Sunday, November 24, 2013

Defending our interests

In recent years the governments ideas of what our interests are and what they actually are differs by a great degree. They'll often use humanitarian interests to excuse a military adventure in support of economic interests, which is not the same thing at all. After all, other than oil, we didn't have any real interest in what Saddam Hussein got up too in Iraq, sure he was a destabilising influence on the region, but what isn't?
We interfered in the Balkans, again an area ripe for civil war and if anything left an even bigger mess than when we started as we basically supported the wrong sides and handed over Kosovo to those who didn't own or have a right to it in the first place. The seeds of WW2 were sown in the armistice of WW1 and that's pretty much what we've done in the Balkans...
Again and again we've in recent years taken military action in areas that aren't our concern and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Still, at least some of our MP's are beginning to realise this...
THE large number of military veterans among MPs is likely to make the House of Commons “more cautious” when voting on sending troops abroad, a Sunday Express survey has found.
A total of 62 MPs, almost 10 per cent of the 650, have served in the Armed Forces.
However, rather than making for a more gung-ho chamber, those who have “felt the heat and smelled the cordite” are likely to be more hesitant in voting for military action overseas.
All the 15 MPs surveyed by the Sunday Express agreed that experience of active service has taught them the importance of caution.
Dan Jarvis, a former paratrooper and special forces major who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, said: “There is no doubt those who experience conflict first-hand are extremely cautious about making sure that deploying troops is only done as a final resort. The fact that I’ve been to war in two places means I understand the implications of putting boots on the ground.” Mr Jarvis, the only Labour MP with an Army background, added: “History will look very carefully at some of the advice provided in the mid-Nineties about our abilities to sustain activities in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
Yes, hindsight is a great tool in judging the mistakes of the past, though a little foresight would do our MP's far more good. I mean can you imagine us sending troops to Afghanistan or Iraq? Allowing mass uncontrolled immigration, multiculturalism rather than integration... even the Labour Party electing Gordon Brown.
Then again some leftards believe that mass uncontrolled immigration was and is a good idea...
I don't really ascribe to conspiracy theories, but I do suspect that economic influences rather than humanitarian interests have been at the core of British and the EU's foreign policies for the last couple of decades. Oil being one economic factor, precious metals being another, I suspect water will be the next.
Perhaps it's time to bring the troops home and withdraw from the world for a while whilst we sort out the internal threats to this country from those who live here and hate the very idea of England.
Then, and only then should we look to sorting out other peoples problems, but not with troops, voluntary aid sounds about right and the government doesn't get to volunteer us either...
We certainly need the ability to deal with any direct threats to our country, but Afghanistan or Iraq... even the Balkans were no threat and if anything we made things worse.
Let the world sort itself out, we have enough problems of our own without sticking our noses in elsewhere.

1 annotations:

Anonymous said...

We have seen with the Philippine appeal that Britain is in no way racist or unwilling to give to foreign countries - it is this campaign of "Progressive Interventionism" under the guise of foreign aid that is so obnoxious.

We know it is being done for greed and power - the most annoying thing for me as a working class person is that the Left in this country can not work that out.