PM Gordon Brown’s appearance, today, in front of the Iraq Inquiry into the war was, as expected, forceful and confident. He told the panel the war had been “right”
He said he had been convinced by his own intelligence briefings that Iraq “had to be dealt with” as it had become a threat.
He thought Iraq was in breach of UN resolutions and had become one of the “rogue states” that should not be allowed to flout international law.
However, what I found to be the most ominous statement by the PM was that he feared the “new world order we were trying to create would be put at risk”.
What world order would that be and who is the “we”?
I am unaware of us agreeing to be part of any “world order” and would like to know: who are the other member states? Who is deciding the 'agenda' within this “world order?
We have already discovered what happens when a financial “world order” goes into meltdown and will be paying the price for a long time.
To me, the phrase plants the seed of questioning over whether there might be a bigger game being played in which none of us are aware we are even taking part.
Communism always pushed for “world order” and the Muslim extremists seek the same thing.
I am not sure we should be part of a ‘one vision’ approach that sees “world order” as being justification for invading countries that do not share the same stated values as ourselves.
That would be no better than communism, or Islamism, by the back door!
No comments:
Post a Comment