These extracts from an article on the Sovereignity website:
Our Armed Forces are for the defence of British national interests, at home and abroad, which includes our people wherever they may be, our territory and borders, and our vital strategic interests worldwide.
Our Forces are not for the promotion of foreign interests. If we commit our precious and brave servicemen and women to conflict, then we need to be sure, firstly, that it is in our national interest so to do.
Consider the arguments being used to justify the War:
"Saddam is in Breach of UN Resolutions"
UN resolutions? So what! Other countries are in breach of UN resolutions. Anyway, UN resolutions do not have the force of law, and there is nothing in our constitution which requires a British government to seek to enforce them as if they did. Most especially, it is not our job to run about the world imposing UN resolutions. It is not our job to strengthen globalist institutions like the UN.
"We Should Oppose Brutal States Like Iraq"
Every state can be brutal, and every state can be accused of being brutal by someone else.
It is not our business to oppose a state simply because it is "brutal", by someone's definition. If we decide to oppose all "brutal" regimes then we will either have a lot of opposing to do, or we will need to become highly selective and, consequently, hypocritical. We should only get involved when it is our business, and when it is in the best interests of our own country and people.
"Saddam is an Evil Tyrant"
Again, so what! The premise from which to argue is: It is for the Iraqi people to deal with Saddam, if they choose so to do. It is not for us to get involved. It is frankly, none of our business. Even if he eats babies for breakfast, it is none of our business, unless he is threatening British people or our interests. If he eats babies for breakfast then it is for the Iraqi people to bother about it, and deal with him, and organise so to do, if and when they see fit. If he's a bad leader then it is up to the Iraqis to decide when to depose him. This they may have done eventually if Iraq had been treated like a normal nation, and the punitive sanctions it suffered under for 12 years had been dropped.
For us to get involved is for us to interfere in other people's business, to impose our "morality" on them, and to be full of hypocrisy because whoever replaces him will likely be just as bad, and the people now calling for Saddam's head will look the other way when the new regime tortures and murders its old opponents.
It is also absurd to measure Iraq by our Western "democratic" standards.
"We Must Not Appease Dictators"
The "appeasement" issue only arises if he's a direct threat to our country and people. Otherwise, it's not our business.
"Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction"
Self-defence for self-determination is a principle of sovereignty. Iraq has a fundamental right to be a self-determining sovereign nation. Every self-determining nation is entitled to defend itself. Every self-determining nation has a perfect right to possess whatever weapons it wants.
Even if Iraq did have "weapons of mass destruction" there would be no reason for us to attack it. Such weapons would be of no direct threat to Britain, or even threaten our interests in the region.
Who, and for whose foreign interests, will our soldiers be required to fight and die for next?
From a patriotic point of view, there's nothing good in this war for Britain. We get zero benefit. We get nothing positive out of it. We've nothing to gain. It is absurd to talk about "winning", when there is nothing for us to "win".
Sovereignty recommends that the best way to support our troops is to ensure they do not ever again serve foreign interests, and that they should only be deployed where they are needed to defend our own British interests.