Australia joined its allies to invade Iraq: we helped create terror crisis Australian troops in Baghdad celebrate AFL's 150th anniversary.
Reading A. Pavelic's letter (Letters,   November 17) calling for our borders to be closed in the wake of the Paris atrocities is like listening to a Raiders supporter screaming at the referee. Both are one-eyed and have short memories.
Australia might have a case for turning its back on Middle Eastern refugees if it had clean hands - but it doesn't. 
For most of this century, Australia, along with its American and British allies have sought to intervene in the Middle East most notably when they invaded Iraq in 2003. Iraq has been a smoking ruin ever since. Hundreds of thousands of its citizens have died from suicide bombers and other atrocities.
Even Tony Blair acknowledges that this ill- conceived adventure (with no exit strategy) has led to Middle Eastern turmoil and played a major role in the rise of Islamic State. In other words, Australia helped create the terror from which the refugees are fleeing. In these circumstances, it would seem unfair for Australia to deny a place in the stable for those in need.
Mike Reddy, Curtin Owen Reid (Letters,   November 17) and others ask us to concede that Tony Abbott's speech in London has now been justified and therefore right. The simple answer is, no. Abbott was wrong when he was PM and as a backbencher wrong in London. His speech was predictable and shallow, and did nothing to enhance Australia's international standing.
Owen Reid denies the facts that the dreadful attacks in France were carried out and co-ordinated by home grown citizens of France and Belgium.
So to in Lebanon and Turkey.
This does not make the London speech right.
Speeches and statements that incite fear and demonisation are dangerous. It is irresponsible to deny people seeking asylum by distorting the facts.
John Malouf, Hawker Good behaviour bond Referring to decorated New Zealand war veteran, Ngati Kanohi Te Eke Haapu, better known as Ko Rutene, William Maley (Letters,   November 16) does not mention that there are three other NZ nationals who are Rebel motorcycle gang members who have also been issued with deportation orders.
So Ko Rutene is not alone and was arrested when leaving Casuarina Prison after visiting a senior member of the gang.
It seems to me that if Ko Rutene is a man of high moral character as is claimed, he should be allowed to stay in Australia on a good behaviour bond and on the basis that he not fraternise with outlawed motorcycle gang members.
Ric Hingee, Duffy Dodgy arrangements Long an admirer of Julian Cribb's articles, I am impressed yet again with his courage in speaking up. This time he dares to express concerns about the very future of the nation state ('The nation state is doomed', Times2,   November 16, p1). All his arguments are thought-provoking but I would like to add support for the first two.
His comments on the nation state being no competitor to the "rise and rise" of the economic power of trans-national businesses is of even more concern when we realise that the current free trade agreements, either under negotiation with the Pacific or completed with China, have endorsed the use of very dodgy arrangements for settling disputes between a nation state and a transnational company (Investor-state dispute settlement).
While making the point about the power of trans- national businesses, Cribb comments that they are "nearly all autocracies despite the occasional shareholder meeting". This is a situation which we in the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility are trying hard to remedy.
Australia shareholders have considerably less power to express their views than in the US or Britain, and we have taken on appeal our concerns about this matter to the federal court. With respect to Cribb's point about transnational businesses' defiance of regulation, national governments may be powerless to stop the toxification of their own citizens but shareholders are not. It is time that citizens, most of whom own shares or have a stake in a superannuation scheme which does, realised that they still could have power over these transnational businesses, if they exerted their rights as shareholders.
Jill Sutton, convener, ACCR, Watson On Monday, I happened to be in Canberra with time to spare and I decided to flip through the Canberra Times. I just happened to come across the article written by Julian Cribb.
After reading it I wondered why such an intelligent man isn't in politics. If only we could get rid of the 'dead wood' and have someone who makes sense like Mr Cribb in government.
How about it Mr Cribb?
K. Robins, Goulburn, NSW Hundreds lost homes A parliament hearing is told that the Commonwealth Bank committed fraud when it deliberately lowered the value of loans acquired during the 2008 global financial crisis. Loans worth more than $8.5billion.
That lowered valuations and enabled the bank to foreclose on loans even though customers had never missed a payment.
The human cost of the decision on the hundreds of families losing homes and hard earned wealth has been tragic.
The hearing was told that the hundreds of families who have lost homes and hard- earned wealth were left destitute.
The tragic consequences, the hearing was told, of " this financial benefit by deception" has been enormous.
The Commonwealth Bank denies the fraud. Surely this deserves a royal commission?
After all, the one that dealt with the fraud in the trade unions is peanuts compared to this one.
Reg Wilding, Wollongong, NSW List of future 'rulers' Penelope Upward (Letters,   November 16) is somewhat confused about who our "ruler" is. She nominates, in turn, our politicians, us, and the governor-general. By contrast, our famously royalist former prime minister, Robert Menzies, was in no doubt that our monarch is our "ruler", so describing King George VI on the occasion of the king's death in 1952. So, if we do not become a republic, we can look forward to our future rulers being Charles III, William V, George VII, etc.
Frank Marris, Forrest