"The actuality of which is interfering in situations unrelated to the defence of our country WHERE IT INTERESTS us ! "
Perhaps you are misinterpreting words.
The word interest is used to identify a cause in which the country has a material concern and return.
Interest as in bank, not interest as in birdwatching.
So, our "interference" is done to preserve or ensure conditions that affect our way of life or the lives of British citizens. When diplomatic discussions do not have the required effect, then one may have to turn to military solutions.
The involvements are not always obvious. There is, for example, a rationale for our involvement in Iraq. It was to prevent a nuclear war, however not the war you may have expected.
If you google Perle / Wolfowitz / Netanyahu you discover that Netanyahu (then Prime Minister of Israel) commissioned Perle and Wolfowitz to investigate the future security of Israel. Their answer was to destroy Iraq and overthrow any Arabic nation that didn't agree with them, while repudiating all previous peace treaties. Netanyahu read out this paper to the combined houses of the US government and got a standing ovation.
(Perle and Wolfowitz subsequently became Secretaries of Defence in the US!)
One might think that Israel (population 6 million) should have been told to get on with it. The Arabs (population 100 million) ought to have defeated them.
However,previously in 1973, when the Israelis were within two days of defeat (they had run out of ammunition) they threatened to detonate a nuclear bomb in such a way as to cause Russia to retaliate against America unless the Americans supplied them with ammunition. America supplied over $1billion worth of war materiel within hours.
Given the Netanyahu document (which has never been withdrawn as Israeli policy) one can see that the only way the Israelis could have beaten the Iraqi army was to use Nuclear weapons. One can also see that a nuclear attack on the Iraqis would have spread to all Arab nations. This would have seriously damaged the supply of oil, destroyed Britain's way of life and so on.
Hence it becomes in the British interest that Israel be prevented from causing a nuclear war by involving our troops instead.
Now, this version of events may seem unlikely, relying as it does on speculation about Israel's willingness to cause nuclear war and an official lack of documentation over the 1973 threat. (Various American staff officers at the time have suggested it 'may have happened').
However it makes more sense than the "We know where the WMD are" speech of Colin Powell, palpably proven false and it makes more sense than our involvement because "Saddam was a bad man" too.
There's a further twist as well. Prime Minister Blair was party to suggesting the attack on Iraq to President Clinton, long before he was "President Bush's poodle". Given the 1973 Israeli threat, not to use nukes directly on Arabs, it becomes possible that Israel threatened the UK, a threat Blair took as credible, hence his desperation to involve the US in a war (we needed the US armoury to defeat Iraq).
So, the question is: Given the degree of diplomatic armtwisting that this all implies and the ultimate threat, would you have put British Armed Forces at risk in Iraq if you believed, really believed, Israel capable and willing to mount an attack in the UK disguised as being 'Arab fanatics', or would you have risked it all rather than 'put troops in harms way'?
Oh, don't just dismiss the whole thing as 'improbable', a study of history will show that many deceits of this sort have been used to justify wars across time.
|
|
ITPRO by 'WillDendy87' (31 Jan 2009 @ 15:22)
