Bradley Perrett "War highlights army's big mistake" (canberratimes.com.au, March 3) rightly criticises Australia's proposal to pay up to $60 million for each of 450 Infantry Fighting Vehicles (a total of $27 billion dollars), designed to carry nine soldiers into battle.
When will Australians realise their governments serve the big corporations and not them?
Spending $60 million dollars to transport nine soldiers into battle is absurd.
The definition of slavery is working to give your wages to someone else.
How many Australians' wage lifetimes does $27 billion represent? And what about Australians' wage lifetimes spent on really expensive war toys, like tanks, ships, planes and submarines?
Australia's an island continent separated by thousands of kilometres of ocean from even vaguely possible enemies.
Spending $27 billion for land transport for 4050 soldiers to fight non-existent enemies on the other side of the world is ridiculous.
The reason that many millennials and Gen Zs can't afford to buy a home or properly raise a family is that Australian governments pour our wealth into war toys and useless wars.
Australia's Defence Department should be renamed the "Offence Department".
For 130 years we've sent soldiers to Sudan, South Africa, Turkey, New Guinea, Europe, Egypt, Libya, Japan, Korea, Malaya, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere, to kill, maim and despoil peoples with whom we have no quarrel.
We have never needed to use IFVs to fight anyone in Australia.
Don't you think it's time to knock off the war mongering?
Isn't Australia big enough for us?
I suggest getting a few dump trucks to drop their loads on the side of the Kippax oval.
Over the past 30 years millions of tonnes of clean fill and rubble have gone to the old Belconnen tip
It would cost nil to get the dirt and save the tipping fees.
How about that from an old bloke born 1936.
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping were until recently like two peas in a pod. Their common aim was to increase their influence worldwide in addition to adding to their territories.
By sanctioning the deliberate bombing of a nuclear power plant, a maternity and childrens' hospital and evacuation routes formerly designated as safe havens Putin has proven that he has become unbalanced and delusional.
On the other hand, Xi Jinping has remained his cool and calculating self, biding his time to see what effect the severe economic sanctions on Russia will have. Putin's unprovoked and premeditated invasion of Ukraine may cost him dearly once the body bags start coming in and the sanctions start to bite.
Will the endgame be a revolution, an assassination or a prolonged guerrilla war?
I disagree entirely with the sentiments and dire predictions in the letter "Albanese is ready to be PM" (Letters, March 13) regarding the coming election.
Neither of the major players instil any confidence in us anti-war proponents.
In his letter Holesgrove pushes his political barrow loaded with climate-change hysteria.
My opinion is that Albo's speech at the Lowy Institute was the same predicable, tacit fear-mongering which always impresses the insecure amongst us.
Is Tweedledum really better than Tweedledee?
In a lawless world, such as in the time of the conquistadors, Australia would be swallowed by China in no time, undeterred by submarines, even nuclear-powered ones.
Submarines and increases in other defence spending might be of some use as deterrents for our nearer neighbours. Indonesia, Fiji, or Papua, might be persuaded to relinquish any territorial ambitions. New Zealand has always been reliably friendly, and presents no threat.
Our best chance of security surely lies in strengthening international law and co-operation. Putin must have been surprised by the world's strong reaction to Russia's lawless and vicious invasion of Ukraine.
Unless suffering from senile dementia, he must now be looking for a way out that preserves his dignity. In the modern world such powerful unified international pressure will ensure that lawless actions will not succeed and will incur heavy penalties.
My wife and I decided to attend the Van Gogh Alive event at the Canberra Pavilion and went online to buy tickets.
I used my phone to access the internet and the site that kept coming up was Viagogo, scammers that I had not heard about.
I purchased two tickets. I was later alerted by a family member about this site and also the organiser's website. Indeed, the tickets at $55 were less than half what I had paid and there was a warning that tickets purchased from another site such as Viagogo may not be valid.
I contacted Viagogo and received the usual blurb about the purchase being non-refundable and an assurance that the tickets were valid.
On arriving at the exhibition we were informed that the tickets from Viagogo were fake and we had to purchase real tickets to enter (fair enough).
My question is how can this company get away with this scam? My credit card company is trying to recoup the loss and I have suggested that they cancel as merchants this dishonest enterprise.
I am $273.11 out of pocket at present. I warn others to be careful and never use Viagogo. Only buy tickets from official sites.
A further question about Japanese encephalitis is: "why is it here?" ("A mosquito-borne disease is sparking concern. What is it?" canberratimes.com.au, March 11).
The likely answer: climate change. The World Health Organisation warns of the rise and spread of these types of vector-borne diseases occurring in a warming world. Surprisingly, even deputy Nationals leader David Littleproud has made the connection between cases of Japanese encephalitis and climate change.
Sadly, needing to avoid mosquito bites by staying away from waterways at dawn and dusk is a further example of the impacts of a changing climate on our previously carefree way of life.
I note the great concern being expressed by the conservative side of politics about the threat to the "real" meat industry represented by the recent appearance of "non-meat" substitute meat items on supermarket shelves.
Is this an uncharacteristic care for the interests of the man on the land? I think not. What has the conservative side of Australian politics most concerned is that in a future vegan-friendly, plant-based, meat-substitute-supplied Australia, the opportunities for their customary vote-appealing pork-barrelling will no longer be conceptually possible.
Even the "eat the rich" politics of envy of the far left and the Greens will no longer be effective as we become more of a nation of "non-meat" meat substitute eaters.
Imagine if the major political parties had to actually address important issues to get their votes on election day.
The Russian embassy in Ireland could soon be changing its Dublin address from Orwell Road to Independent Ukraine Road. No, it's not relocating. The local council just wants to change the street name, so the embassy will have to change its website and stationery to match.
It's a neat twist, and it copies a similar move in Vilnius, Lithuania where the Russian embassy now sits in Ukrainian Heroes Street. Latvia, Norway and Albania are following suit. Will Canberra be next?
We hear about many social, economic and environmental challenges facing Australia, not to mention the international crises. Yet both major parties seem to be increasingly drawn to the military option when seeking responses. Where is the commitment to investment in our civil society needs - infrastructure, social services, education, public service, justice, Indigenous disadvantage - and to enhancing diplomacy and development aid in our region? As a number of military people have said they should not be relied on when civil solutions are available.
Of course Morrison will reduce the fuel excise: not only will this increase his chances of winning the election, but should he lose (as predicted by the polls) it will inflict significant fiscal pain on any incoming Labor government.
N. Ellis's comment (Letters, March 14) was interesting. Many, many years ago I read that Hitler had said the next Great War would be between Russia and China.
One of the most baffling aspects of current discourse is the claim that it is a "pro-Putin" talking point to say the prospect of Ukraine becoming a NATO member is an existential threat to Russia. I am sorry that Michael Lane (Letters, March 9) is unable to process a foreign conflict that requires more tact and nuance than "NATO good, Russia bad".
Of all the commentary we have read over the hideous situation in Ukraine, Digby Habel (Letters, March 3) has put it most tragically and succinctly: have the Russians forgotten the lessons of Stalingrad?
As the bizarre weather continues, am I right in observing that we seem to have had fewer cyclones pummelling our shores this summer? For the superstitious amongst us, I am typing this on a wooden desk.
What would Walter and Marion say? Oh for the confidence to declare unequivocally that "the ACT government definitely needs to favour greenfield development over densification". (Letters, March 10)
Ignoring the 120-year-old history of the term "khaki election", surely, in view of recent government actions and the current garb of most operational service personnel, the most appropriate term would be a "disruptive pattern" election?
While I have enormous respect for the Ukrainian people, they're not the only country with a stand-up comic for a leader.
As if it isn't bad enough that overuse of the words "incredible" and "amazing" has rendered them almost meaningless, I recently heard the ABC's Patricia Karvelas refer to something as being "incredibly amazing".
I wonder why critics of Amanda Vanstone's articles (Letters, February 6 and Letters, February 10) do not apply the same harsh criteria to those contributions of your correspondent Jenna Price? Just asking.
I'm not convinced by political boasting about Defence spending. We must spend more money on renewable energy, health and education. A healthy and smart population is less likely to use war as a means of problem solution.
Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.