Most wars are contrived by the elites for power and profit.There is one way to stop wars.All son's of pollies ,arms mauufactureres and those who have shares in weaponery,go to the front lines with the guns they helped create.

A better way would merely to require a referendum passed by a majority of Australian voters MUST occur before a government is allowed to go to war- with the only exception being an attack on our shores by a government/military operative.

The United States Constitution gives Congress not the president the power to declare war. That provision hasn't stopped the United States from making war. It merely ensures they are not declared. In the case of Australia there is not a separation of powers between the executive and the legislative branches of government. The prime minister is a member of parliament. Giving the parliament the power to make war would do little or nothing to prevent war.

About 1974, A map of the middle East appeared in our newspapers, showing oil wells in Iraq put there by the US, and oil wells in Afghanistan, put there by Russia. A note with this map read “US Congress has provisional plans to take over the middle east oil fields if there is any further reduction of supply”. I do not know what the oil wells had to do with the US Congress.
Jan 11th 2004. O'Neill tells '60 Minutes' Iraq was ' Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11.
According to documents provided by former US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush, 10 days after taking office in 2001, instructed his aides to look for a way to overthrow the Iraqi regime. A secret memo entitled “Plan for post-Saddam Iraq” was discussed in January and February 2001, and a Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, and entitled “Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oilfield contracts”, included a map of potential areas for petroleum exploration.[84]The US congress supplied weapons to Afghan forces to take over the Middle East Oilfields, and this was the precedence to the attack on the Twin Trade Towers and the White house. Lookup “Bush sought “way to invade Iraq”, 60 Minutes on the internet.

George Bush convinced John Howard and party (I believe this was in contravention of the Liberal Party constitution clause 44 (1)), Tony Blair and Party and members of other countries, to join in an attack in retaliation.
By this year, there are about 4,500 US army troops killed and about 30,000 wounded, maybe about 5 or 10 thousand other troops killed and civilians and 21 of our own, plus the wounded. It should make you think, shouldn't it!
What did the Middle East oil fields have to do with US congress? Maybe the morning news 31, july or 1st August, 2010, said why, commenting that George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and I think Donald Rumsfeld were part of the oil consortium.

Politicians are employees of the people, they are not our bosses, they do not have the right to engage our country in war, if they want to go to war themselves, I wont stop them, it would be a just reward for the affects of their previous destruction of our economy and the livelihood of our workers. I believe that originally, they (political parties) have made the rules of our constitution for themselves, so that they can make rules to suit just themselves and those to whom they wish to prostrate themselves. It is unfortunately also true that a number of people prostitute themselves over allegiance to their country and our country, this is noticeable in the senate, where the senators are supposed to ensure that their state or territory is not disadvantaged by the decisions of the rules of the parliament not the protection of their party.

only two changes to the defence act required. Amend 51 AA (1) by replacing current with the following (1) subsection (2) applies if the authorising Ministers are satisfied and the Parliament has resolved that.......
and amend (10) to include (or Parliament) after the authorising Ministers. in dealing with revocation of orders for overseas service. its very simple.
This mean executive and Parliament must formally agree for the overseas service of any Australian Defence Forces personnel, we do not have to have the semantic argument over what is a war etc and the parliament or the executive has the equal power to recall the troops.

Giving parliament more power would be an improvement but it is no guarantee that the quality of decision making would automatically improve. The US example is instructive. After the Tonkin Gulf incidents in August 1965 and the events of 11 September 2001 the US Congress rushed to overwhelmingly vote for military action against North Vietnam and Afghanistan respectively. They did so on the basis of information supplied by the Administration. In both cases the information was wrong and deliberately so. In the latter case the attack on Afghanistan was also illegal under international law.
John Howard similarly lied to Parliament about the reasons for attacking Iraq in 2003.
In all cases alternative information waas available but ignored by the executive and Parliament. Successive Australian governments have maintained the lie and the liars have never been held accountable. More than a law change is needed if we seek real reform.

The Commonwealth Parliament already has the war-making power, as it can dismiss the executive instantly at any time. The best example of this in the Westminster System occurred in South Africa in September 1939, when the National Party government decided to remain neutral in World War II. The parliament met, passed a motion of no confidence in the government, which then had to resign, and the new government immediately declared war on Germany.

The provisions of the US Constitution on war-making are there because the US does not follow the Westminster System, and the President cannot be dismissed by a vote of no confidence. Removal of the President requires impeachment, and so far this has only been tried three times, without success on any occasion.

It is good to see more people like James O'Neil speaking the truth.Their next big target is Iran.This is why the USA want Suleiman the to be in charge of Egypt.Mubarak did not not want aggression towards Iran and thus Saudi Arabia sided with Murbarak.Suleiman however is a good little psychopath and will be keen to do the bidding of the oil moguls.

If the USA attacks Iran watch the price of oil go to $5+ a litre with poverty hitting the West and China/Russia enter the fray for our next world war.The USA has been experimenting with mini-nukes ie nuclear fission that give off far less radiation.Some say they have used them already in "shock and awe" on Iraq and thus used depleted uranium bullets to cover for the existance of radioactivity.

This perhaps explains why the USA is being so aggressive.ie their mini nukes make up for the enormous military might of both China and Russia.

Tell me how do you have a limited strategic nuclear war?

Only the House of Representatives can dismiss a government, not the Parliament as a whole. There have only been 2 occassions in the last 100 years where the government of the day has not had a majority in the House of Reps, so expecting a government to dismiss itself is fairly unrealistic.

The fact is that the Howard government's decision to go to war against Iraq was the only time since Federation that such a decision was opposed by a majority in the Senate. If the government had required the approval of Parliament to send troops into battle overseas - as is required in the Greens legislation - then Australia's participation in that war would not have happened.

Such circumstances will not occur that often, but I can't see any reason why there should not be an extra hurdle before our country does something as drastic as sending troops to a war offshore - especially where we are the aggressor.

But this proposal was first put to the Senate by NSW Democrat Senator Colin Mason in the early 1980s, It was knocked back by both the larger parties then, and has been every other time it has been put forward by Democrats or Greens ever since. It's still worth pursuing - and does have the support of at least some from the defence forces - but I think it will be a while yet before the larger parties would agree to hand that power over to the Parliament as a whole