In Britain, when an individual like ex-prime minister Blair decides he wants a war he has ways of getting other individuals in government and parliament to tag along, regardless of the will of the people.
There are 650 members of the House of Commons. They were called on to vote in September 2010 on whether or not to withdraw British forces from Afghanistan. A mere 14 MPs 2 voted for withdrawal. The government's failure to withdraw its forces will result in yet more deaths to both our combatants and to combatants and civilians in the land we have invaded. This vote of 14 to 650 (2.2%) did not represent the balance of opinion in our country. A BBC poll in February 2010 found that " Sixty-four per cent of British people think the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable...' 3
By what right did these people vote as they did; contributing to more deaths? The Independent newspaper wrote at the time, "The vote, and the manner in which it is undertaken, is broad and convincing evidence that the US and British governments are no longer concerned with public opinion over the occupation." 4
Concoction of plausible (?) excuses
When war is decided upon excuses are concocted which are plausible for some sectors of the media and, presumably, some members of the public. These excuses vary depending on developments. Initially the Afghan war was, purportedly, being fought to prevent UK citizens from being slaughtered at home by foreign-trained terrorists. After nine years: deaths in UK by terrorists = 52: deaths of civilians in Afghanistan = tens of thousands. Adjustment of excuses was clearly indicated.
In recent years we have been through a gamut of justifications for the unjust wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; justifications which have become progressively more incredible. Is there anyone apart from politicians and generals who believe that invading a country and killing vast numbers of civilians is a way of "winning hearts and minds'! Is this a viable reason for killing people?
Almost as bizarre is the claim that we are not really fighting a war in Afghanistan; what we are doing - we are taking action to make the planet safe. Mr Arbuthnot, the Conservative chairman of the Commons Defence Committee, said it was a mistake to describe the conflict in Afghanistan as a "war". It should be seen rather as part of a "wider global security mission in the Middle East region as a whole". 5
Keep the truth from the kiddies
Trident submarines are not weapons by any sane definition; they are Armageddon machines. Each Trident submarine can incinerate over 40 million human beings (extrapolating from Hiroshima). The British government has threatened to use its nuclear weapons if its "vital interests' (unspecified) are threatened.
Is there any reason why this should not be considered self-granted "licence to kill' on a mega scale?
The Department of Deception is working overtime on this one. The unknowing citizen is told we must keep "our independent minimal deterrent'. However it is not 'ours', it is not "independent', it is not minimal and it is not a "deterrent'. It is not "ours' since the majority of the British public have made it clear in polls that they do not want it 6 . It is not "independent' since it uses missiles designed and made in the US, and weapons that are designed in the US and could only be launched using a US satellite system. It is not minimal since each Trident submarine has the firepower to incinerate over 40 million human beings. It is not a "deterrent' since it will not deter the real threats of Global Warming, the population explosion, peak oil and greedy bankers. Would the British citizens tolerate the threat of mega-deaths if they were told the truth about our nuclear arsenal?
What the UK power elite does not want citizens to realise is that it is determined to keep the killing power of its nuclear arsenal at all costs because it feels that it gives it "status'.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
