Link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-10/australia-to-provide-military-support-to-gulf-states/106435248

In short:

Australia will send a military aircraft and 85 ADF personnel to the United Arab Emirates to assist in the defence of Gulf nations that have been attacked by Iran.

They will be operational by the end of the week for an initial four-week period for the "collective self-defence of Gulf nations".

What's next?

Foreign Minister Penny Wong says Iran's attacks on neighbouring countries escalated overnight.

Despite everything Albanese says, Australia has already sold its soul to the drmpf administration. They had the chance to cancel Aukus and the failed. Lost my vote until they reverse aukus

US have failed sooooo bad.

85 people, not that bad tbh

All to divert attention from the pedo president. Sickening

Vote Greens / Socialist!

No matter what euphemism is given to our action in the Gulf, we are taking sides. We're taking the side of those who attacked and decapitated a sovereign nation unlawfully. Our actions will result in deaths, directly or indirectly, of many unarmed civilians because we are freeing up US/Israel aircraft to keep carpet bombing Iran. Same as sending F35 parts to Israel to be used on civilian Palestinians.

We are now (unofficially) taking part in the Middle East War which some are already calling the start of WW3. Australian government, you are making this nation a future target without our consent.

And somehow they ensured greens/socialist can't raise enough funds. Look at VIC, greens had a good federal base there until the recent elections now it seems more messed up than ever.

Good thing is the preferential voting (where first priority votes get some representation) but yeah needs a massive revolution.

the "collective self-defence of Gulf nations"

I don't see what's "self" about it.

Yep, sad to see us doubling down in this war.

We’re taking the side of those who attacked and decapitated a sovereign nation unlawfully.

I want to emphasise first that I'm not disagreeing with the comment in general: I really don't understand how this buzzword appeal "unlawfully" has taken off and become normal in geopol discussion. What does a lawful decapitation attack look like? Are our historical invasions of certain countries good and "lawful"? Lawfulness is obviously not a measure of ethics or morality, just take a look around at all the legal corruption and exploitation around us.

And somehow they ensured greens/socialist can’t raise enough funds

Could you expand on this? Who is "they" and how are they doing this?

This isn't Wag the Dog. The US has its own imperial interests in the region, and has for many many decades. There are plenty of cheaper and better ways to distract from scandal than a war on the other side of the world. The atrocities committed regularly by the US should not be misunderstood as a distraction.

But speaking of child abuser presidents of the USA: NonCompete - Origins of the Epstein Class - a good rundown on how Trump got there in the first place, historical precedence, and previous times major politicians have been involved in child trafficking rings

Thank you for the link.

I see this as excellent real-life experience for the Wedgetail crew. As long as they return home safely, this IS a war zone even if the US are pretending it isn’t.
This should also strengthen relationships with Middle eastern countries. (I am trying to be an optimist here)

I think this is what that person was referring to.

Greens are big enough to weather it but it shafts all of the independents and smaller parties. When this was passed, I felt in my gut that the primary purpose was to try and limit the spread of the Teal wave from taking over Lib seats.

They should have dropped AUKUS. They should have done a lot of things but it seems like Labor just want to continue the status quo from Scomo.

You're right. Thank you for that perspective.

Perhaps a lawful decapitation would be one like the bombing of Hitler's bunker, where the head of the state is leading annexation and occupation with no reason other than the desire to expand, and approving war crimes. Some further comment:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/mar/02/legality-us-israel-attacks-iran-uk

https://verfassungsblog.de/the-unwillingness-to-call-this-illegal-is-a-terrible-mistake/

War, in my view, is an abysmal evil.

Not the worst federal government in recent times, but probably the most disappointing.

A bit like Obama, we had 3 years of Labor, realized they were hopeless...so then we said this mediocrity is as good as it gets and recycled them.

You've written those in the wrong order for Australia. Greens are not an anti-capitalist party. There are a lot of tree tories in the Greens in Australia, unfortunately.

Still a way better choice than Labor though.

I'll preference the Greens over Labor because the Labor party is a centre-right party, but fuck, the Greens had such a sook when they lost at the last federal election, even claiming that preferential voting was somehow unfair.

Like???

Wtf.

Git gud The Greens, Christ.

P.S. I think single member electorates ought to be expanded to 3 member electorates (and maybe increase the number of lower house MPs by 50%), to mitigate against a party getting less than 50% of the vote (after preferences) but more than 50% of the seats and therefore 100% of the power.

I'm not for state-wide proportional in the lower house though, because it'll make forming government too difficult in my opinion (evidenced by Tasmania and a bunch of European countries where that's a thing). I think having a proportional upper house with Hare-Clark is pretty decent as a tempering.