Hi Tim

Dangerous views, but accurate.

Dangers to War include:

- Referring the war making power to Parliament would remove the historic and manly privilege of declaring war from the PM of the day.

- If Parliament says "No" a PM might forego an inevitable increase in public support OR the opportunity to distract the electorate from a PM's other failings

- Parliament may vote "No" because it doesn't GET IT that most of Australia's wars have been about supporting an ally rather than fending off direct threats to Australia.

- There should be no risk that MPs, directly sensitive to public views, should get in the way of the political and economic interests that benefit from war.

Cheers

Pete

Tim, I enjoyed your article and your thinking. But keep in mind that, as far as war is concerned, Australia receives its orders from the U.S.

Yes, the American Ambassador (the man with a husband) says 'JUMP' and our politicians cry out, 'How high, Oh Master of the Universe and should it include a double-pike?'

Yeah, Australia has become an American colony and it awaits its instructions from His Eminence, Barry - The Drone King - Obama!

So Senator Don Chipp claimed in 1986 that without reform a Prime Minister could commit the nation to a "disastrous course of action without Parliament and Australian people knowing what the arguments for and against were, and what the potential hazards might be."
Then in Afghanistan in 2001, and again in Iraq in 2003, under PM John Howard this is exactly what happened.
Almost 30 years have elapsed since Don Chipp's prophetic statement, and has anything been done about addressing his concerns? Not really. Even the Poms have gone with consultation, but somehow I just can't see Abbott and Bishop letting go the executive prerogative to take the nation into war. Especially not given the No verdict handed to PM Cameron by the House of Commons
With luck, the possibility won't arise. But then look at the posturing over Syria, with Iran in the wings. Does anyone think that if the Yanks and Israel beckon, we won't follow - without consultation and blindly? It will be worth bearing in mind Chipp's words in the months ahead: disastrous course of action; arguments for and against; potential hazards.

Tim

A thoughtful article on a vitally important issue. Several years ago, pursuant to various reviews on the process leading up to Australia's commitment to the war in Iraq, the Parliamentary Library produced a comprehensive discussion paper on this topic.

Despite being depicted by his detractors as weak and prevaricating, it is to President Obama's great credit that he has been willing to consider alternative means to respond to the terrible conflict in Syria that are consistent with international law (including the long-established Geneva Conventions). There are several powerful imperatives for the American President to adopt the mantle as the "world's policeman" (ironically under the moral auspices of defending human rights). These imperatives include a widespread conviction in America that resort to force (in self-defense) is an inalienable right; a similar belief in the exceptional status of American society relative to other societies; and the technological capability and superiority to be able to feasibly undertake unilateral military action.

This is a sensitive and highly complex issue and it is unfortunate that the public discourse is often overwhelmed by simplistic and polarized views emphatically supporting the justness of one side in a conflict.

Hi halduell

Yes I'm also pessimistic that our new government will have the depth to resist the next US request to join a Coalition (this time over Syria).

I mean without Obama creating the appearance of an "international" Coalition on Syria how could Obama persuade his own Congress to act on Syria?

Pete

Hmm, so many against action in Syria yet they all complain about no-one doing anything about the situation there.
What action do the opponents of force believe will solve the situation in Syria & prevent half of that country rolling up on our doorstep ?

Hi individual

No Western military intervention will help Syrians.

But hope is held out for the Russian brokered idea of removing chemical weapons from Syria.

As these chemical weapons are probably Israel's main concern over Syria their removal might make it less likely that Israel will launch more airstrikes in Syria.

Regards

Pete

Worrying about Israel's concern over Syria's chemical weapons seems a tad absurd given that Israel has nuclear bombs and the latest technology to deliver them to any part of Syria.

This is another example of: let's concentrate on building up the threat posed by our so-called enemies and don't talk about our own massive military superiority and penchant for invasion and occupation.

There is no balance in Western propaganda. It is directed at creating Hate and Fear in empty Western minds which is necessary to maintain the acceptance of endless war by imperial nations like the U.S.

It's time to wake up, Folks. We in the West are being conned!

plantagenet,
I suppose Russia will not keep those weapons & diligently disposes of them by selling them to the highest bidder.

No. Not absurd at all, David G.

The Israelis have been conquered and exterminated twice before in their history. Once under the Babylonians, and once by the Romans. In both cases their conquerors tore down the Temple of David, the most holy shrine that they have. With the Jews smashed by the Romans, the Muslims took over and built a dirty great mosque on top of the Second Temple That is their way which of saying that the Jewish religion is finished and that the lands of the Israelites is now Muslim forever.

But the Jews are back, and this time they are not going away. That such a tiny country with no resources except an exceptionally bright race of people could not only manufacture nuclear weapons, but also the means to deliver them with pin point accuracy, is a credit to their intellect. I like smart people. And the smart Israeli people are surrounded by ignorant religious fanatics who's own civilisation is a disgrace. These barbarians know that their own civilisation compares very badly with the Israelis and they need to eradicate this embarrassment. They also want to exterminate the Israelis because the Israelis are an example of what you can do if you use your brains instead of relying on God to solve all your problems for you.

The Israelis consider nuclear weapons as a weapon of last resort if their enemies try to destroy them again. They have a Masada complex and just like the Israeli zealots on Masada they would rather go down fighting than surrender. If they are threatened with extermination again, they will take their enemies with them.

The whole problem can be solved if the stupid Arabs and Persians just leave the Israelis alone. But they won't. Because they are ignorant religious fanatics who have a militaristic religion which forbids them from making peace with anyone who has taken what they consider to be "Muslim" land from the Caliphate.

Fortunately, being Muslims, their scientific research and technology is woeful.

LEGO, your comment must rate as the worst, most ridiculous comment ever published on OLO.

It suggests that you need psychological help, perhaps years of deep therapy. Could I suggest in the interim that you get back on your medication, perhaps even double-up on the doses.

I am, as someone who has some knowledge about psychology, very concerned about your mental health. In your current state you are a danger to the world and yourself!

P.S. Slow down. Take a cold shower. Speak to your medical practitioner urgently!

There would have been a second Holocaust but for the Israeli nukes and to suggest that a small, vastly outnumbered country in population and area is a threat just continues Leftie fabulist tradition. Rumors suggest 200 devices, certainly enough to deter a sane adersary, the worry is crazies such as Wahhabis in Saudi and Iranian "Twelver" Shia nut-jobs may see Glazing of a large chunk of the Middle East as worth it for a final solution to the "Jewish" problem.