To the disgrace of Mr. Reynolds we have several other brilliant British thinkers who are sharply opposed to such shallow thinking:

a) Thomas Hobbes: WARRE is not fought in BATTEL alone
b) Alfred Lord Tennyson: Half a truth is ever the blackest lie; a typical lie can be fought and defeated, but a lie that is even partially rooted in truth is commonly much harder to eliminate.

In his haste to please the ruling empire (AKA the 4th Reich), since the British Empire has long ago stopped to figure on the world scene, Mr. Reynolds commits his first faux pas and I am not sure that it is entirely accurate to state "It was the cause of war between NATO and Serbia in 1999, as NATO demanded an end to the repression of the ethnic-Albanian Kosovan majority and forced a withdrawal of Serbian troops."

ACT 1, Scene 1: If we employ such shallow views on complex historical questions, in that case the French born Henry II and his wife Helen of Aquitaine are the legitimate rulers of medieval England and all of England should be considered a French overseas province?

ACT 1, Scene 2: The Crimean war (1853–1856), where the British Imperial forces travelled only 2,000 miles away from home in order to “defend Turkey”, but the wicked, evil, diabolical enemy of Turkey (Imperial Russia – which at that time was appointed as a legal guardian of the Holly Eastern Orthodox places in Jerusalem – under the Ottoman rule of Islam, naturally the Russians (Eastern Orthodox themselves) looked to stabilize the endangered Eastern Orthodox Minority in the land dominated by Islam, Judaism and other faiths but where only the Church of the Holly Sepulcher is thought the have been the home of the Holly Grail and the true teaching place of our Lord Jesus Christ – sounds kind of important, doesn’t it?

Back to the pretext for war as a diplomatic tool for smoke and mirrors, in the case of the author’s homeland (one of the most deceitful nations that ever existed on God’s green Earth: NATO's aggression against Serbia did have a pretext, (which exists in every war, but only the most naive view can accept the pretext for a true cause). Your own country ATTACKED Russia (under the pretext that it is "defending Turkey" during the Crimean war - an act of pure, crystal, unadultared aggression with desire to limit Russian entry into the warm waters of the Mediterranean basin and therefore not compete with British dominated trade routes (to/from India, to/from Asia Minor - all British dominated lands at that time). How can it be an act of defense to board a ship and sail 2000 miles away from home, bypass the "endangered Turkey" and disembark on Russian soil (The Crimea)? It can't be. This type of a flawed thinking is not only shallow and misleading, but more so, patently untrue, false and inaccurate. I ask you to consult the true causes of Albanian aggression (overt and covert) which was documented by various international sources having identified Albanian actions in favor of Al Qaida, heaven for drug trafficking and white slavery, accompanied by the largest prostitution rings in Europe. Try entering any phone booth at Victoria Station in London and collect only 5 colorful business cards offering "relaxation" with a pleasant European female companion. See how many of those 5 phone calls end up being answered by Albanians in the capital city of the United Kingdom (by the way, this has already been documented by Scotland Yard, so you can get the stats from them without leaving your beloved Ascot or any other upscale suburb to mill along with riff-raff at Victoria Station - I thought I'd save you the trouble).

Please don't insult us with pretexts as a substitute for outright aggression and the need to justify cruelty by dressing it in "borrowed robes" of kindness and humanitarian actions. To my knowledge the worst crimes in human history have been committed in the name of kindness (liberation and similar altruistic - but non-existent goals, that only a fool can believe.