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.