Dangers of joining new distant fight

First published in Letters by

THE decision by the Prime Minister to provide logistic assistance for French troops to Mali where fighting is taking place against terrorists and supporters, raises concerns that Britain might be lured into another long-term conflict alleged to be in the interest of this country and others’ protection from terrorism.

In Parliament the minister concerned assured MPs that British troops will not be deployed in support of the French operation. Even so, technical crews travel with the two transport aircraft.

This country must not again be involved into another distant fight against terrorists which has no end in sight.

Terrorism today which could be considered likely be a threat to the Britain and others could raise itself in many other places anytime. We must not be lured into battle every time the hint arises.

J Beisly, Osprey Close, York.


• AS FRANCE obeys the US/Africom policy assigned to it as the latest step in the recolonisation of Africa and as our ridiculously misnamed “defence” forces join this act of aggression, the BBC is able to pass off the whole obscenity as a need to contain “Islam”.

So effectively has the current atmosphere of Islamophobia been propagated that the old al-Qaeda lie is no longer a prerequisite to war crimes.

This stupidity becomes even more profound when it can be plainly seen that NATO forces are preparing to intervene in Syria on behalf of “Islamist” rebels, has previously destroyed the purely secular state of Libya to empower an otherwise hopeless radical “Islamist” minority, and is even now arming the most extreme versions of that religion in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain as they seek ever more firepower to suppress their own citizens.

But Africa must be tamed; as Nigeria becomes an oil slick, Somalia and Sudan bombing ranges, the nations of the western coast puppets or slaves to Western financial intrigue, US foreign policy has little to fear from such supine allies as are to be found this side of the pond.

Roger Westmoreland, The Oval, Pocklington.

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:03pm Wed 16 Jan 13

YSTClinguist says...

The yanks are possibly to become self sufficient oil wise within a decade. Meanwhile the rest of us in the EU needs to get it from somewhere. Likewise food and natural gas, minerals. One might surmise these conflicts could be about ensuring regimes are in place with whom 'we' can deal with in the future, on a footing unbalanced in our favour. Terrorism? Rights? We have to think what these conflicts are really about.
The yanks are possibly to become self sufficient oil wise within a decade. Meanwhile the rest of us in the EU needs to get it from somewhere. Likewise food and natural gas, minerals. One might surmise these conflicts could be about ensuring regimes are in place with whom 'we' can deal with in the future, on a footing unbalanced in our favour. Terrorism? Rights? We have to think what these conflicts are really about. YSTClinguist
  • Score: 0

11:05pm Wed 16 Jan 13

who2believe says...

YSTClinguist wrote:
The yanks are possibly to become self sufficient oil wise within a decade. Meanwhile the rest of us in the EU needs to get it from somewhere. Likewise food and natural gas, minerals. One might surmise these conflicts could be about ensuring regimes are in place with whom 'we' can deal with in the future, on a footing unbalanced in our favour. Terrorism? Rights? We have to think what these conflicts are really about.
"Natural gas"?
We can frack to our hearts content, there will be no shortage of gas.

"we' can deal with in the future, on a footing unbalanced in our favour".

We are all but bankrupt and on the ropes, why are we bothering about who decides the price of fish in ten years time?

We should keep our noses out of other peoples' civil wars and leave them to sort it themselves. We are not the world's policeman nor its patron saint.
[quote][p][bold]YSTClinguist[/bold] wrote: The yanks are possibly to become self sufficient oil wise within a decade. Meanwhile the rest of us in the EU needs to get it from somewhere. Likewise food and natural gas, minerals. One might surmise these conflicts could be about ensuring regimes are in place with whom 'we' can deal with in the future, on a footing unbalanced in our favour. Terrorism? Rights? We have to think what these conflicts are really about.[/p][/quote]"Natural gas"? We can frack to our hearts content, there will be no shortage of gas. "we' can deal with in the future, on a footing unbalanced in our favour". We are all but bankrupt and on the ropes, why are we bothering about who decides the price of fish in ten years time? We should keep our noses out of other peoples' civil wars and leave them to sort it themselves. We are not the world's policeman nor its patron saint. who2believe
  • Score: 0

1:41am Thu 17 Jan 13

Omega Point says...

"the purely secular state of Libya"

That needs unpacking as they say
"the purely secular state of Libya" That needs unpacking as they say Omega Point
  • Score: 0

9:06am Thu 17 Jan 13

capt spaulding says...

Whats the point of sending our troops anywhere if they are constrained by
"Rules of engagement"

They are presently hog tied in rules and with the added pleasure of being shot in the back by the ones they train, the task is impossible and pointless.

By all means go in and do some sorting out ? But take off the blindfolds and the gloves.
Whats the point of sending our troops anywhere if they are constrained by "Rules of engagement" They are presently hog tied in rules and with the added pleasure of being shot in the back by the ones they train, the task is impossible and pointless. By all means go in and do some sorting out ? But take off the blindfolds and the gloves. capt spaulding
  • Score: 0

9:52am Thu 17 Jan 13

ColdAsChristmas says...

Good points Captain, I also agree with who2believe.
The only points I can add is: to ask where is the money coming from for this exercise when we are suffering hardship at home, it can only mean more hardship at home? (Although the Queen can allegedly give away a £6million gift instead of offering to pay off some of the nations debts)
Finally, wouldn't it be better to seal off and defend our boarders and focus on eradicating the terrorism we have within? Oil is not the issue, so get fracking!
Good points Captain, I also agree with who2believe. The only points I can add is: to ask where is the money coming from for this exercise when we are suffering hardship at home, it can only mean more hardship at home? (Although the Queen can allegedly give away a £6million gift instead of offering to pay off some of the nations debts) Finally, wouldn't it be better to seal off and defend our boarders and focus on eradicating the terrorism we have within? Oil is not the issue, so get fracking! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree