nonsense. But somehow this rhetoric is always applied to the United States and never its enemies.
Will the anti-war crowd pass this test by protesting against North Korea? I'm betting they won't.