Australia's interests ill-served by running when Pentagon whistles Tony Abbott has received a US request to join the fight in Syria.
There is an old American folksong that begins with the words "Shoulder up your gun and whistle up your dog". For the past half century, these lyrics could serve as a metaphor for the United States-Australia alliance. On too many occasions, Australia has responded with unseemly enthusiasm to the whistle of its great and powerful friend ("Decision on Syria air strikes within weeks: PM",   August 22, p4).
In so doing, we joined military adventures that have ill-served our national interest and ironically, have cost the US dearly in terms of lives, wealth, and prestige. 
Now, we have received yet another call. Are we to entrust Captain Abbott with the decision on how to respond, or are we to accord this matter the kind of democratic deliberation that it deserves?
Peter Grabosky, Forrest Before the Prime Minister sends RAAF aircraft to bomb Syria, I hope he thinks through possible consequences: video on the internet showing shot- down Australian pilots beheaded by terrorists; drawing the attention of suicide terrorists to Australian streets.
Certainly the terrorists are cause for international concern. What about the Assad regime in Syria?
Assad has bombed Syrian towns indiscriminately, killing far more Syrian civilians than all the terrorists operating there ("You are all responsible for our death', declare besieged Syrians", smh.com.au,   August 21).
The Syrian Network for Human Rights has reported that the Assad regime has killed 7894 of its own people between   January and   July of this year alone. SNHR reported Islamic State killed 1131 Syrian civilians over the same period in its war on the Assad regime and the US-led coalition killed 125 over the same period (euphemistically termed collateral damage). The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has documented 4,014,091 Syrian refugees fleeing the civil war, up to   August 23.
Yet when Tanya Plibersek called for more Syrian refugee assistance, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop ridiculed it as food parcels for terrorists. So will the PM think before he bombs?
It seems unlikely.
Yet history proves bombing does not win wars. US bombs did not win the Vietnam War.
Allied bombs did not end World War II, Russian troops invading Berlin and then Japanese-held Manchuria did.
Rod Olsen, Flynn Equity benefits all Predictably the pre-election bribes have started ("Hockey promises personal tax cuts",   August 24, p1) Those of us lucky enough to have jobs may pay less tax in the unlikely event that this government keeps a promise. The many who have been thrown out of work may find their meagre welfare payments are categorised as government waste and therefore reduced.
Less tax revenue will mean longer waits for hospital treatment for those who can't afford private health insurance and less money spent on public housing for the homeless. Of course the big companies will remain immune from tax.
What this government doesn't realise is that the wealthy benefit more from having an equitable society than from creating an isolated world of privilege which is resented by people living in poverty made harsher by an increased GST.
Rosemary Walters, Palmerston Geared for tax gain If your annual salary is $200,000 and you have an investment property where negative gearing reduces your annual taxable income to $20,000, how does Mr Hockey view you? Are you a highly taxed Australian in need of another tax break?
Phillip Owen, Forde Fleeting life of facts J.J.Goold (Letters,   August 21) stated that "due to downsizing, the highest rank a serviceman in the Royal Navy or British Army can aspire to is that of admiral or general respectively".
He then went on to use this "fact" as an obscure stick with which to try and beat Prince Charles, who is an Admiral of the Fleet.
I suggest that J.J.Goold contacts Admiral of the Fleet Lord Boyce, appointed as an Admiral of the Fleet in 2014, who could no doubt remind him of the dangers of stating as a fact that which is not.
Jonathan Lyall, Garran Nature no arbiter R.J.Nairn (Letters,   August 20), argues that marriage inequality is "a fundamental natural law" and hopes "this natural law will be maintained".
Nairn needs to recognise that natural law has little to do with true justice, or with reason and civility.
Overwhelmingly, natural law is "nature red in tooth and claw", it is "survival of the fittest", it is "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", it is "the race goes to the swiftest", it is "winner takes all", it is "the weakest goes to the wall". The best of our laws and legislation are those which counter this, supporting justice in its real sense.
And that is the reason I want legislation to enable marriage equality, and now, rather than a continuation of R.J.Nairn's "fundamental natural law".
Peter Dark, Queanbeyan, NSW Heydon's views clear We know what Dyson Heydon thinks about apprehension of bias as he's written definitively on the point that it must be avoided at all costs, according to my cousin, the lawyer.
Now the Liberal Party is insisting that, as a rule, persons in Heydon's position must, of course, be held to the highest standards, higher that the rest of us. But not this guy, this time.
His record, apparently, places him above and beyond criticism. J.R.Nethercote ("Pity the innocent bystander", Times2,   August 25, p1) defends him on the grounds that the speech he was going to give was a very good speech and that other people have done similar things in somewhat similar circumstances.
Is he having a laugh? Is there a legal principle at stake or isn't there?
I expect Heydon to follow the advice he gave the rest of the nation. Otherwise he's just as weakly self-indulgent as any of those he's ever sat in judgment of, and no role model to anyone.
S.W.Davey, Torrens