A very thought provoking piece. A few points come to mind.
- Joint sitting will only work if the decision is a secret ballot and or is not on party lines. The problem is here that we may accept say lib/labor's management of the economy but not their philosophy on war which may not have been an issue an any ellection. The case where a party is ellected but becomes unrepresentative but is protected by 3/4 year term worries me.
- Logically the above applies for preemptive wars like Iraq and even Afghanistan but in the case of a "pearl harbour" (immediate self defence) the cabinet must be able to act. This action would then need parliament confirmation as soon as concievably possible. Here my concern is defining self defence one gun boat taking Christmas Island(proportional response).

Although the warmaking power in the Westminster system is theoretically part of the Royal Perogative, in practice it is controlled by the House of Representatives. An excellent example of this occurred in South Africa in 1939, when Britain declared war against Germany. The South African Prime Minister, Hertzog, who was a strong anglophobe, announced that South Africa would stay neutral in the war. He was immediately dismissed by parliament on a vote of no confidence and replaced by Jan Smuts, who announced that South Africa would enter the war against Germany. A second example comes from Ireland, which was still a monarchy in 1939. Although Britain had declared war, the Irish Dail decided to remain neutral, and did so throughout the war (even sending Hitler birthday greetings on 20/4/1945, ten days before he shot himself).

Presumably the premise of this article is to try and stop war by making it more difficult to enter. Perhaps the only thing that would satisfy some pacifists would be to require us to have the approval of the united nations before declaring war. The only problem with this is that it would not have worked in the case of Afghanistan, when the UN approved military action.

The fact that military action can be suddenly required surely means that the current arrangements, where the government can declare war subject to the subsequent approval of the House of Representatives, are the best available in the current turbulent world situation. When it is recognised that entry without leave constitutes invasion, the most likely need for military action in the near future would be the repulsion of illegal immigrants, and this could require immediate action. The unpleasant fact is that peak food will result in many millions around the world dying of starvation in the next few decades. This means that action by our military may well be required on several occasions. This is not the time to shackle our defenses. Thank heavens we have a sea boundary.

Examinator,

>>"Pre emptive wars like Afghanistan."

I beg your pardon?? Were you also hiding in a cave on 9/11? The Taliban were harboring a terrorits army which was responsible for the appalling acts of September 11 2001.The UN gave its assent to the creation of ISAF, the body led by NATO to depose the Taliban and pacify Afghanistan.

Proportional response is a liberal/progressive idea, which stems from a total misunderstanding of the history of armed conflict. As a doctrine it can be useful in limited conflicts, however in wartime there is virtually no place for it at all. For example, its use in North Vietnam during the Paris peace talks showed it's complete lack of utility.

A more appropriate doctrine is to use the least possible force/damage that is consistent with a very strong likelihood of achieving your objective.

"The Taliban were harboring a terrorits army which was responsible for the appalling acts of September 11 2001.The UN gave its assent to the creation of ISAF, the body led by NATO to depose the Taliban and pacify Afghanistan."

And are you aware of the Taleban's origins? They were armed and trained by the US during the cold war. They were no more civilised then than they are now, but because they were useful we called them friends. Realpolitik is one thing, but don't try to make any sort of moral argument about "appalling acts", because we supported them in those acts for decades.

Besides which, Bin Laden is a Saudi, the 9/11 attacks were funded by Saudi money, and 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. Have we heard even a peep from the Coalitionists of the Willing about punishing Saudi Arabia? Of course not. Parochialism and manufactured moral outrage is being used to disguise an old-fashioned power-shifting exercise by a coalition of wealthy nations.

“ Parliamentary approval should be required for a prime minister to commit Australian troops to hostile action overseas.”

A very dangerous suggestion.

Professor Williams claims that SOME people “…have argued that the decision to go to war in Iraq should have been made by Parliament or the people”. But who were these people, apart from the Professor himself?

They could all be under medication and strict supervision for all we know.

The UN preamble referred to by Professor Williams is a total joke.

The UN has done sweet nothing to “…to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…” The type of wars we have “…twice in our lifetime…” will never occur again; the modern ‘wars’ are Rawanda, Iraq, Afghanistan and terrorism which will continue to occur despite UN blathering.

“…the drafters of the UN Charter established a world order based on two principles: to bring about the resolution of international disputes by peaceful mean; and the recognition that the use of force is only justified as a last resort in the interests of the international community, and not of individual states” has not been worth a hill of beans.

Why Australia or any other country should take any notice of the UN is a mystery. Armed combat will always be with us, and the elected governments of countries are the only bodies to make decisions on whether or not to become involved.

One party is elected to Government because electors don’t want the other party or parties. To give unwanted politicians a say in foreign policy is nonsense.

Sancho,

>>”And are you aware of the Taleban's origins? They were armed and trained by the US during the cold war”

This is absolute unadulterated RUBBISH. We’ve been over this before. There was no such thing as the Taliban, when the US (along with many other countries I might add) were involved in the anti-soviet war. The US never gave money, or training to the Taliban.

“The first major military activity of the Taliban was in October-November 1994 when they marched from Maiwand in southern Afghanistan to capture Kandahar City http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban.

The US had disengaged from supporting fighters in the region in 1988, when the Soviets started to withdraw. They even went so far as to try and buy back the weapons they had supplied.

In any case, even if we had armed them it would be irrelevant to the discussion. They harbored an army which attacked the US and others. End of story. The idea that somehow we shouldn’t be fighting people we once helped is just flat out STUPID. If anything, the fact that these people have attacked us after we helped defend them makes it more important for us to defeat them.

>>’ Have we heard even a peep from the Coalitionists of the Willing about punishing Saudi Arabia?

AlQaeda memebers may have been from Saudi, but the terrorist army was in Afghanistan. That’s where all the training camps and arms depots etc were. To punish the Saudis because some of their citizens were involved in this attack is well beyond even my conservative principles. If you have any pretensions to being a progressive, or leftist, then you would know that punishing the group for the actions of the individual is exceedingly unfair. It would be like attacking Indonesia for the bali bombings.

>>”Realpolitik is one thing, but don't try to make any sort of moral argument about "appalling acts", because we supported them in those acts for decades.”

Which appalling acts did we support “them” in, by the way?? Driving the Soviet Union out of their country??

Plersdus, South Africa and Ireland are not good analogies for Australian arrangements with respect to the war power and the relationship between the Executive and Parliament.

As the article attests, in Australia, military action has always been the prerogative of the Executive in Australia, and Parliament is involved only to the extent that the Government indulges it.

With party discipline, a vote of no confidence could only occur in Australia if the Government did not control the Parliament.

Mr Right, your every utterance proves you an idiot. You'll forgive those of us with a smidgen of good judgment if we prefer the views of the people who supported and endorsed the establishment of the UN Charter (i.e. those who fought, and won, the Second World War) to your own cowardly chickhawk blatherings.

Paul, Bill Clinton and Benazir Bhutto funded and supported the Taliban in an effort to get rid of the mujihadeen that had been funded and supported by Jimmy Carter to suck in Russia.

Get with the program.

Now like it or not they were the government of Afghanistan and like it or not they had not one thing to do with the attacks in the US. Not one Afghan ever did and the Taliban are just Afghans after all.

It was a pre-emptive strike because it was all planned in the US and agreed with Mushareff by July 2001 to help get rid of the Taliban to get an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea out across Afghanistan because they could not go through Iran.

As for Bin Laden - the Taliban offered him to the UN on 14 October 2001 provided the US could supply actual proof that he had committed the crime in the US. Don't you think it odd that the US have completely stopped talking about him being the mastermind of that attack while the try and put Khalid Sheik Mohammed on trial for doing it.

NorthWestShelf,

Your outburst cleary shows who the idiot is.

'If you have any pretensions to being a progressive, or leftist, then you would know that punishing the group for the actions of the individual is exceedingly unfair. It would be like attacking Indonesia for the bali bombings.'

Can I quote this occassionally Paul

Professor Williams with the typical lawyer’s chicanery and the arrogance of historical and strategic ignorance argues that Parliamentary approval should be the prerequisite for the declaration of war. To do so however is to deprive the SAGACIOUS RIGHT of statesmen to make the decision for war and give it instead to the “swirl”, to use a Keating word describing his colleagues in the Senate, of mediocre politicians.

War being an instrument of last resort is not made by a populist decision, as Williams implies, but by a well –informed resolute and wise leadership that LEADS the people of a nation to war.

Williams’ proposal is neither intellectually and historically wise, nor does it have the depth, prudence, and firmness of statesmanship. It’s instead the proposal of an unreconstructed political wimp.

http://kotzabasis9.wordpress.com

Heh heh. Knew I'd get a rise out of you, Mr Right.

Australia was not being threatened, a parlimentary debate should have been held in respect of any involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The naivity and lack of understanding of some of you posters of strategic decision processes is exactly why it is imeperative that the decision is left to the ELECTED PM and cabinet of the day.
To have a general public referendum or to leave it to the machinations of lets say a socialist mob if idiots like the Australian Labor Party is not in the best interest of the majority of Australians who expect and demand that the government take steps preemptively or otherwise to ensure this aspect.
The wishy washy soft bellied cry babies that are always against war are the first to scream when the dung hits the fan and then they are very loud in accusing everybody for having failed them.
The liberation of Iraq is a STRATEGIC and necessary action and will prove in the long run to have stymied the advance of islamofascism. The next mob of dark age madmen that will get theirs will be Iran.

Australia has a duty to fulfill its role and any person who thinks that the UN is an organization that has any credibility is really way out of the loop of understanding the modern paradigm.

The US is the only major reason why we enjoy a free western world and you better be thankful for that.
The bad guys don't listen to words just bombs and bullets.
That is the way it really is! Like it or not!

'The liberation of Iraq is a STRATEGIC and necessary action and will prove in the long run to have stymied the advance of islamofascism.'-Kasperle.

Stymied the advance of islamofacism? Under which rock have you been hiding mate? It has been the greatest boost to fundamentalist Islam. The vileness it has unleashed between various fundamentalist groups is beyond belief. Potential terrorists are now getting 'real' practice, out in the open. Not playing around in some god forsaken corner in Afghanistan.

Reading the stupid cackling of some posters makes me think we should review who should be allowed to vote for members of our parliament in the first place. No wonder we get so many idiots.

Parliamentary approval, a decision by all elected parliamentarians, is of course what is needed.

Committing to war and sending young men and women to some place to put their lives on the line has to be for very, very good reasons. But then again, some of you could make excellent cannon fodder for the glories of a LEADER.

Are some of you sure you are living in the 21st century?

I think this article provides a good reason why we need a bill of government which would restrict the power of government to certain functions. I think we should adopt a two step approach as well. If the the parliament decide to go to war then participation in the war is voluntary, if the government wants to enforce conscription it should be made to go to an election on the war and only if passed could it then proceed to conscription

Thank you Yvonne for proving my point. Just too ill informed for making any serious decisions!
I would just like to remind you that the Islamofascists have been active for a very long time and it took a serious attack ie 911 to finally wake up the west to this.
PS Don't you dare use the term "MATE" to me - that is reserved for people who have attained mutual respect and friendship, niether of which your verbal diarrhoea allows you to pretend.

Wars of aggression are war crimes, Kasperle. Your comment if true is the precise reason why destroying these international standards is extremely dangerous for future world stability and security, and why there needs to be wider consultation, even with the community.

It should be obvious that killing hundreds of thousands of civilians for "strategic reasons" and inflicting the horrors of war and destruction of all their property is indeed a criminal enterprise. That really is sick and if the people in our government did that then they are war criminals.

So you admit the lies and propaganda about wars are real and merely to placate the public?

Kasperle, do you know anything about history at all in the Middle East? If you don't, you better read up on it before opening your mouth about the 9/11 attacks again.

Paul L,
Just a few points.
- Your assertion I was hiding in a cave is both insulting/unnecessary. Simply because you don’t agree with me.
- The implication of your response illustrates a need for controlling the call to arms.
- 4000 deaths on 9/11 give or take, a tragedy to be sure but consider 40000 people die in road accidents (and related) in the US YEARLY. Do we declare war on GM, Ford etc?
- We weren’t Attacked the US was. Not by an army, or a country, or by a majority of that country but by terrorists. Are you suggesting we should have declared ware on the Palestinians because PLO extremists of the Munich massacre? Has Israel’s (including the Mossad murdering the wrong Palestinian in Norway) actions achieved anything? Has our involvement in the political (ideological) War (sic) on Terror achieved anything except wanton 100000’s of deaths many (innocents), the reintroduction of opium and the entrenching of emotional hatreds etc?
- Until we bought into the fight we weren’t on the terrorist radar.
- Calling Al K an army fails to comprehend its real structure and motivation, one that can be fought by traditional means (proof in the pudding).
- Jihad is an idea and can never beaten by force e.g. a reaction, a PERVERSION of Religion.
- There is a ‘Just War’ doctrine by the UN which neither war fulfils its requirements.
- What I called for proportional response to OUR territorial property as being in the PM’s ambit and war is that of the Parliament.
- I DID NOT advocate appeasement or passivism only a measured and a response that had a chance of success.
I suggest you read my post in context instead of pointless nit picking.
regards examinator

In theory, Parliament should be involved.

In practice, when you look around the chamber and take a close look at the calibre, intellect, morals, ethics and behavioural standards of the politicians who hang around in it, we should perhaps consider leaving the choice to people better qualified to come to such momentous decisions.

Like talk-back radio hosts, perhaps.

Or the bloke who calls the 2.30 at Doomben. He sounds pretty smart.

Marilyn,

>>” Bill Clinton and Benazir Bhutto funded and supported the Taliban in an effort to get rid of the mujihadeen that had been funded and supported by Jimmy Carter to suck in Russia.

Where did you get that from? The same place that you found out that the holocaust was a hoax I presume. I have ABSOLUTELY no intention of getting with any program you are on, as I suspect that there is a bizarre cult somewhere at its end.

>>” It was a pre-emptive strike because it was all planned in the US and agreed with Mushareff by July 2001 to help get rid of the Taliban to get an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea out across Afghanistan because they could not go through Iran.

What?? You read far too much conspiracy nut stuff. I suppose after sorting all this out before 9/11, the US had to manufacture some sort of crisis? Right? Blow up a couple of buildings??

All for a single oil pipeline?? That wouldn’t pay for the war from 100 years of operation??

>>”As for Bin Laden - the Taliban offered him to the UN on 14 October 2001 provided the US could supply actual proof that he had committed the crime in the US.

Marilyn This was seven days after the war had already started. It literally costs a fortune to emplace an army and begin operations, you don’t just call a holt to the whole thing on the say-so of your enemy. Who knows whether they would have considered any evidence enough, anyway. It was a ruse. The Taliban were merely playing politics to try and stave off the inevitable. They would have handed him and his captains over when they had the chance if they ever had any intention of doing so.

There were hundreds of AlQaeda camps all over Afghanistan, and Bin Laden used his money and his influence to assist the Taliban. AlQaeda and the Taliban were allies.

Heh heh. Knew I'd get a rise out of you, Mr Right.
Posted by NorthWestShelf, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 3:19:54 PM

...proving what an immature prat you are!

# Steel
Your point about the so called "LIE" is actually close to the truth but in what context is needed to be asked.
I will try to make a very simple analogy between the board game RISK and the real world situation.
In a previous post I mentioned that most of the posters here have very little knowledge of "Situational Strategic Planning" and to add to this I might mention that the "game" being played by the west especially the US and England and also some other countries who are actually supporting the US but behind the scenes because their electorate is so socialistic in thought that it would be political suicide to tell them the truth.
It is this aspect that makes my following comment the answer to your statement.
In playing RISK there is an ultimate desire to win the game which is the defining difference between reality and the game.
The US and its allies are playing to monopolize and suppress not to win (they just say that for the public) so that they can continue to be the dominant REICH of the times. The question every person must ask themselves is 'on whose side they are on' and then be man enough to accept the truth which I seriously doubt most of you are. If you disagree with this then fight against this but you are seriously outnumbered by the majority if thinking realists.
Having endured the socialist tyrrany of Stalin I can assure you where my allegiance lies. In the free world of the west and I accept and can live with the casualties that are inflicted on the enemy. That is the true nature of war and WE ARE AT WAR!
Telling the public a few lies is Ok by me if this ensures our future security because I have absolutely no trust in the intelligence of the voters of Australia who are more interested in beer and cricket than their own security.

Its interesting that the pro-war posts are the most aggressively written ones, and yet the most ignorant ("swirl" indeed), poorly thought out and the most packed with hyperbole.

What we need to do is strengthen international law and the UN and *ban* all war and incursion altogether. Does our federal government allow war to break out between our states and territories? No. We need to bring the world to the same condition over time. Why? Because if current technological trends continue, within about 20 years, the technologies available to even to poorest countries will enable them to obtain or build doomsday technologies with ease. The battle with Iran for example over nuclear weapons is really only delaying the inevitable. I suggest it would be better to work with these countries instead of strengthening their hatred and mistrust of us.

Kasperle you are merely showing the vicious thought patterns you adopted in your past. Ironic eh? If you admit this is a 'game' and that you have no concern for casualties inflicted on the enemy (especially the civilian ones), then you are admitting that the west and yourself are war criminals. War under those pretexts were used precisely by the nazis, and other terrible regimes from the past. Ok, so lets adopt your attitude for Australian life. You are the person who walks into the bar expecting and looking for a fight from the beginning and will readily enter into one at the slightest provocation. No one else wants to play your stupid game, except other criminals. What should we do about these criminals? Do they deserve the death penalty? Should they be purged from society? Or are you asking for the victims to tolerate your presence while being abused?

Still living in dreamland like most Australians over the last few decades.
Oh well.
I have no real desire to continue with this as your comments have become so stupid that I hesitate to give them any credibility.
But hey - keep believing in your world filled with laws and grace and at the end you will have war all over again.
That is he game and that is the reality and all your garbage will never change it.
In the mean time I will support the powers that maintain "MY" best world position and if that means that I am going to be called a war criminal by a naive dreamer like you then I will wear that badge with pride.

I hope that you have a real nice day now and if all goes well we will make sure even you can keep enjoying these good days - its a pity though that you have absolutely no self respect and just take without sacrifice. That shows a real man, now does't it!

examinator

>>”-consider 40000 people die in road accidents in the US YEARLY. Do we declare war on GM, Ford etc?

You can’t see the difference between a terrorist organization levelling a couple of city blocks and taking 4000 lives in the process; and accidents on the roads?? Seriously?? The cost of that attack to the western world is almost immeasurable. Suffice to say that it is in the trillions of dollar. You also entirely overlook the issue of intent. Do you think an accident is the same as deliberate act?

>>” Are you suggesting we should have declared ware on the Palestinians because PLO extremists of the Munich massacre”

This is a red herring. Israel is not our closest ally and the US asked for our assistance. Further if you can’t see the difference between the deaths of 11 people in a hijacking gone wrong, and the deaths of 4000 during a catastrophic attack on the great cities of the US, there is something wrong.

>>” Has our involvement in the political (ideological) War (sic) on Terror achieved anything “

There has not been another attack on the US since 9/11. The Iraqis have thrown off the worst, most brutal dictator in the region and now have a chance at democracy. We have defeated aLQaeda in Iraq in conjunction with our allies.

The Taliban have been pushed back and with proper support from NATO we can win in that country as well. The Taliban’s opium policy was for public consumption only and did not stem the flow of opium from the country.

>>”- Until we bought into the fight we weren’t on the terrorist radar.

So What? Do we make public policy based upon our fear of being targeted by terrorists? No Thanks, the Spanish have gone down that road and done themselves a grave disservice into the bargain.

>>” Calling Al K an army fails to comprehend its real structure and motivation, “

AlQaeda in Afghanistan before 9/11 was definitely an army. It had logistics and training bases, soldiers and heavy weapons dotted around the country.

TBC,

This is not about whether the UN is satisfactory, nor whether the Iraq situation is right or wrong. It's about due process for an activity that is expected to lead to loss of life.

The way I see it - war, or warlike activity is a significant departure from the status quo, and should require (to initiate it) the word of more than one person.

We should remember here that at a given point in time, it is quite possible that the majority of people of Au may NOT be in support of the PM. And that the PM may not be from a party that you or I prefer.

So... I would support a move to limit the PM powers in this sense while providing some ability to take emergency short-term defensive action of limited scope or duration.

cont,

I have noted above that we have beaten AlQaeda in Iraq with help from the locals. We won’t win by focusing only on the military aspects, but we won’t win by not fighting either

>>”There is a ‘Just War’ doctrine by the UN which neither war fulfils its requirements.

And yet the UN is involved in both conflicts. How do you explain that? There are no UN resolutions against the war. Quite the contrary

>>I DID NOT advocate appeasement or passivism only a measured and a response that had a chance of success”

I didn’t accuse you of those things either; maybe you should read my posts before commenting.

SAMS,

>> Its interesting that the pro-war posts are the most aggressively written ones, and yet the most ignorant, poorly thought out and the most packed with hyperbole.

I beg your pardon. “Poorly thought out and packed with hyperbole” says the person who thinks we should “BAN” wars. Like, why didn’t we think of that, dude. How might we enforce that ban, by the way?? Sanctions ??

>>” Does our federal government allow war to break out between our states and territories?”

WTF?? ?? ALLOW? So the reason wars don’t break out during the state of origin series is because the Federal Gov’t refuses to ALLOW it to happen?? Really?? It wouldn’t be that we are fairly homogenous bunch with no real issues to fight about, by any chance??

>>”it would be better to work with these countries instead of strengthening their hatred …”

This is a popular misconception of the left, that we are the cause of hatred and mistrust. It wouldn’t be that Iran’s theocratic regime actually hates the west because it represents everything that is wrong with the world in their eyes?? It wouldn’t be that they are trying to export their Islamic republic by any means at their disposal??

Acceding to all their demands wouldn’t make them like us any more than they currently do.The US has been attempting to strike up a dialogues with Iran for 30 years and have been rebuffed every single time.

Paul L. wrote: "WTF?? ?? ALLOW?"

Yes, well clearly I lost you at the word "hyperbole". Thanks for illustrating my point.

Kasperle, your eagerness for war and your disinterest in casualties is actually Stalinist, very cold. Your declaration of perpetual war is also very interesting in this context as it does explain your upbringing and callousness. I would be one of the first to say there are secret interests seeking world hegemony, but I don't think they are who you think they are.

@ Steel
Eagerness for war - hmm?
So where did I state that then?
Not only are you a total idiot - you can not read either.
Do me a big favor and stop posting responses to my articles and concentrate on the footy or something that your little brain can actually comprehend.
Thanx.

Paul l: "There has not been another attack on the US since 9/11. "

This may or may not be related to foreign actions. Many believe our actions have actually increased the likelihood of terrorist attack. In any case, it cannot be proven either way.

By the same token, I may as well say my laptop is effective at keeping away snakes. Unless you're going to bring a snake into the room, it can't be disproven.

"The US has been attempting to strike up a dialogues with Iran for 30 years and have been rebuffed every single time."

Sorry, this is just plain wrong. This article outlines in detail specifically all the reasons why this is patently false.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/12/07/iran_policy/

You make some good points, and yes, some comments by certain anti-war posters leave much to be desired (such as the idea that the states would be warring without federal intervention) but the chickenhawk approach has been catastrophic, and US foreign policy over the last decade has been abysmal. In fact, in general, whenever Republicans enter the white house, you just know things are going to get more aggressive internationally. And that's not even touching on the massive financial cost these wars have created (and the results on the international economy), let alone the cost in life.

Kasperle, here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7512#116488
and here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7512#116466

Perhaps you do not think about the conseqeuences of your beliefs.

Actually, without a federal government, there is no real reason why individual states wouldn't war. Yes, the federal government doesn't ALLOW war between states (ie, treason et al.) but if a state could get away with an attack without much cost (such as the USA bullying the weakest nations on the planet) it would probably do so.

2/1993: Bombing of World Trade Center; 6 killed.

8/1998: Bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa; 224 killed including 12 Americans.

12/1999: Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle foiled when customs agents arrest an Algerian smuggling explosives into the U.S.

9/11/2001: Destruction of WTC, attack on Pentagon.

To suggest that Bush is not responsible for the absence of attacks on American soil since 9/11 is totally preposterous. If there had been attacks you would blame Bush and his policies!! !! He is ultimately responsible for that success (as he is for the failures). His policies of aggressively pursuing terrorists no matter where they are has resulted in no attacks on American soil since 9/11

>>”Sorry, this is just plain wrong. This article outlines in detail specifically all the reasons why this is patently false.

I couldn’t access the site you referenced, all I got was an advertisement. But I suggest you read “The Iran Threat” by Alireza Jafarzadeh, of the Iranian opposition. He documents all the various diplomatic advances clearly and unequivocally. Back channel diplomatic efforts to engage Iran have been attempted for 30 years, even during the Iran-Iraq war. All of these offers have been rebuffed by the mullahs in Tehran. They have consistently labelled the US as the Great Satan, and used anti-american rhetoric to manipulate their people, and ensure the continuance of their Islamic Republic.

Steel,

>>”Yes, the federal government doesn't ALLOW war between states (ie, treason et al.) but if a state could get away with an attack without much cost (such as the USA bullying the weakest nations on the planet) it would probably do so.

I had a great laugh at this one. This is absolutely among the most moronic ideas yet posted.

War between the states is only prevented by commonwealth law?? ?? ?? ??
Which war is it that the US has gotten away with, without much cost?? ??
Which are the weakest nations you are referring to??
What planet do you live on??

PaulL.>"War between the states is only prevented by commonwealth law?? ?? ?? ??"

Technically yes. Without federal government, states are like miniature countries. Imagine Tasmania wanted to secede from Australia...

PaulL.>"Which war is it that the US has gotten away with, without much cost?? ??"

Iraq hasn't cost them much, politically or in deaths of soldiers, as compared with the Iraqi losses. It's cost them immense wealth but that cost is borne by the domestic populace who don't really count at a strategic level. We have yet to see whether new generations of Iraqis will decide to become terrorists in the future because their country and relatives were destroyed. At present it looks quite good for the USA in Iraq.

PaulL.>"Which are the weakest nations you are referring to??"

Have you ever noticed that all the countries the USA threatens militarily and with sanctions have militaries that date back decades, with inferior technology? They are usually fighting untrained peasants with sticks and small arms when they are beating their chest with pride at their achievements.. in some ways it's rather amusing.

Steel

Steel >> PaulL.>"War between the states is only prevented by commonwealth law?? ?? ?? ??"Technically yes. Without federal government, states are like miniature countries.

Sorry, I don’t have to imagine Australia without a Federal gov’t, we didn’t have one until 1901. How the states managed to avoid fighting a war I’ll never know ;)

Steel >>” Imagine Tasmania wanted to secede from Australia...

If there was no federal government who would Tasmania be seceding from?? ?? This is absolutely ridiculous argument. Wars are not prevented by law. They never have been and they never will be. Wars are prevented by alliance, diplomacy, trade and deterrence, which are all inextricably linked.

Steel >> "Iraq hasn't cost them much"

This is absolute rubbish as well. The US’s invasion of Iraq has cost it significant political capital/goodwill which will require many years to mend. In terms of dead and wounded the costs have been significant and as you rightly acknowledge the monetary cost has been huge.

Steel >>” Have you ever noticed that all the countries the USA threatens ...have ... [dated military] and inferior technology?

The Iraqi Army at the start of the gulf war had far more troops, tanks and guns than the US forces they faced. The armaments they used were up to date Soviet designs which were proven in battle. Their technology turned out to be inferior but no one knew that at the time. In the hands of a determined army, Iraq’s weaponry would have been formidable.

Steel >>”They are usually fighting untrained peasants with sticks and small arms when they are beating their chest with pride at their achievements.. in some ways it's rather amusing.

Where are they fighting untrained peasants?? Afghanistan?? Where the “peasants” have been fighting for 30 years? And fought off the Red Army. Iraq?? Where they are fighting AlQaeda forces forged in battle in Chechnya, Kosovo etc?? Or Saddam loyalists blooded in Iraq’s battles with Iran and the US.

What’s amusing is that someone with so little understanding of military matters has such strong opinions on the subject

...<<What’s amusing is that someone with so little understanding of military matters has such strong opinions on the subject
Posted by Paul.L, .>>

OK paul so your in the crowd that lobbied us into war, time you knew a few facts
the intel was flawed, we were lied to deliberatly and systematicly.
here is but one of the sites that is reporting on how
http://www.infowars.com/
http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/9injobinsp.html
http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/tesped.html

bush cant explain
note he dosnt answer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXobrGDb-vY
ron paul dont believe it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihCP3cfS88E

you think the army cares about its troops?
http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m45094&hd=&size=1&l=e
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/230608Bolton.htm
when they shut down the web they wont need bloggers like you
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1028224/Was-friend-yelled-abuse-police-anti-war-demo-stooge-thug-asks-writer.html
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/167819
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/18/ex-state-dept-official-hundreds-of-detainees-died-in-us-custody-at-least-25-murdered/

http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m45060&hd=&size=1&l=e
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6710289.stm
http://www.zenjoomla.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=82

http://prisonplanet.tv/video/20080612report.php
you can buy the truth here on how you were decieved
http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/911ctr.html

you can hear it here in their own words
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2827
as to why listen to the 3 and 4 th hour
http://www.infowars.com/stream.pls

if you think its over your just plainly decieved
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2814

Knowledge of military matters in modern times means zip without knowledge of modern history.

Knowledge of history and the politics that led to conflicts or why they where avoided is relevant, not military battles. The military is but a pawn in the game of politics.

Invading Iraq was the most stupid move, done without any understanding of Iraq's history and ignoring knowledge of internal and regional politics.

Paul take your finger off the question mark button.

I'll tell you what Yvonne, when or if I write you another post, I might consider it. Until then, if you don't like what you see, change the channel. Don't presume to tell me how to write my posts and I'll do you the same courtesy.

If you insist upon inserting yourself into a discussion you were not a party to, might I suggest you at least read the history of it.

Steel pretends to having a full understanding of military matters, yet clearly doesn't.

It was Clausewitz who, paraphrased, said "war is politics conducted by other means".

In fact military matters are at the heart of the politics of the matter when discussing Iraq, Afganistan,the shooting down of an Iranian jet, or the nature of Irans threat to Israel, its neighbours and the West.

>>"Knowledge of military matters in modern times means zip without knowledge of modern history. "

I might easily reverse that and with equal validity tell you that knowledge of modern history when discussing war/conflict means zip without knowledge of military matters.

Tell me how knowing/believing that invading Iraq in the first place was a mistake, helps us decide what to do from here?? ?? We have a whole new set of problems in Iraq and this point of view hardly illuminates things at all.

Besides all of this, Steel was disputing something which was purely military in nature. Which is perhaps how you came across this "conversation"?? ?? ??