There might be unanimity about the evils of Islamic State, whose militants only yesterday are said to have abducted at least 150 Assyrian Christians from Syrian villages, but there are clear divisions about how this country should respond.
Prime Minister John Key and National have made their call, despite the opposition of every other party.
It is rare to see laid-back Mr Key get so worked up as he did in the House as he claimed New Zealand must ''stand up for what is right''.
New Zealand joins about 60 other nations, including much of Western Europe, in taking some action against Islamic State.
Mr Key also said New Zealand's response is ''at the most mild end'', which undercuts his bluster about the Government having a responsibility to weaken the group and try to protect New Zealanders from what is fast becoming a direct threat.
A group of 16 trainers, with 127 others in support for a two-year mission is, indeed, minimal.
Even alongside larger numbers of Australians, it is hard to see this making any practical difference.
If anything, New Zealand's involvement makes this country and its citizens more at risk, makes any threat more direct.
IS and its supporters now have more reason to cause us harm, even if we are just small fry.
Meanwhile, the disaffected or malcontent fringe in this country have an added reason to cause trouble.
While the risk is relatively low, New Zealand cannot consider itself immune from ''terrorism''.
What National's decision does do, of course, is add another flag to the United States-led coalition.
It has symbolic significance and shows this country's willingness to participate.
We are citizens of the world and IS and its beliefs and methods are repugnant and dangerous.
Should we and other countries wash our hands and do nothing?
As well, New Zealand knows it is a small and potentially vulnerable trading nation that, pragmatically, needs to be seen to be willing.
An understandable objection to participation is on empirical grounds.
It is extremely difficult to see how sending 143 soldiers to help train a weak and corrupt Iraqi army will actually help militarily.
Further, Iraq is divided along religious and tribal lines and even should IS collapse, what happens then?
Intervention in the past has simply aggravated the mess.
What, too, will happen about Syria, where much of IS is based?
It seems brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad, so recently seen as unconscionable, is now an ally.
Just how big a threat IS actually is can also be questioned.
Little is known about its stability, and it might prove much weaker than most would have us believe.
And while it might inspire some dreamers, troublemakers and disturbed individuals and could be a prompt for terrorism in the West, as in Sydney recently, such horrors come from other sources as well.
Dunedin had its own rampaging gunman with the Aramoana killings of 1990; an ''unbalanced'' man in the Czech Republic has this week shot dead eight people.
It would have been intriguing to see what Labour would have decided if in power.
After all, Helen Clark's Government, while avoiding direct intervention, did agree to send engineers to Iraq.
Labour also agreed to send military personnel to Afghanistan.
That, like Iraq, was a theatre where there was no clear or effective end game or exit strategy.
Politician John Key has over recent months been considering what to do.
He must have believed in the end there would be enough support to allow New Zealand to go in.
Once the decision was made, and despite any ambivalence, he then had to come out forcefully, as he did in Parliament.
Although his stated reasons are as convincing as an Iraqi army front line, it is obvious realpolitik and New Zealand's place in the world meant he felt it was advisable to go into Iraq.
