Apart from the fact that the “Greens” are politically irrelevant, wars are invariably ticked off by alliance agreements. That was Howard’s stand.

Dan

It is very hard to know what 'community values' in Australia are these days with so much division, mass immigration and multiculturalism. Hell, each multicultural group has its own "community".

We can thank our lucky stars that the Greens bill was rejected. By the time they stopped "arguing" we would be overrun.

We can also thank our lucky stars that this bloke and the Greens don't count for much. I think we can leave defence/war decisions to elected representatives and their advisers, not irresponsible wackos

I get so sick of these minor academics, a legend in their own lifetime, but only to themselves, pontificating on things from the lefty viewpoint, as if their opinion is of any value.

Iraq had seriously promoted the myth of their weapons of mass destruction as a protection mechanism hoping to scare off Iran. That they succeeded in convincing the west is not surprising, in view of their use of chemical weapons on their own population.

Everything they got was no more than what they visited on Kuwait, & was richly deserved.

Seems to me that this is a good assessment of the situation leading up to the war against the people of Iraq. It is of course affirmed by the UK Chilcot inquiry the details of which are available on Wiki.

But that having been said these two references are very much relevant to the situation in 2022 and beyond.
http://www.dabase.org/12laws.htm

http://www.beezone.com/adi-da/peace_letter.html The Peace Law Open Letter
It was written in response to the Kosovo crisis. at the request of a high ranking UNHCR diplomat. It was reworked in response to Sept 11. The various points described in this essay are still very relevant - even more so. In fact The Not Two Is Peace book gives a much expanded description of the situation described in the Open Letter - and much more too.

Meanwhile why not check out three essays written in response to Sept 11 by the very conservative Wendell Berry titled Thoughts In the Presence of Fear which were published on the always excellent Orion magazine website.

Back in the olden days this forum used to feature 4, 6 or even more essays on a regular basis. Now the norm is two or three, even one.
I wonder why this is the case.
Perhaps it is because the comments section is now dominated by right wingers who seldom, if ever have anything positive to say about anything, especially if the essay is written by someone of a even a mild left/liberal perspective.

Why would anyone even bother to write for such a forum!

Thank you for a thoughtful article, on an important subject, requiring more serious consideration.

It is clear that neither major party wants any fettering of executive power to wage war, despite overwhelming public support for Parliamentary scrutiny, and notwithstanding the shameful history of decision-making in this area since 1945.

In truth, neither major party wants anyone but the Prime Minister and a few of his/her supporters making such calls. This is far too narrow a base upon which to make such momentous decisions affecting millions of people’s lives. We need a much wiser process if we are to avoid repeating the terrible mistakes of the past.

In my own submission to the Senate inquiry I argued for a number of amendments to strengthen the Green’s Bill, including: a two-thirds majority vote in a joint sitting of both Houses, a free vote and a specified list of legal, moral and public policy criteria. These should be based on widely accepted community values and international law principles developed to protect against acts which, unless justifiable, constitute state authorised mass murder, grievous bodily harm, horrendous human suffering and property destruction on a massive scale — matters conspicuously absent in the thinking of our recent decision-makers.

Of the objections to Parliamentary scrutiny put up by the opponents, the only serious but overstated one relates to the disclosure of sensitive security information.

One solution would be legislation requiring that such decisions be made (and/or recommended to Parliament) by a two third majority vote of a more broadly representative, specially constituted Joint National Defence Committee, consisting of an equal gender mix of members of the Government, Opposition parties and Independents, all signing the Official Secrets Act and bound by a Code of Conduct that prevents any disclosure of Committee deliberations. This would be able to operate in exactly the same way as the current narrowly partisan NDC and consider all the same national security advice and information with the same agility.

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/OverseasServiceBill

Only a greenie Fwit would think that a decision to commit troops to a conflict should wait the months required to pass through parliament and the senate.

The PM who is democratically elected has the authority to declare war. To claim that this is not democratic is imbecilic.

With the situation in Ukraine I wonder if the Americans & the Brits will start another World war like they did in 1940 after the Germans occupied former german territory in Poland ?