Trump trivialises war and makes a mockery of politics

Just as disturbing as Donald Trump’s failure to articulate a coherent objective in Iran – and equally predictable – is his unserious treatment of the war and its consequences (“Trump’s bluster and claim of victory are just a sad act”, March 16). The very name Operation Epic Fury, the use of video-game avatars to depict human targets, the triumphalist memes and pop-culture montages to celebrate military strikes all speak to a depraved triviality. In this, Trump has a true disciple in his egregious Secretary of War, an absurd caricature of frat-boy puerility and bluster who makes actual war a mere extension of his endless culture wars. Sadly, all of this is a reflection of what is now an unserious nation, where genuine expertise is derided in favour of blowhard podcasters and vapid influencers, where the White House is run like a reality TV show, and where war, whether just or unjust, is framed in the language of Nintendo. Kathleen Riley, Burradoo

After bombing military targets on Iran’s Kharg Island, Donald Trump threatens to bomb them again “just for fun” (“US bombs critical Iranian military sites on Kharg Island”, March 16). Trump needs to be reminded that this is not a video game. His war on Iran has already caused much death and suffering to innocent people (including 150 school children), people have been killed and displaced in Lebanon, and American servicemen and women have lost their lives in this gratuitous war. I’m sure the families of all those killed would not regard it as “fun”. Once again, Trump’s cavalier attitude shows his total lack of humanity and compassion. Leo Sorbello, Leichhardt

“Trump derangement syndrome” isn’t just a fantasy. After bombing Iran’s main oil-loading terminal on the island of Kharg, with 8000 residents, and hitting military targets, apparently, Trump issued a statement saying that “we may need to hit Kharg again for fun”. These are the words of a deranged person who regards innocent civilians as pawns in his deadly game. Rob Buchanan, Kerikeri (NZ)

Barefaced cheek

Add to Donald Trump’s other faults, now he’s being really cheeky (“Trump rallies nations to send warships to Strait of Hormuz”, March 15). In an attempt to draw other countries into his war, he’s asking them to help clean up the mess that he created by attacking Iran in the first place. Trump should be paying them compensation for the threat to oil supplies and prices that his actions have caused. Maybe this should be an impetus for them to become less reliant on fossil fuels for their energy needs. Let Trump bear the consequences of his own actions. David Rush, Lawson

It seems to be increasingly likely that our most powerful ally will ask us and other middle powers for help to solve a mess of its own making. A mess provoked by a gung-ho, cavalier approach to the serious business of war and the loss of life and livelihood that comes with it. It’s hardly an opportunity for “fun”, Donald. Wouldn’t it be comforting to see us be a strong, independent nation, able to stand up to bullies of all persuasions? It’s time for Canadian leader Mark Carney’s middle power conglomerate, and for Albanese, to jump in and lead the way. It might cost us a few first-world comforts, but it doesn’t seem right to let the rest of the world suffer for us. What chance? Steve Fortey, Avoca Beach

Trump has spent more than a year alienating US allies, and now expects them to rescue him from the oil crisis he created by his illegal Iran war. Bear in mind that Trump proudly proclaimed that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been totally obliterated six months ago. Apparently, this war was necessary to eliminate a non-existent threat. The war has made the Strait of Hormuz unsafe, and Trump is asking the rest of the world to put their lives at risk to save his worthless hide. I suspect he has Buckley’s chance. Graham Lum, North Rocks

Addicted to oil

Drivers are panicking, and governments are scrambling to shore up and manage inadequate fuel reserves. All so predictable (“Increased truck load limits to boost regional fuel supplies”, March 16). The oil industry, and by extension the fossil fuel industry in general, has for decades been fiddling while Rome burned, making obscene profits, lobbying governments, riding roughshod over global efforts to deal with climate change, while contributing massively to its effects upon mankind. The world remains tragically dependent upon oil. Had right-wing, politics-for-profit governments around the world not stymied efforts towards sustainable energy transition, the outlook for our children’s future would by now be substantially more optimistic. The current bloodbath in the Middle East, orchestrated by Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu and the circus of malign buffoons who enable them, should, indeed must, serve as a clarion call for an end to fossil fuel dependence and for redoubled efforts towards sustainable energy initiatives to ensure a habitable planet. Peter Craig, Dulwich Hill

I am amazed at the backward-looking responses to the current oil crisis – calls for more coal, more oil refineries, more oil exploration. Oil supplies and prices will always be subject to geopolitical events, no matter how much we have. On the other hand, solar and wind energy are not subject to geopolitical tensions. So let’s respond to this oil crisis by ramping up our shift to the electrification of transport and industrial processes using solar, wind and batteries. And yes, Barnaby [Joyce], even prime movers for industrial and livestock transport can be electrified – and are cheaper to run. It’s time to respond to this latest crisis by looking forward, not back to old technologies. We’ll always need some oil, but not so much that we allow ourselves to be held ransom to it by what happens in the Middle East. Andrew Pik, Lindfield

Even if the Strait of Hormuz were reopened tomorrow, Australia would still be very exposed to oil shocks, with only two domestic refineries and 90 per cent of our liquid fuel requirements imported. While the Coalition might not be totally responsible for this situation, their decades of arrogance and inaction on climate and energy policy have cost Australia dearly. This is not to mention years of unhelpful, populist claptrap from One Nation’s Pauline Hanson, whose comments still don’t make sense but, inexplicably, now resonate with more Australians. It is even more ridiculous for the struggling Opposition to blame the Albanese government for this crisis while, at the same time, warning them against any meaningful action, such as fuel rationing. The PM should take the lead and take every precaution available to tackle the crisis. Rob Firth, Red Hill (ACT)

Save fuel, buy local

For years, I have checked that I am buying Australian oranges at the supermarket, not US-grown, to support local growers. Now, suddenly, the oranges on sale are of “mixed origin”, whatever that means, though it looks suspiciously like a move to hide imports. At this time of fuel shortages, the notion of shipping oranges huge distances across the ocean does not make sense. If the practice is not stopped by the big chains (for oranges and all other local products), they must be compelled to stop by government. Think of all the fuel that will be saved. Nedra Orme, North Sydney

No defence

If Paul Keating were still prime minister, maybe he would do more than current Labor governments to solve the housing crisis (“Keating attacks Defence land sale”, March 16). The Department of Defence is one of the biggest landowners in Australia, much of the land sitting idle. Keating may be right about preserving Victoria Barracks, but if you travel north to the Hunter region you’ll find vast tracts of Defence land. I’m part of a community group that seeks local solutions to the housing crisis, including housing older single women. We’ve written to federal housing minister Clare O’Neil proposing a small part of the hectares of Defence land in inner-city Newcastle be used for a social and affordable housing project. It’s flat, on a main road, with a bus stop outside and just a walk to shops. No reply. So we approached Pat Conroy, Minister for Defence Industry. The reply came back that it was needed for Defence housing. Upon further inquiry we were advised that no Defence land in the Hunter region has been listed for sale. If the federal government is serious about solving the housing crisis, they should be working with state governments to build social housing on government land using manufactured homes. Kevin Fell, Cooks Hill

So Paul Keating is upset at the NSW government’s proposal to sell Sydney’s historic military Victoria Barracks. Was it not his government that sold the Commonwealth Bank and other pieces of family silver? The formation of the CBA was not only historic, but it was established, inter alia, to ensure the security for the hard-earned money of hard-working Australians, who politicians so proudly claim to represent. Nowadays, the CBA is as rapacious as every other financial institution. A bit late to be so concerned, don’t you think? Les Sisley, Kelso

Keating is absolutely right. If a Coalition government had proposed this plunder of public heritage, Labor would have screamed blue murder. But here is another example of the deleterious effect of AUKUS. It’s a costly, terrible deal that will drain our treasury, damage our sovereignty and give us nothing positive in return, other than yet another American coat tail to cling to as they march us off to war. Alison Stewart, Riverview

Keating is correct in stating the federal government has no right to sell off the Defence land portfolio for redevelopment by developers. As he rightly claims, these sites are gems that belong to the national estate, and the Department of Defence has no right to sell such significant public assets. Defence only holds them in virtual trust on behalf of the nation. It is outrageous to even consider selling off sites such as historic Victoria Barracks in Paddington. These sites should be protected long term for this and future generations to appreciate and enjoy. Narelle Ryan, Woollahra

One Nation, no solution

Life is tough for many Australians. Understandably, they feel anxious and disillusioned and are thinking about whether a different government might do better. But heaven help us all when 24 per cent of voters understand so little about the requirements of good government that they are willing to put their future in the hands of Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce (“Voters are angry. One Nation’s support is real, rising and no longer surprising”, March 16). Voters may well be in a bad mood, but hopefully they’ll have a go at behaving like adults and not burn the house down because Mum or Dad can’t afford the new shoes they want. Prue Nelson, Cremorne Point

It amazes me that Australian voters are shifting their allegiance to Pauline Hanson as a result of the current economic situation. Hanson is an unabashed devotee of Donald Trump, the architect of our predicament. What is her plan for the Australia that she is said to love, other than of course to rupture social cohesion? And as for the economy, how do the good burghers expect her to fix it? Charmain Brinks, Newcastle

Political relic

George Brandis writes that Matt Canavan’s elevation could represent liberation for the Liberal moderates (“The Matt Canavan I know is an intellectual with ‘raw political talent’”, March 16). If that means they will have to fight tooth and nail for what they believe, then he is dead right. Many of Canavan’s conservative views are from the last century and include opposing abortion, same-sex marriage and vaccine mandates which, as Barnaby Joyce claims, puts him closer to One Nation than the Liberals. He wants Australia to dig up and sell more coal, yet he must be aware that fossil fuels are finite resources that are gradually being phased out and cannot be relied upon for future income. Despite his young age, Canavan’s recent reminiscences are indicative of a relic from the past rather than a vision for our future. As Canadian PM Mark Carney recently said: “Nostalgia is not a strategy.” Peter Nash, Fairlight

Private choice

Like other letter writers, I had children in the 1970s, worked hard for public school organisations at local and state level and later taught in public schools, but unlike some others I never supported DOGS and didn’t ever become a card-carrying feminist (Letters, March 16). I have seen my grandchildren attend a mix of public and private schools for a variety of reasons. Faith is one, teaching expertise another, and better facilities at the end of the queue. I still find the constant debate over private public schooling wearisome. There are good schools in both sectors, and as a neighbour once said to me when she enrolled her children in a Catholic school, “I pay my taxes like everyone else.” These parents pay school fees as well as taxes to support public education, and often make major financial sacrifices to support private school choice, foregoing the entertainments and travel they might otherwise enjoy. I wish people would stop judging. Vivienne Parsons, Thornleigh

Road to ruin

Having gobbled up more and more farming land in the Sydney Basin for an expanding metropolis, Sydney can afford to open a motorway to a new airport to service more and more people who apparently don’t have any cost of living issues. But the urgent upgrade to a 200-year-old highway to the western regions where our food is grown is apparently not a priority (“Key Blue Mountains highway to be closed for at least three months”, March 14). Strange thinking. John Flint, Naremburn

• To submit a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, email letters@smh.com.au. Click here for tips on how to submit letters.
• The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.