What's your understanding of a ‘no fly zone’? I always thought it was a forbidden corridor of airspace. When David Cameron announced a ‘no fly zone’ over Libya we were told it was to protect the civilian population from attack by Gaddffi’s air force.

No one said it was licence to bomb the very people we were supposed to be protecting.

I know these are ‘strategic’ strikes but considering our propensity for bombing and strafing our own troops I can’t believe we’ve avoided civilian casualties.

If it was the political intention to blast Gaddafi into submission why didn’t Mr Cameron tell us that at the beginning?

Why dress it up as a ‘no fly zone’? Would it be that the British people, heartily sick of war, would reject the idea?

Taking a country to war is an awesome responsibility and, until Mr Blair arrived on the scene, was handled with great reluctance. In Iraq thousands of troops and civilians were sacrificed in a war that ‘saved us’ from non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. Remember the ‘dodgy dossier’ cribbed off the Internet and the 45-minute warning Saddam could release WMT on London?

All of which proved to be inaccurate (not much comfort if you lost a son, brother, sister etc.)

How much safer do you feel now? Did our destruction of Iraq save us from terrorism or exacerbate the problem? Is it just a coincidence that countries we attack have oil or is that being too cynical?

You see, I can’t quite understand why British governments so determined to ‘protect’ civilians from brutal dictators didn’t intervene in Zimbabwe where thousands were starved, terrorised and rendered homeless by Mugabe’s brutal regime?

When politicians dupe us into declaring war under false premise integrity and honour cease to exist, manipulation and obfuscation rule and ordinary men, women and children die to satisfy hidden agendas.