Indeed.

How the US can justify such a massive military budget when their social security system is headed for collapse within three decades is beyond me - their priorities are nothing short of insane.

Tim,

You say:

"Our Defence Department recently announced that it’s in the process of acquiring cluster bombs - heinous weapons that kill and maim primarily children - despite international efforts to ban them."

I'd be grateful if you could post links showing evidence that Australia is planning to purchase and deploy cluster munitions. For a start, when was the "recent announcement" made?

I can't see many thoughtful people wanting to own stock in the companies involved in their manufacture. My understanding is that components of cluster bombs have been made in Australia in the past, but I do not have the supporting details here.

The more information you can provide, the better.

Thanks

Shame on the Australian government for helping to perpetuate the misery. Building more bombs is not the answer, but we are wasting money on just that. And the idea of our military purchasing cluster bombs is an absolute disgrace. Where is the public outcry about this - the rallies and the national reaction. What a disgusting waste of money - VERY hard to justify. As a nation we should take more notice of what New Zealand and be more proactive about demilitarisation and peace-building instead of building our armoury.

When the world has such seemingly intractable domestic problems spending trillions on defence is insane. To those who say it is essential I'd ask why we needed to save the local populace from Saddam but not Mugabe; could resource theft/security be the reason? The good doctor Brendan extols the need to spend billions on the latest whizzbang fighters. However bin Laden is never going to play that game but I'm sure he appreciates western countries cutting their health budgets to pay for it. As for the 'fight them over there or fight them back here' argument I haven't noticed many terrorist attacks in Switzerland lately.

Thanks Tim. Nice to know that someone else out there can see that to reach immediate ends by relying on means that are not based on any Principles except on the most effective means to achieve an end will destroy the further end of creating widespread happiness (in Geek sense ). Moreover, apart from the ends justifies the means thinking which is shared by terrorists and militarism; we have the callous instrumental reasoning that puts effectiveness before human emotion, compassion and justice.

The thinking of a terrorist is the same as John Howard's and G. W. Bush which is that it is sensible to use bad means to achieve immediate ends. This in turn undermines the authority of the Principles. Whether these Principles are instinctual, intuitive, etc. is not necessary investigate here. All we have do is consider which behaviour brings true happiness. If, for instance, your average family guy lied to his friends eventually no one would listen to him and thus he’d be unhappy at the loss of respect and his authority; if Mum and Dad let their children go without because they spent all their income on weapons and surveillance systems -those children wouldn’t be unhappy; if teenage son got his gang together and headed off to say Inala to straighten out the flannel brigade you’d have an ongoing situation that led to widespread unhappiness; and a family where its leaders, Mum and Dad , belted into each other and encouraged the kids to take sides (Bush’s “either for or against us” thinking) is not going to be happy.

Communities who do hold to Principles are usually happier because they use good means (means that adhere to Principles) to achieve good ends. But most importantly they nurture the Principles, which religion has mostly failed to do even though that should be their prime role.

I think this is why people rail against the right-wing religious organizations (and Boaz) that spend most of their energy using doubtful means in the name of an immediate end. Beyond immediate ends is always the Ultimate End of nurturing the Principles

Re: my post above. I want it made clear that I am neither for nor against the soldiers in Iraq. I have a great deal of respect and concern for these men and women. They’re humans - mostly doing the best they can.

I know this is a contradiction but most of these people are good people – most are men aand women of integrity and courage that would put most of us to shame. Their lives must not be put at risk because of any vote-chasing choice and they must not be sacrificed for the sake of ruler’s pride.

They’re not putting their life on the line for a pat on the back. I do think that some of them are too young to wisely make the choice to go to war. Shame on the enlisters and the tactics they use.

There seems to be an over representation of young men from poor families. The money ofered is more than they could ever hope to make in a normal job. And if they are klled their young wives would be set up for lives. I see on CNN that a lot of young married men are joining up to escape poverty. This is tragic, but at the same time what wonderful young men to go to such extremes for their loved ones.

Australians must not repeat the shameful and damaging behaviour of supposed peace activists after the Vietnam war.