As another Australian family endures the soul-destroying grief of the loss of a young son in Afghanistan - the fourth in a week -  the debate about the nation’s role in the campaign has shifted into fraught territory.

The coffins of Lance Corporal Andrew Jones and Australian Army Pilot Marcus Case

Some surveys show that the majority of Australians want the troops to be brought home immediately. Our political leaders say we must hold our nerve and harden our resolve for more losses in the weeks ahead.

Given that only two of the four latest casualties, Sgt Brett Wood and special-forces combat engineer Rowan Jaie Robinson, were killed in action fighting the Taliban the bipartisan position is the right one for a host of reasons. 

For the people running the war, such as the Commander of Joint Task Force 633 Major General Angus Campbell, any withdrawal at this point would be a tactical and strategic disaster.

A thoughtful officer with several years as the civilian deputy national security adviser behind him, Campbell is hardly a gung ho warrior type, but the former special-forces officer is blunt in his assessment of the situation in Oruzgan Province.

“We have the initiative,” he said in his office at this dusty desert air base east of Dubai.

Campbell said that the insurgency has been pushed outside the population centres and low level enemy fighters were now asking the question, ‘Why are we fighting’?

“Their operations are less effective now compared to previous years,” he said.

“That is the product of very hard work by the Afghans and Coalition forces during the last 24 months to build the Afghan security force.”

Campbell wants to leave the Afghan government in control of security in Oruzgan in 2014 managing what by then would hopefully be a remnant insurgency.

His view is backed by the commander of Afghan forces in southern Afghanistan Brigadier General Abdul Hamid.

The hardened fighter believes that the insurgency is at a tipping point in Oruzgan.

“100 former Taliban have come over to our side in Chora in the past two months,” Gen Hamid said.

“We had three come in with weapons this week and many others are putting away their weapons.”

The key to any counter-insurgency operation is squeezing out the enemy so that they become irrelevant and after five years of hard work in Oruzgan that is now happening.

It has cost much in blood and treasure, but with 3000 Afghan National Army troops now trained up along with 1800 police and 2500 coalition forces, the Taliban is becoming irrelevant.

Major General Campbell said the biggest surge in Afghanistan during the past 12 months was the 80,000 fully trained ANA soldiers and police.

“That is an enduring surge,” he said.

As the debate in America, Britain and Australia focuses on draw downs and withdrawal dates, Campbell and his troops are focused on training the ANAs 4th Brigade so that it can secure the province.

The target date for that is 2014 and Major General Campbell has asked people to be patient, acknowledging the potential for more losses.

The timeframe is achievable.

He admits that the gains are fragile but regards that as another reason to stay the course.

Anything less would expose the provinces deep, isolated valleys to the re-emergence of the Taliban and a blood bath of reprisals.

The story is being repeated across the country and some seven provinces are almost ready to transition to local security control.

Australian special-forces are now fanning out into neighbouring provinces of Helmand and Kandahar to take the fight up to the bomb makers and commanders who run the deadly insurgency. And they are having great deal of success.

“Towns in Kandahar and Helmand provinces are now bustling with traders and entrepreneurs,” Maj-Gen Campbell said.

Such an outcome would have been inconceivable 12 months ago, but the gains could be reversed overnight if the political leaders of NATO and the Coalition lose their bottle and go home.

If that happened the country would soon fall back under the control of the Taliban and a disparate bunch of war lords, drug lords and other assorted bandits. It would once again be a training ground for Islamic militants hell bent on spreading violence and hate to places such as Bali, London, Madrid and elsewhere.

This is a high stakes campaign where comparisons to previous wars such as Vietnam are pointless and wrong.

Not one Australian was killed by a single terrorist trained in Vietnam, but 501 of our young people died in America’s fruitless war against the spread of communism.

More than 100 Australians have been killed by Islamic terrorists around the globe and so far 27 volunteer soldiers have died taking the fight up to this cowardly, fanatical enemy.

If we withdraw before the job is finished then the sacrifice of these 27 brave young Australians, including four this past week, and more than 170 more badly hurt and maimed would have been in vain and that would be a tragedy.

We honour the memory of the fallen by standing firm and to keep our country and our children safe we must persevere in Afghanistan - and that will involve further sacrifice.

189 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      06:10am | 08/06/11

      You don’t win wars by making friends with people, you win wars by killing them. 
      I wouldn’t care to be involved in Afghanistan, or any campaign with similar rules of engagement and I’m someone who joined the Army at 17, straight out of school.

      In the case of Afghanistan, the Americans should have recognised the Taliban as the Government, then given them 24 hours to produce bin Laden before declaring war and leveling the entire country to the ground.

    • Septimus says:

      06:55am | 08/06/11

      Much better idea - wonder why they didn’t go with slaughtering innocents?

    • stephen says:

      07:11am | 08/06/11

      The Taliban were, I think, underground at the time.
      Gas would have been cleaner.
      And I heard that we are winning in Afghanistan, so it isn’t time now to run.

    • fml says:

      09:48am | 08/06/11

      You dont make friends with salad either.

    • Mitchell says:

      11:26am | 08/06/11

      The Taliban actually offered Bin Laden before the war even started, their only condition was that he be put on trial in an independent 3rd party country and not America. (Why we couldn’t just steal him after that I have no idea?)
      The US refused those terms and went in killing tens of thousands of civilians and thousands of American troops.
      Since then, security analysts around the world have shown that going to war in the middle east actually made the US and it’s allies (Australia) much more of a target by extremists than we were in the first place.  ***MISSION ACCOMPLISHED***

    • RyaN says:

      12:10pm | 08/06/11

      @Tony of Poorakistan: on the up side, look at it this way, if the americans with Bush having his hand on the button didn’t use nukes on Afghanistan before the second tower fell, then you know for sure they never will.
      If America had glassed Afghanistan as a response to the act of war on their nation, the world might have been a little upset but they would have gotten over it by now and one thing is for certain, the Islamic crusade style war on the world we see now would have ended right there.

    • Rick says:

      12:19pm | 08/06/11

      Tony of Poorasitan , Your an idiot

    • Grumpy Little Gumnut says:

      12:42pm | 08/06/11

      I agree wholeheartedly.  The only mistake George Bush made was to NOT nuke them to kingdom come in the first month.

    • Holdsworthy says:

      01:29pm | 08/06/11

      Would that not be committing an act of genocide?

    • Frank says:

      01:36pm | 08/06/11

      This Tony guy is a moron of epic proportions. Why Afghanistan Tony? 9/11? Afghanistan didnt have anything to do with 9/11. The hijackers were Saudis. Even if a few people in Afghanistan were resonsible, did the common man in the street have anything to do with it? No. It was a terror cell, Tony you brainless, gung-ho, knob. The Taliban? Sounds like the Afghanis dont really like them either, but they dont get much of a choice do they? So yeah lets just kill them all. What a great thinker Tony is. You call this a ‘war’ Tony? Doenst look anything like one. Tell you what, Tony if you think this is such a worth while pursuit, get your dumb ass over there and you do the fighting. You seem keen. A little, self loathing, hate filled biggot like you could do with the experience. Dont support the war again if you arnt prepared to put your money where your mouth is and get over there. Armchair commando.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:47pm | 08/06/11

      I think Tony’s got it roughly right.

      If the Taliban had been recognised as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and then refused to produce Bin Laden unconditionally, the US could have declared that as an act of war against the United States given 9/11 was still fresh in everyone’s minds.  Harbouring enemy combatants is aiding an enemy of a sovereign nation.  Also, a full declaration of war would have to be given by Congress, and therefore it wouldn’t just be the President unilaterally commencing military action.

      When America actually declares war—because of the irreversibility of that decision—it tends to win them.  It’s an event horizon because you either win or lose a war, you don’t increase or decrease troop deployments.  America has not declared war on anybody since roughly World War 2 or so.  Consequently it tends to lose most of its undeclared wars.

      Levelling the country via conventional airstrikes would have served as a useful object lesson: continue to harbour Al Qaeda, and this will happen to you.  Al Qaeda would have had a lot fewer volunteers for safe harbours had that happened.

    • Bruno says:

      02:05pm | 08/06/11

      Tony - youre a brave man. I’d have thought you’d be a navy seal by now.

      Ian McPhedran - so you care about the afghan people? wonder what your thoughts on assylum seekers are? oh you want to build their country so they dont have to come here, cause you like them from a distance. 2014? good number, not too far away. Can’t wait for your January 2015 article titled “we’re almost there, a few more years”. When 2015 does come along are you going to say” i cant believe how gullible i am at this age” or “i did my job i helped convince the public that this is in their interest”. A public who don’t want assylum seekers but are happy to help build their country? please. Most pro-war people in this country fall into two categories, 1 - theyre scared of anyone who looks different and so are happy for them to die, including their kids 2 - like the bloke who can’t fight for himself they want the world to know “hey i’m with them (usa)”

      what do you think about nice guys acting tough? well then what do you think about pug faces acting intelligent. Please sir before you hurt yourself turn the computer off and go hit someone.

      well done you earnt your cookie today

    • Nuke Happy says:

      02:31pm | 08/06/11

      You guys are not really thinking are you?

      Nukes?

      On Afghanistan?

      Lets make the world biggest glass factory!

      Lot of desert and sand out there.

      A nuke is also not very select, it doesn’t have the capability to pick who it wants to vaporise and who it doesnt….

      On a positive note, it would eradicate loads of poppy fields.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      07:42pm | 08/06/11

      Thanks Rick, for your carefully thought out and well-reasoned rebuttal. 
       
      I’m not fussed what you think. The only thing these people understand is a show of strength.

      And to Frank - yes it did. Omar admitted that Bin Laden was there as a guest. And not only am I a bit old to go over there, I’ve already had my turn in uniform and besides, I’m not interested in an action where you can’t choose to shoot back if someone shoots at you.

    • bananabender says:

      10:34pm | 08/06/11

      The Afghans couldn’t hand over Bin Laden because he was already dead. Madeline Albright the former US Secretary of State has previously said Obama died in late 2001.  The recent Osama “raid” in Pakistan was simply a sham psy-op by the White House. They didn’t show Osama’s body because he’s been dead and buried for over 10 years.

    • Dan says:

      11:13am | 09/06/11

      Tony , you are whats wrong with this society.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:16am | 09/06/11

      @ bananabender: they make tinfoil wraps for bananas, you know.  Get yours today!

    • Gregg says:

      07:29am | 08/06/11

      If it was not so serious and respecting our people and for that matter all people being killed or injured, you would want to have a laugh at the thoughtful commander
      “We have the initiative,” he said in his office at this dusty desert air base east of Dubai.”
      Dubai a long way from Oruzagan and then we have the author is it declaring
      ” This is a high stakes campaign where comparisons to previous wars such as Vietnam are pointless and wrong. “
      ” Not one Australian was killed by a single terrorist trained in Vietnam, but 501 of our young people died in America’s fruitless war against the spread of communism. “
      He seems to fail comprehending that the Taliban did in deed terrorise the Ruskies into leaving their country and if anyone believes that Afghanistan will be peaceful without the Taliban being allowed a say in their own country, they have a strange belief, just as the commander believes they are an insurgency and Oruzgan can be a litmus test for the whole country.

    • marley says:

      08:43am | 08/06/11

      Ah, no.  The Taliban did not “terrorize the Ruskies into leaving their country.” The Taliban only came into existence three or four years after the Russians had left.  It was the mujaheddin, not the Taliban, who fought the Russians.

    • J says:

      11:43am | 08/06/11

      The Talaban WERE the Mujaheddin .... they were trained by the Yanks .... and the northern aliance basiculy hold the same beliefs as the the Talaban .... we are just going tobe re-creating the mistakes of our past!

    • Gregg says:

      12:11pm | 08/06/11

      Yes J, same people, just a different name Marley.
      Just as many generations of Afghans have been fighting invaders for centuries from Alexanders time and no doubt there will be different alliances formed as conflicts develop.

    • Banicks says:

      01:30pm | 08/06/11

      426 Australians were killed in Vietnam.

    • marley says:

      02:38pm | 08/06/11

      Oh for crying out loud - the Taliban were NOT the mujaheddin.  Look up some of the names of the key Afghan mujaheddin figures of the day and you will find that many of them were not Pashtun, and that in fact they had to fight the Taliban when the latter started their move for power in the mid 90s.  Look up Ahmed Shah Masood - who was a major mujaheddin leader - and you will find that, far from being part of the Taliban, he was murdered by them.  And I have certainly never heard that he favoured blowing up buddhist shrines or destroying television sets or denying schooling to women.

      And another thing, the mujaheddin were indirectly funded by the US;  the Taliban were never funded by the US and certainly never trained by them.  They are a product of the Pakistani ISI, not the CIA.

    • John the Zombie says:

      06:17pm | 08/06/11

      marley even though what you said is all true most the anti us guys will just say ur ill informed or you accept the western media right wing views. The reason for the taliban moving in, is becos Afghanistan after the war with the russian started making economic ties with India. Afghanistan wanted to grow and become successful but Pakistan could not accept having India on one side and a strong allied of India on the other. From this they sent in the taliban a force they had been organising for war against India. The taliban was created to go to war with India but found thier role in kicking out the elected govt of that time.

      Also further more a large portion of the so called mujjahaddin that came from Pakistan were there not to save the Afghan ppl but were Pakistani soldiers been sent to get battle harderned for get this Pakistans next war on India.

    • Paul C says:

      07:38am | 08/06/11

      Will we withdraw our troops by 2014 as “promised” by the Gillard government? Before you say yes, consider that the next election is due by November 2013, and we all know what happens to Labor’s e election commitments after they are returned….......say no more. The truth is we will stay until the job is done, sadly that may be never.

    • John K says:

      09:10am | 08/06/11

      What’s happened people?  Where are all the Labor faithful that usually jump on comments like this and defend whoever happens to be in charge at the time?  Have even these rusted on diehards switched sides?

    • T C says:

      11:32am | 08/06/11

      You expect Labor to be returned after the next election?

      I guess there has to be one…

    • Rick says:

      12:23pm | 08/06/11

      john k “never argue with an idiot he’ll just drag you down to his level and beat yopu with experience”

    • Paul C says:

      12:44pm | 08/06/11

      @ TC -  No there is not an ice cubes chance in hell that Labor will be returned, but it won’t stop them from trying to make impossible promises in response to opinion polls.  Hopefully not enough will fall for it to return her.

    • Denial says:

      01:36pm | 08/06/11

      The funny thing is if the Liberals thought with their heads instead of their dicks we might not be in Afghanistan. The only reason we went to war was because of the love Phony Howard had for George W.

    • CiscoKid says:

      07:48am | 08/06/11

      The sad part about all this death and destruction ,the main instigators of this war ,Bush,Blair and Howard,are all sitting on their porches sipping’ porhry peal ‘with their big fat pensions ,with no accountability.

    • Paul C says:

      08:41am | 08/06/11

      “Sitting on ther porches” - Not the last time I looked.  But if they were, why isn’t the new world order, pulling out?

    • Septimus says:

      10:25am | 08/06/11

      ...and wtf is ‘porhry peal’?

    • Anubis says:

      10:57am | 08/06/11

      I think poor ole CiscoKid was trying to refer to the 1970’/80’s wine fad of Porphyry Pearl (sickly sweet white wine aimed purely at the up and coming bogan wenches of the disco era) in direct competition with Black Tower and Blue Nun

    • d says:

      07:55am | 08/06/11

      With america and britten wanting to pull out faster to save money wont this feel more and more as a victory for the taliban and have the conflicts esculating?

      I can only see this getting worse for australian troops. Expect higher casualties to come, lots more closer to the 2014 end date.

      I wonder if Obama will be on an aircraft carrier with a huge banner stating mission complete?

    • MD says:

      09:05am | 08/06/11

      The US won’t pull out until they have another war to fight, their economy relies far too much on the military-industrial complex to only fight one war at a time.

    • murray says:

      10:18am | 08/06/11

      MD, the Republican’s are already building a case for war against Iran.
      So our PM and our Oppostion leader both want our troops still in Afghanistan so they can be readily re-deployed to take up the new “threat” to our nation, “democracy” and “way of life”. I suppose we will then install another murderous Shah and repeat the whole process.

    • Grant says:

      02:08pm | 08/06/11

      murray i think you mean iran had a Shah and today’s rulling party is murderous.  The shah imprisoned politcal adverseraries, the current ruling party just shoots them on the streets.

    • PaulB says:

      04:10pm | 08/06/11

      It’s America’s ruling party Likud that is (pre)fabricating the case for attacking Iran

    • iansand says:

      08:24am | 08/06/11

      The Taliban do not have to worry about electoral cycles and are playing a long game.  Why take unnecessary risks when all they have to do is keep up a steady rate of US deaths until the US withdraws because of domestic pressure?  3 years?  5 years?  10 years?  They know it will happen eventually.

    • fml says:

      09:50am | 08/06/11

      Well its not like they have any where else to go.

    • CJ Morgan says:

      11:14am | 08/06/11

      Spot on, iansand.  Under various alliances, Afghan tribal people have eventually seen off any hapless would-be invaders from time immemorial.  The Taliban are just the latest - and probably most odious - inheritors of that proud tradition.  While they certainly don’t represent all of the various Afghan tribes and ethnic groups, they are tolerated for nationalistic reasons, if not actively supported.

      As fml very succinctly puts it, it’s their land and they’re not going anywhere

    • Dr Jack says:

      08:28am | 08/06/11

      Our troops are brave and effective…maybe given some of the worst jobs. I hope their losses are not disproportionate.
      The other day, Mr Rudd pronounced that we were a major military power as an incentive for the world to want us (=him) on the security council. But, apart from our troops, we have no military power at all…rusty ships leaning on harbour wharves and keels waiting on building stocks, submarines absent, war planes with no delivery dates, enlistments down.The main RAAF activity seems to be ferrying Labor ministers, the GG and their consorts on stunt tours of no special value to the nation.

    • NF Wallace says:

      08:33am | 08/06/11

      What a load of rubbish.  The writer’s perverse logic is that because Australians have died we have to stay there to watch more Australians die.  History shows the West (or even the truly tough Soviets in the 1980’s) will never win while the Afghans and the rest of their ilk continue to live in a misogynist society controlled by religious nutters who are only interested in their own power and what they can squeeze from their “society”.  The military wants to stay because what’s a few lives when you can play at war, possibly receive new equipment and all those medals.  It’s time the Australian public was listened to by both the political leadership (sic) of this country and the military.  Out of Afghanistan and all those other places NOW.

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:46am | 08/06/11

      The ‘truly tough Soviets’ ... WTF are you smoking?

      The Russian Army of the 80’s that invaded Afghanistan was full of poorly trained conscripts with 2nd rate gear and litlte training to maintain it. Lets not also forget the situation in the USSR with the place going broke at a rate of knots.

      The Russian Bear losts its teeth during the 70’s but the final nails weren’t driven home till the mid 80’s. Their dismal performance in Afghanistan was a symptom not a cause of their eventual breakup.

    • John says:

      08:54am | 08/06/11

      The only reason why western troops still remain in Afghanistan and US troops remain in Iraq, is because of the strategic positions to Iran. They don’t care about the Taliban. They are waiting for orders from the cabal to strike Iran. They getting restless and dying to strike Iran, but they fear the Americans will revolt against the government, which would cause another American revolution. US generals have already stated they would resign, if obama and his gang decide to attack Iran. Military Iran might not be so easy to defeat. It’s natural defense’s pretty much states no heavy amour on the ground. It’s SAMs would cause havoc on anyone invading their airspace. Plus Russians might get involved. The US only picks on weak military’s, but never Russia or China also not with a 14 trillion dollar debt.

    • Rocksteady says:

      11:42am | 08/06/11

      Saddam wanted to price oil in Euros instead of US dollars
      Gaddhafi wanted gold for oil instead of US dollars
      Iran also wants Euros instead of dollars for their large oil supplies.
      This pressure on removing the dollar from the price of commodities is a major headache for America
      If the US dollar was not the global reserve currency they would be in a situation much worse than Greece is in now.
      Certainly worth losing a few innocent lives over.

    • TheRealDave says:

      01:15pm | 08/06/11

      You forgot to mention gas pipelines in your inane drivel.

      I can only score that as a 3.6 out of 5 on my RantingDrivel-anometer.

      I mean really, its been in all the internet conspiracy theory manifesto’s since Michael Moore made it up all those years ago for his Mockumentary. Don’t even try to pretend you never got the memo.

    • John says:

      02:08pm | 08/06/11

      So if the west takes the gamble to strike Iran for the US dollar or Israel’s long term interest this could cause the financial and military collapse of the entire west if they lose. The Chinese will then invade the US, Russia will invade Europe and Alaska, arabs will invade the south of Spain again!. WWIII for Israel’s long term interests and America’s corrupt dollar, is it really worth it?

    • Mark says:

      09:09am | 08/06/11

      You cannot win a war in the conventional sense against a well organised and well funded internal enemy (see Ireland, Israel, Vietnam).  You either negotiate with the “insurgents” or get out.  If you don’t the casualty lists keep going up.  Sure, leaving Afghanistan will result in civil war but if they as a people are so hungry for freedom and democracy then let them shed their blood to achieve it.  I have no problem with providing the weapons to the “good guys” to carry on the fight but any further loss of life of our nation’s youth is a price too high for us to continue to pay.  As for our troops effecting cultural change…these people are tribal,  who apart from the weapons they now use, have remained locked in their social, political and religious beliefs since antiquity….and we think we can change all of that by 2014?  Who are we trying to kid?  BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW.

    • Grant says:

      02:14pm | 08/06/11

      so what you’re saying is, if i have a problem you won’t help but you’re prepared to give me 50 cents so i can call someone that cares?

    • Mark says:

      08:05am | 10/06/11

      Grant, you’re trivialising the matter.  Clearly you’re not the father of an Australian soldier fighting over there, if you were then perhaps your view might be a little different.  But you are typical of those without any personal stake in this conflict.  For you its all about the great ideal and bugger the cost.  Are the lives of Australian soldiers so cheap to you? Clearly if they are the sons or daughters of others you couldn’t care less, just as long as they’re not yours.  Yes, mate you can have the 50c…but for the petrol not the phone call…oh I forgot, expecting someone like you to actually walk to a service station would be asking too much.  People like you always expect some other poor sap to do the hard yards for them.

    • Mark says:

      09:11am | 08/06/11

      You cannot win a war in the conventional sense against a well organised and well funded internal enemy (see Ireland, Israel, Vietnam).  You either negotiate with the “insurgents” or get out.  If you don’t the casualty lists keep going up.  Sure, leaving Afghanistan will result in civil war but if they as a people are so hungry for freedom and democracy then let them shed their blood to achieve it.  I have no problem with providing the weapons to the “good guys” to carry on the fight but any further loss of life of our nation’s youth is a price too high for us to continue to pay.  As for our troops effecting cultural change…these people are tribal,  who apart from the weapons they now use, have remained locked in their social, political and religious beliefs since antiquity….and we think we can change all of that by 2014?  Who are we trying to kid?  BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW.

    • Rick says:

      01:36pm | 08/06/11

      Provide weapons to the good guys? who might they be? The people who pay the highest price?Only thing is the sepo’s did this but then the good guys turned out to be the bad guys.Who are we fooling? Only ourself’s.

    • Mike says:

      09:25am | 08/06/11

      ‘We honour the fallen by staying the course’

      Hearing that phrase makes me shudder. It is exactly the dogma that killed millions more than might have otherwise by prolonging the first world war (and setting the foundations for the even more terrible second world war and the rise of both left and right wing extremism in the 20th century).

      We should only ever stay in a conflict if it remains in our own national interest. Not one second longer. And we should certainly never for some antiquated notion of ‘honour’. That attitude leads to disaster in the long run.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      10:07am | 08/06/11

      @Mark excellent comments and well thought out and written I wholeheartedly agree with you.
      No matter what crap you see our politicians spouting on TV and shedding crocodile tears you cannot hide the FACT that this was started on a lie and that no invading force back to Genghis Khan has been able to defeat the Mujahadeen or any of the tribal forces, at some stage we will leave with our tail between our legs just like the russians and then watch these dirtbag so called leaders of this nation try and spin the wasted loss of Australian lives.

    • Septimus says:

      10:21am | 08/06/11

      I Call Bullshit!

    • JJ of SC says:

      11:39am | 08/06/11

      How about honouring the fallen by making sure their pension indexing is as good as the indexing of pensions for MPs and old age pensioners! That way, those who survive have a chance of supporting themselves when they get thrown on the scrap heap!

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      11:48am | 08/06/11

      @Septicmus you call ICB on what?

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:49am | 08/06/11

      @Sir Ron, you may want to actually read a bit of history instead of quoting bollocks. Afghanistan has bene invaded and governed by ‘foreign’ forces many times in its history. Genghis Khan, Alexander and the Brit Empite aren’t the only people to have invaded the place over the past thousand years or so.

      Why do people keep quoting this bollocks?? 5 minutes on Google would give you a better clue as to the history of the region. Is it that bloody hard??

      *sheesh*

    • Gregg says:

      12:19pm | 08/06/11

      @The Oh really Dave!
      Sure there has been some governing between conflicts but do have a much more detailed read of the mix.

    • TheRealDave says:

      01:04pm | 08/06/11

      You do know there is a few years in betwwen Alex the Pretty Awesome, Ghengis Khan, Victorian Britain and the 1980 invasion by the Sovs don’t you Greg with an extra G ??

      You are citing examples that encompass all of about 20 year in total of an area with those examples taking place across near 2 500 years.

      A bit of context goes a long way don’t you think?

      or we could do the easy thing and cherry pick a few incidents and ‘extrapolate’ it out to come up with a load of bollocks if we like? its like finding 4 blokes who prefer redheads over blondes and say categorically that all men love red heads and always have.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      01:31pm | 08/06/11

      @the real dave… well I suppose if you call governing what the russians did then loosely I cant argue with skewed logic like that. What I said was the Mujahadeen and tribes had never been defeated and they havent.
      I didnt google, Ive been there and have met locals and have several friends working and serving there.
      They are a proud divided people who for the most part want the same things you want for your families, stability, food, education, healthcare, shelter and other basics and most of all peace.

    • Grant says:

      02:20pm | 08/06/11

      all I’m hearing here is an argument that says its too hard so why bother, with a heap of support from other people.  A case of nobody else could do it so why try, is that correct?  There are Afghans that want a better life (80,000 + their families)  - we need to do more than give them a hand out, pat them on head and tell them to go away and get on with it.

    • Septimus says:

      05:57pm | 08/06/11

      This conflict remains in our national interest.

    • John the Zombie says:

      12:44am | 09/06/11

      Let me state this again for you ppl who seem to not want to listern. Afghanistan has been conquered before and before the rule of the British in India the portion of it was controlled under the Sikh empire. This empire occupied and controlled vast areas of Afghanistan. Maybe if you did your history researching properly you will work this out or is it that you cant comprehend that a religion which is the fifth largest in the world was able to defeat the mighty Afghans.

      Even read about the battle or Saragarhi in which 21 sikhs soldiers held off over 5,000+ pashtus soldiers till the forces arrived to stop the pashtu assualt in Afghanistan.

    • Anon says:

      09:32am | 08/06/11

      “The only reason why western troops still remain in Afghanistan and US troops remain in Iraq, is because of the strategic positions to Iran. They don’t care about the Taliban. They are waiting for orders from the cabal to strike Iran.”
      Iran has openly vowed to wipe Israel and its people off the map once they reach full nuclear capability. Regardless of who you may think is right, this fact is the current underlying critical point in the region. If Iran intends to live up to its promise it would mean the release of nuclear weapons and the destruction of Israel with millions of people.

    • fml says:

      09:58am | 08/06/11

      Ahmadinejad never said that.

      ““Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian,”“

      ““He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.”“

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html

      He called for regime change, not to be wiped off the map.

      Iran is part of the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty, they are allowed to use Nuclear resources as a peaceful power source. The only non-signatories are India, Israel, Pakistan and North-Korea.

    • Kevin says:

      10:15am | 08/06/11

      Rubbish.  How many nukes does Israel have?
      Do you seriously believe Iran would fire some wobbly missile in the general direction of Israel knowing that Israel’s response would be the obliteration of Iran?

    • AdamC says:

      10:27am | 08/06/11

      Fml, your argument is semantic and your linked article is clearly politically (not linguistically) motivated. Not to mention, it doesn’t even reach the conclusion you seem to think it does.

      To argue that the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel is akin merely to ‘regime change’ is dishonest and absurd. Ahmadinejad does not just want a change of government in Israel, he wants Israel to cease to exist.

      Now, you can argue about whether this would involve a second holocaust or whether Ahmedinejad’s vision would permit Jews to continue to live in ‘Islamrael’ as second-class citizens under some kind of Islamic theocracy, but I regard either of those outcomes as being acceptable. 

      The ability of the Middle East to trigger ‘useful idiot’ disorder in unworldly westerners deserves some sort of academic attention.

    • fml says:

      11:20am | 08/06/11

      AdamC,

      Its anything but dishonest. He never said Wipe Israel off the map, Iran hasnt started a war for hundreds of years.

      You are taking a purposeful error in translation and saying he wants to kill all Israelis, How do you come to this conclusion? what has Iran done to make you think this? how much of it is just western propaganda?

      You cannot tell me the West does not flagrantly make up excuses to invade countries, have you forgotten Iraq already?

      Yep, make up some stuff Ahmedinejad said and use it for justification for another invasion.

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:54am | 08/06/11

      Ahh yes, another Dill spruiking absolute bollocks about Iran

      According to you clowns we were supposed to have ‘troops in trenches outside Tehran’ by 2004…....still watiing…....

      Back under your rock with you!

    • DJ says:

      01:04pm | 08/06/11

      Iran wants regime change in Israel = bad
      US wants regime change in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Venzuela, Saudi Arabia ... wait, not Saudi Arabia!

    • mike j says:

      01:07pm | 08/06/11

      AdamC, your own arguments are irrelevant drivel motivated by your inability to see past your own bigotry and sense of ethnic superiority.

      The ‘second holocaust’ has already started, and the Jews are its perpetrators.

      Your post is based on the assumption that someone said “the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel is akin merely to ‘regime change’”, when this never actually happened. Why don’t you get back to us when you’ve learned how to read and can contribute to a logical debate.

    • AdamC says:

      03:07pm | 08/06/11

      Mike J, I usually don’t respond to people like you - what’s the point? - but I will make an exception to point out that Fml did, in her comment, state that Ahmadinejad called for regime change in Israel, rather than Israel’s ‘wiping from the map’. It is clearly you who needs to learn how to read.

      Fml, actually, I did not say Ahmadinejad wants to kill all Israelis. Read my post again. And I think the only people who doubt the Iranian regime’s implacable hostility to israel - expressed not just in words but also in its support of anti-Israel terrorist organisations - are radical Islam’s deluded western fan club.

    • fml says:

      03:57pm | 08/06/11

      AdamC,

      Begin with the name calling, FML is a he.

      I was initially responding to Anon’s statement about wiping off the map, You responded with that with “Islamrael”. A more moderate solution would someone who is willing to implement a two state solution, but just jump to extremes hey.

      “are radical Islam’s deluded western fan club.” Tsk tsk, now imagine your uproar if i were to call you a zionist. How bout we just leave the name calling and extreme emotive repsonses out of this.

    • mike j says:

      04:00pm | 08/06/11

      “Mike J, I usually don’t respond to people like you”

      I can see why. Being wrong all the time must be rough on your self esteem.

    • iansand says:

      04:04pm | 08/06/11

      Enough of this pussyfooting about translations.  We need a modern day Cato - “Carthago delenda est”.  No mistaking his meaning there.

    • fml says:

      04:56pm | 08/06/11

      iansand,

      so your prepared to kill hundreds of thousands of people including your own servicemen, because a bad man said a bad, bad thing?

      Smoking gun, shock and awe, everything is bigger in texas, rootin tootin wooohar!

    • AdamC says:

      05:21pm | 08/06/11

      Fml, I guess in my mind I thought fml means female. I shall remember you are a ‘he’ for future reference.

      And I fully accept I am a zionist, in that I support the existence of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. That is not incompatible with supporting a negotiated two state solution, which I support.

      The Iranian regime does not support the existence of a Jewish state in the middle east. I have never heard any commentator (let alone a serious one) argue that Iranian policy is to tolerate Israel’s continued existence under any ‘regime’, irrespective of the implementation of a negatiated peace between Israel and the palestinians. However you want to translate Ahmadinejad’s inflammatory rhetoric, you can’t seriously argue that his agenda is anything less than the destruction of the ‘zionist entity’.

    • mike j says:

      06:12pm | 08/06/11

      “That is not incompatible with supporting a negotiated two state solution, which I support.”

      Good for you, AdamC. Most intelligent thing I’ve ever heard you say. Unfortunately, I’m going to have to ruin it for you.

      How much of Jerusalem are you prepared to give back?

    • iansand says:

      09:15pm | 08/06/11

      fml - Deep breaths will help.

    • mike j says:

      11:32am | 09/06/11

      Come on, AdamC. We know you’ve read this.

      How much of Jerusalem goes back to the Palestinians in your negotiated two state solution?

    • AdamC says:

      10:55pm | 09/06/11

      Mike J, evidently, your inability to read extends to my posts. Like I said, I don’t respond to people like you. (I realise that by my making this comment, you have got your little attention-derived dopamine hit. So, as you can see, I’m a charitable guy.)

    • Anubis says:

      09:35am | 08/06/11

      The Gillard announcement that, regardless of the UK and the US withdrawing from Afghanistan, our troops will stay is absolutely insane. Successive Governments have run our defence forces down to the extent that we are unable to deliver support services and logistics to the troops on the ground without the US providing said logistics services. Once the US pulls out our troops will be on their own with no logistics supports, no aerial drone surveillance, insufficient air support etc, etc. Even proper clothing equipment has been subsidised by our troops “mag-pieing” from the US forces. The few f-18’s and helicopters that we have over there are far from being sufficient for tactical support. Keeping our troops on the ground after the US and UK pull out is suicide. You have to wonder just where Gillard’s brain is at the moment ?

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:53am | 08/06/11

      Are you a complete idiot or just doing work experience in the role?

      When exactly did anyone ever say that Australian troops would be on their Pat Malone after the US and UK pull out? Please cite me a singel reference to that load of bollocks you’ve jut made up. A single reference will do.

      You might be interested to know, but I doubt it, that the UK has around 5 000 troops in Afghanistan, the US well over 100 000. Do you honestly think for a second that every single one of those troops will be home before the last of our 1 500 Diggers are home??

      Seriously?

      Did you miss every single news reference to ‘troop drawdowns’ and the schedules they are talking about for withdrawign troops over the next few years thats been on every news service in the Western World for…oh…the past year??

      Fair Dinkum

    • Anubis says:

      12:32pm | 08/06/11

      @TheRealDave - Did you miss Gillard’s announcement that regardless of US/UK withdrawal our troops will stay.

    • TheRealDave says:

      01:23pm | 08/06/11

      She never said any such thing. She said our troops woudl remain in Afghanistan to help train/mentor the growing Afghan army and gradually turn over control to the local troops - which we have already been doing in secured areas. Which is also what the Poms AND the US have been doing, as well as all the other international troops have been doing. And as we give control over to a better trained and equipped Afghan army we get to gradually pull our troops out which should be complete by 2014….or did you somehow think that meant that at 5pm next Thursday 100 000 Us troops will jump on a couple of big-ish planes and come home leaving our 1 500 Digs standing their with their junk in their hand for the next 3 years??

      Fair dinkum, I know I give far too many people credit for even a modicum of intelligence when I shouldn’t…but really….no-one who has had a half decent modern education should need it spelt out to them in tedious details before it sinks in.

    • Pete says:

      09:45am | 08/06/11

      oruzgan is but one province, it’s not the whole country. A country that has never been subjugated by anyone including Alexander the Great. What makes us so arrogant as to think we can win any conflict there? Proping up a corrupt regime supporting the US in a war they really dont have a heart for.  Hang on, de ja vu.  Havent we done this before and heard the same lines from the politicians, yes our losses were small then to, but when those guys got home, wow, they are still paying the price for Vietnam, but the pollies didn’t and still aren’t

      When are we going to learn?

      BRING THEM HOME.
      10 years this crap has been going on and for what?

    • AAAdam says:

      09:09am | 09/06/11

      “Proping up a corrupt regime supporting the US in a war they really dont have a heart for”

      Where do I start? The Afghan Govt was democratically elected by its people. They also have many 10’s of thousands more soldiers fighting in this war than the US has soldiers in their country. Far from being a corrupt regime fighting a war their heart isn’t in; they are a democratic country using everyone they can to fight for the future of their country. Indeed, they are so keen to win they asked for help from the UN and the US, UK and Australia responded by sending troops to assist.

      “10 years this crap has been going on and for what?”

      To stop Afghanistan once again becoming a terrorist breeding ground. To help prevent the Taliban once again oppressing and enslaving the entire country. To support the legitimate democratic government of Afghanistan in achieving peace, security and prosperity.

    • Elphaba says:

      09:49am | 08/06/11

      My fear is if we don’t leave now, then we never will.  I don’t think it’s a situation that can ever be resolved, and the second we think we have a handle on it and say “Right - mission accomplished” and leave, the Taliban will just come out of their hidey-holes and it’ll be just like it was.

      I think we’re done.

    • Tchom says:

      10:09am | 08/06/11

      When is the job ‘done’ though? When the Taliban is eliminated? When the region is stabilised? Short of a permanent occupation, how do you stop an enemy with decentralised leadership in a region thats dependant on exporting drug?

    • mike j says:

      02:14pm | 08/06/11

      “When is the job ‘done’ though? When the Taliban is eliminated? When the region is stabilised?”

      Yes.

      “Short of a permanent occupation, how do you stop an enemy with decentralised leadership in a region thats [sic] dependant on exporting drug?”

      Policing.

      Any more easy questions?

    • Holdsworthy says:

      10:09am | 08/06/11

      Send the Young Liberals and Young Labor to Afghanistan. That will teach them what real life is about.

    • Che says:

      10:10am | 08/06/11

      How does it make sense to “honor them” by getting more of them killed. Its apparent to everyone that the Afghans will never be beaten. Even Americas own guy Karzai recently threatened to declare war on NATO.

    • bananabender says:

      10:15am | 08/06/11

      Rule No 1.

      If you’re in a hole stop digging!

    • Phill says:

      10:40am | 08/06/11

      We aren’t int he hole, we are helping Afghanistan out fo the hole.

    • bananabender says:

      11:11am | 08/06/11

      Utter rubbish.

      Most Afghans don’t want democracy. They want to have sex with 8 year old boys, smoke cannabis, take bribes and beat women - just like they been doing for centuries

    • Ando says:

      11:48am | 08/06/11

      Phill,
      There are many reasons given for spending trillions on the war in Afghanistan. You have chosen the least believable one.

    • lol says:

      10:18am | 08/06/11

      “This is a high stakes campaign where comparisons to previous wars such as Vietnam are pointless and wrong”  bullshit
      just replace “Afghanistan” with “Vietnam”  and Taliban with VietCong and this crap could have been written 30 years ago we are going to be pulling out accept it , its just a question of when not IF. what next published kill counts? to show the progress your making

    • TheRealDave says:

      12:11pm | 08/06/11

      I agree.

      Vietnam - VietCong absolutely spanked. They were destroyed as an effective fighting force, especially after Tet. If you actually do remember your history it was a North Vietnamese tank that rolled over the gates of the Presidential palace after the North invaded the country en masse in 1975 – not a few blokes in Black PJ’s and bamboo hat. A whinging Public fed absolute tosh by the media who spent more time in Saigon enjoying the particular delights of that town, especially the cheap drinks and bar girls. A military hamstrung by politicians thousands of miles away with no military experience not giving them the troops and tools to do the job properly, imposing absolutely criminal rules and excusions that got plenty of our own troops killed. Eventual withdrawal and waste of 50 000 US and 500 Australian lives with job only half done.

      Afghanistan - well…exactly the same really….except we get professional handwringers who have nothing to risk wetting themselves every time a single Digger is killed, pretending they care, but are more interested in publicly moaning about the death than the actual person in the uniform serving his country or the job they are doing.

      About the only difference between the two is that in Afghanistan we don’t have a proper army coming into Afghanistan and have us pretending they aren’t there ... while fighting them. If Pakistan started sending troops over the border to fight us in league with the Taliban then it would be pretty much the same.

      Like Vietnam, every time the ‘enemy’ pokes its head up we are giving them an absolute towelling….yet every time we lose a soldier you lot want to surrender and come home. Pathetic. If it was up to you lot we would have sailed home 10 minutes after the Duncan Chapman hit the shores on Gallipoli and 35 seconds after the first bombs fell on Darwin.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:41pm | 08/06/11

      “If it was up to you lot we would have sailed home 10 minutes after the Duncan Chapman hit the shores on Gallipoli ...”

      Respectfully, that looks like an own goal given the thousands of lives we lost there in what is acknowledged as a military blunder of the first order.

    • Grant says:

      02:26pm | 08/06/11

      well said TheRealDave.  And i think your point has gone completely over St.  Michaels head.

    • St. Michael says:

      02:31pm | 08/06/11

      @ Grant: Hardly.  I get Dave’s point entirely.  Mine is merely that there are some very stupid military missions where you shouldn’t go at all.  There’s a fine line between courageous and foolhardy, and most of the time the difference is determined by the moron ordering you to that location to begin with.

    • Barney says:

      10:21am | 08/06/11

      Ian McPhedran , what rubbish , we are there because of our alliance with the US and our soldiers will not come home until the US allow it .

    • michael j says:

      10:22am | 08/06/11

      Well after reading all comments i can say this probably the first time i can find no fault with any of them,they are all correct in their own way ,,
      As for the Author who gets his information from Dubai,i have my doubts that he understands what is going on , as to who is in charge or will be when NATO leaves, nothing will change if the troops leave today,4 years time,or indeed 10 years time,,to Honour the fallen by staying engaged in a pointless exercise
      is the wrong course of action ,, Troops out now ,(all of them )

    • Septimus says:

      10:27am | 08/06/11

      LMAO at all the experts casting their votes from their armchairs.

    • michael j says:

      11:43am | 08/06/11

      @ YEAH if we all had a couple of bottles of 30 yr olde Scotch an a few Cuban cigars we feel like 4 star Generals,,wonder if the General in Dubai is exempt from gettin his head chopped off for tipplin the wrist in that country,,

    • Phill says:

      10:37am | 08/06/11

      The willingness of those to abandon Afghanistan to its fate is indicative of the problems in society today.  We have the capability to help, we should do everything in our power to do so.  Selfish selfish people calling to abandon them.
      God help us if Australia ever needs outside assistance.

    • Dave-o says:

      10:45am | 08/06/11

      “This is a high stakes campaign where comparisons to previous wars such as Vietnam are pointless and wrong.

      Not one Australian was killed by a single terrorist trained in Vietnam, but 501 of our young people died in America’s fruitless war against the spread of communism.”

      I was under the impression the soldiers in Afghanistan were fighting a militia force who sheltered terrorists. Much like the Viet Cong.

    • bananabender says:

      11:20am | 08/06/11

      The South Vietnamese were defeated by the North Vietnamese Army. The NVA were professionals trained and equipped by the USSR. The NVA had advanced jet fighters, tanks and anti-aircraft missiles.

    • TheRealDave says:

      01:30pm | 08/06/11

      If anything, the VC were a more cohesive force fighting for common ideals and politics across the entire country as it was a tthe time.

      Afghanistan is like a whle bunch of different VC groups, some of whom might work together but most would just as easily turn their guns and IEDs on each other as western troops. I mentioned it the other day, your average Dig in Oruzgan is more likely to get a pot shot taken at him by a local who’s in a tribe that is unaligned with the tribes running the Kabul Government for simply being seen as associated with those tribes rather than a diehard Taliban or Fundy nutjob doing it for Allah and Virgins.

    • James1 says:

      04:47pm | 08/06/11

      Also, the VC were actually fighting an anti-democratic autocracy, and later a military dictatorship, albeit on behalf of another one.

      The Taliban are fighting for a monstrous system, against a democratic, constitutional one.  As such, the government we support might be flawed, but it is a far cry from Thieu or Diem.

      I hate this Afghanistan=Vietnam analogy so much.  It is incorrect on every level, but like so many of these memes, it seems to have taken hold despite its fundamental flaws.

    • Roger Ramjet says:

      10:56am | 08/06/11

      The US will pull out the majority of its forces within the next 18-24 months. “Austerity” that is now running through European economies is about to be forced onto America. Keynesian economics has failed as was always going to. When new fiscal discipline is imposed, the first thing that will be cut will be the US’ gargantuan “defense” spend including the “off budget” war against terror. Australia will follow accordingly, as victory is declared to save face.

    • Mensur Cehic says:

      11:09am | 08/06/11

      Mr. McPhedran,
      Surely the enemy is not “cowardly” and “fanatical” at the same time.

      Regards,

      Mensur Cehic

    • TheRealDave says:

      12:12pm | 08/06/11

      You mean like firing out of compunds filled with women and children who they won’t let out to get out of harms way?

    • Daveaswell says:

      01:10pm | 08/06/11

      The Real Dave,
      War is terrible and voilent and suceeding in your goals is all that matters. Anyone who thinks the Taliban are cowards because they are prepared to use anything they can to defeat an opponent who is hundreds of times more powerful in resources and firepower is making the most fundamental of mistakes. These guys are formidable if not that tactically effective and the propensity for ruthlessness is designed to make our choices all the more difficult. At the end of the day this is about who is there at the end and still committed to do what it takes. This will be decided by strategic realities of the US and global economies not by tactical superiority. No more Counter Insurgency move to SF based CT and get the majority of troops out of the area.

    • Otto von Bismarck says:

      11:35am | 08/06/11

      ‘The entire Balkans are not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian Grenadier.’

    • bikinis on top says:

      11:56am | 08/06/11

      We honor the fallen by leaving afghanistan and iraq now.
      We honoured the fallen and stayed the course too long in vietnam,iraq,and afghanistan.
      Please learn from Vietnam’s mistakes and withdraw from Afghanistan right now.

    • bikinis on top says:

      11:59am | 08/06/11

      Stop the mass media bulldust.
      Get australian troops out of iraq and afghanistan now.
      Send all Liberal Party supporters to fight in Afghanistan instead if we must have troops there.Current they are stasying the course on the golf course!

    • Grant says:

      02:32pm | 08/06/11

      ummm why wgouls we send the Liberal party when its the Greens/ labor running this war at the moment?, then Labor have had years to reverse the decision to be there and Greens nearly a year.  you need to look beyond the Liberal party and check your backyard.

    • bikinis on top says:

      12:02pm | 08/06/11

      Liberal Party Voters and the Mass media only stay the course at the golf course.
      ignore their crystal golf balls now! Out of the Middle East now!

    • Frank says:

      12:05pm | 08/06/11

      No offense but if you don’t want to be shot at don’t join the army. It comes with the job.

    • RyaN says:

      12:15pm | 08/06/11

      @Frank: same goes for coppers then?

    • RyaN says:

      12:14pm | 08/06/11

      “We honour the fallen by staying the course”  who says so? You?
      Personally I find it highly offensive to use the deaths of our citizens to further your own agenda.

    • TheRealDave says:

      01:10pm | 08/06/11

      You mean like not giving a toss about the soldier who’s picture is in the paper, who’s name you never botherd to learn, who’s name if you learnt it you wouldn’t remember it in a week anyway, who was doing a job you know nothing about and don’t particularly want to find out about, but using his death to bleat about ‘bringing our boys home’ and any other snazzy catchphrase than pops up or is dredged up from conflicts generations ago, in a war you really don’t give a shit about anyway?

      I agree RyaN

    • RyaN says:

      01:40pm | 08/06/11

      @TheRealDave: “doing a job you know nothing about ” unfortunately I know far too much about this job, more than likely more than you!

    • Denial says:

      01:48pm | 08/06/11

      Ryan it worked for Phonny Howad. Also have you not seen war? Where was that in your dreams?

    • Denial says:

      01:49pm | 08/06/11

      That right Cryan you were a freedom fighter

    • RyaN says:

      01:56pm | 08/06/11

      @TheRealDave: “Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war.  ~Otto Von Bismark”

      ...clearly this very true saying doesn’t mean a thing to you.

    • RyaN says:

      05:25pm | 08/06/11

      @Denial: still not getting any attention at home mate?

    • Denial says:

      06:15pm | 08/06/11

      RyaN just playing. But you might me right

    • RyaN says:

      04:31pm | 10/06/11

      @Denial: yeah me neither!

    • bikinis on top says:

      12:31pm | 08/06/11

      the government is out of step on afghanistan and gay marriage and petrol.

    • Harquebus says:

      12:34pm | 08/06/11

      I would like to see a little condemnation given to George, Tony and John. They’re all living a great life and they sleep well too.

    • Pete says:

      12:34pm | 08/06/11

      You know all the pro afgan war people, pollies included state there are high stakes involved.
      What are they? I’ve yet to hear one

    • Kika says:

      12:45pm | 08/06/11

      The troops need to come home. Fixing Afghanistan will never happen. We’re not their on humanitarian grounds, otherwise we’d have no issue with their asylum applications. We’re there to serve th interests of our mate the USA. That is all.

    • DJ says:

      12:51pm | 08/06/11

      The Bali bombings were committed by Indonesians. 9/11 by Saudis.  The Madrid bombers were mostly Moroccans. The London bombers were home grown with Pakistani connections.  Not one of these prominent incidents was planned, implemented or even fomented by Afghanis.  So how are these incidents in any way justification for the ongoing atrocities in Afghanistan?

      The argument here seems to be that the way to justify a futile war is to keep fighting it.  We sent those guys to die, and we don’t glorify that sacrifice in any way by sending more to die.

    • Lenny says:

      12:57pm | 08/06/11

      How can News Ltd have credibility with its reports if its defence correspondant is on record as a fan of a particular war? How can we have any faith in the objectivity of reporting from the field? What would happen if a story came up that showed the efforts in the war are not working? I think I can guess.

    • John says:

      02:23pm | 08/06/11

      The entire western media is corrupt, they just spew out the party the line. You think the first attempt of a democratic society was successful? I think not! You think Bankers, Cooperations and the Influential men of society would allow the direction of their interests to be decided by the uneducated public mass’s? It’s biggest farce, biggest facade and swindle in history. They manipulate society, they justify their policy’s with hocus pocus and they are the only ones with the only voice!! they are the only ones that determine the level of debate, they are the ones that determine what we see and hear. They determine was wrong and right, whats evil and what is not…It’s utterly amazing.

    • Mick says:

      01:00pm | 08/06/11

      but why are we there in the first place, if it is to make a “better” life for the civilian population so be it but we all know it is to protect the oil pipelines for the good old USA.

    • Kika says:

      02:19pm | 08/06/11

      And if it was for the civilians we would be accepting their asylum applications as we did for the Kosovars without question back in the late 90’s.  And yes, they were Muslims too.

    • Mark says:

      01:00pm | 08/06/11

      War is War. Its nasty and ugly. If we leave, what happens to Pakistan? They wouldnt last a minute, then would go India and so on.

      Pakistan have a number of nukes available to them, what next? How easy would it be for one of those to end up in Europe or ever here if that nation was to fall to insurgents.  My greatest concern is how spineless Australians are. It has really come to the front of how pathetic some people are in this country. A real hide under the bed attitude.

      We ran from Rwanda, Somalia and the Balkans and look what happened there. If anything, we need to increase or flood the place with not only troops but service providers as well.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:40pm | 08/06/11

      Pakistan seemed to be managing with its nuclear weapons for decades next to the nest of terror which is allegedly Afghanistan.  They aren’t radicals in there, or at least they weren’t until Afghanistan happened.  They didn’t want radical Islamists in Pakistan any more than we did.

      Simple fact is we have created the threat by going into Afghanistan at all.

      Rwanda and Somalia are also not the West’s fault.  If you look at the history of the African continent you will find that sort of sickening genocide has been going on for close on a hundred years without any intervention or prompting from the West at all.  The Kingston Trio had a song called “They’re Rioting in Africa” the upshot of which they are, and absent a massive cultural shift they always will be.  That is not our problem to fix, any more than it was the British’s prerogative to “civilise the natives” while they were there.

      As for the Balkans: look up this little thing called World War One and look to what caused it.  Not for nothing have the Balkans always been called the tinderbox of Europe.

      War is War.  It’s nasty and ugly.  More specifically, when it’s engaged in it amounts, in the final analysis, to sending a lot of young men and women out to commit mass killings of other human beings.  For that reason alone you should only do it when you have no other alternative.  That is why the US Congress is meant by the Constitution to declare war and *not* the President unilaterally.  That requirement has been ignored for the past thirty or forty years or so, and the results—bad wars, bad decisions to start wars—are apparent.

      The US and Australia had plenty of alternatives other than putting us in Afghanistan on a continuing basis, and they chose none of them.

    • marley says:

      04:14pm | 08/06/11

      @St. Michael - sorry, but I disagree about Pakistan.  There’s always been a radical element there, and it’s been especially influential within the ISI, who, after all, trained, mentored and financed the Taliban back in the 90s.

      Pakistan has a thin veneer of westernisation amongst the 50 or so wealthy families that run the joint, and amongst the senior military types, but beyond that lies a vast, uneducated or semi-educated populace which has been easy prey for radical politicians and leaders. 

      That was the case in Pakistan well before we went into Afghanistan - after all, it was Pakistan that supported the Taliban’s overthrow of the preceding Afghan government, and that was well before 9/11 or any meaningful western intervention in the region. 

      Incidentally, I agree with the rest of your points, but on this one, not so much…

    • St. Michael says:

      04:55pm | 08/06/11

      I guess the only point to be made is that since the military appears to control the nukes, and as with Egypt, the military is not radical Islamist, suggestions we went into Afghanistan to prevent an Islamic Domino Effect are a bit specious.  They’ve had nukes in Pakistan since, when, the seventies or so?

    • marley says:

      07:23pm | 08/06/11

      @St. Michael - no, Pakistan has only had nukes since the late 90s (I happened to be there when they tested some of them) - and there are most definitely elements within their military that I wouldn’t trust so far as I could toss them - so, I suspect the assorted intelligence bodies in the US, the UK, Russia, India and China are not happy campers.  Pakistan has been a dysfunctional state with a heavy element of extremism for years - and it is in part at least a cause, not a result, of some of the issues we have with Afghanistan.  It’s a scary, scary place.

    • Greg says:

      01:04pm | 08/06/11

      Ian, while I respec the sentiment behind your views, I cannot disagree with them any more strongly.
      “We honour the memory of the fallen by standing firm and to keep our country and our children safe we must persevere in Afghanistan - and that will involve further sacrifice.” - This is fundamentally flawed, for the simple reason that it has no theoretical end until the very last “enemy” has fallen.

      Do you sincerely believe that these brave young men, now in a better place, are looking down and wishing for anything other than peace, and a permanent end to the conflict and suffering?

      Perhaps it’s only at that stage, when life is behind them, that those who see any merit in repetitive violence and death (by any name, and for any cause), will get their “oh shit” moment, when it’s too late to change any of it.

    • Traxster says:

      01:05pm | 08/06/11

      The best way to
      ‘honour the fallen’
      is to bring the boys home.
      NOW !!!!!!

    • James says:

      01:41pm | 08/06/11

      ‘Soul-destroying’ is an expression that refers to boredom or monotony that gradually eliminates motivation. Odd choice of phrase…

    • St. Michael says:

      02:32pm | 08/06/11

      Not if you’re in the US armed forces, it isn’t.

    • J P Killion says:

      01:59pm | 08/06/11

      Don’t you just admire the bravery - with other peoples lives -  of people like this?

    • army born n bred says:

      02:12pm | 08/06/11

      To all the people agasp at this war and want our troops bought home let me remind you this men and women knew what they were going into when they signed that dotted line, this is a war for f**k sake people will die and yes it is terrible and hurts the nation as a whole but what do expect.

      The australian military has been out of war for so long that we freak out at the first sign of casualties and yes ill admit the loss of LC jones and the most recent death ( cant recall his name) were worse due to the fact they held no combat role but war is war and people will die you need to get a grip on this sooner rather than later because you are just insulting the dead by demanding our boys bought home, we have now lost a total of 27 soilders this is nothing compared to the other coalition forces and i know we dont care about the other forces we only care about our military but the whole point of a military is to defend and our ALLIES are there fighting just like we are and it would be very un australian to leave our mates in a blue so we wont pull out until america and the poms have pulled out and doubt that will happen any time soon, so you may as well sit back and support our boys the best way you can instead of wasting your time ranting about how this isnt our war and our boys should be bought home, because this is our war now and our boys dont care what you think unless you are serving beside them.

      My deepest sympathy goes out to the families of these brave men you should be proud of your boys/ husbands they served their country to the uttermost capabilty, i know nothing any one says will take the pain away of losing a loved one but i hope you find some closure in the fact that these men serve with honor and distictions beyond what these keyboard warrior nay sayers could ever possibly fathom.

      Gilllard was a mistake but she is making one right decision and that is to stay there and continue the mission until it is complete and i think if you have never served in somthing like this than you have no right to belittle and betray the people who are. these men belive in what they are doing and wont faulter for any one. my respect to the soilders in deployment or awaiting deployment you have the thanks of the country.

    • St. Michael says:

      02:33pm | 08/06/11

      ” because this is our war now and our boys dont care what you think unless you are serving beside them.”

      Thank you for so eloquently proving Clemenceau’s point when he said “War is too important to be left to the generals.”

    • Harry says:

      04:19pm | 08/06/11

      We’re not defending our allies at all!  The US forces think we are joke there and are just hiding out in the fringes trying not to get involved in the real rough stuff.  Ask the US troops.

      We are literally making a blood sacrifice for our alliance every few months as a token to our friendship to the US.  Perhaps if Australia as a mate said “come Uncle Sam lets pack this war in its a waste of our time and men” (like a real mate would) we could be proud of ourselves.

    • Henry says:

      02:39pm | 08/06/11

      We honour the fallen by saving the living.

      As in WWI & WWII, not one of the soldiers wounded or dead would wish the same upon anyone - and they were in wars which at least had some sort of purpose, aim or goal.

      This war is even worse than Vietnam in its fuzzy aims and every death should be on the hands of the pollies sending our boys there out of some pathetic sense of loyalty to the US.

      How many more of our young men must die under the ALP watch?  If Australia pulls out it may send another message to Obama to do the same.

    • stephen says:

      06:15pm | 08/06/11

      We won in Vietnam.
      Ever been there ?

    • Col sanders says:

      10:57pm | 08/06/11

      We won in Vietnam. Ever been there ?) I guess you are being factitious, but Yeah, before and after the U.S. Trading with the enemy embargo was lifted.  Those USSR/China supplied high- tec equipped northern army soldiers on ancient bicycles with equally ancient weapons didn’t win. All that footage of tanks smashing down embassy gates and people trying to jump onto escaping helicopters was faked just like the moon landing.

    • James III says:

      02:53pm | 08/06/11

      If anyone has ever read “The Art of War” you would know that the West has NO hope of winning this ‘war’ as the people (the West) are not united and determined to fight this foe.  This is a critical factor in winning a war and is just not there in this case.

      It’s just fact that this war will be a failure.  Any more deaths will be in vain and will be a disgrace given that it is known that the citizens in both the US and Australia etc DO NOT want to fight this war!

      All the tough guy, army, macho BS about staying the course is utter cr*p and they know it.  The ALP already has 27 deaths on its hands.

      We need to pull out, shift the investment into a powerful state of the art Coast Guard to protect our weak sieve like borders and just worry about helping our mates out in the pacific.

      This war is a joke.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      03:35pm | 08/06/11

      Yeah that’s the same drivel we used about Vietnam.  Get over it.

      The Taliban are in control of all of Afghanistan, 50,000 people are fleeing the country on a daily basis, 9 million of the population are starving still, 25-37% of the kids are dying before they are 5, the median age is still just 18, the life expectancy only rose from 44 to 45 for men, women and girls are largely still illiterate and the warlords and barons cream off any aid.

      I would have expected more than this prattle from you Ian.

      We spend $2 billion of the army in AFghanistan, $120 million on aid for 30 million people and $1 billion locking up a few thousand Afghan refugees on the pretext of border protection.

      Now it seems we want to push away some 350 of the worlds’ 4 million Afghan refugees into a prison camp in Malaysia to teach some lesson to some person somewhere who understands the deluded illogic of that.

      It’s time we grew up.  The Afghans hate our guts as they pointed out very clearly in the Frontline program last week.

    • Jack Thomas says:

      05:16pm | 08/06/11

      Lots of stats spouted there Marilyn, makes you sound half knowledgeable, pity none are even remotely true, and all are misused.

      50,000 fleeing daily?

      With a pop’n of 28.3M the country would be empty within 18 months at that rate. Are you even reading your own drivel?

      Nowhere does this refer to Australia accepting asylum seekers, yet you start trotting out figures (again false) on this. Why mention the poor life expectancy, illiteracy, etc. in the context of Australian troop involvement? What do they have to do with the Taliban killing people, banning women from attending school, etc.?

      The Afghani problems are wholly due to the Taliban, who incidentally are responsible for 76% of civilian killings (UN report, 2009).

      You and the Taliban/Al Quaeda claimed Taliban control at least 90% of the country.

      The truth is they actually control directly less than 50% (note, under the influence of, or in dispute, is a whole other thing). Also that does not include the major city Kabul.

      If anything, linking them with Hamas (not the North Vietnamese) is more relevant. Hamas are similar gutless cowards hiding behind women and children.

      4 million Afghani refugees? Again false, you overstated this by a lazy 1 million.

      You suggest there is $120 million in aid being spent, on 28.3 million (again, you overstate by a lazy 1.7 million). Sounds like a lot.

      Except when you consider Australia has allocated $432 million to Papua New Guinea for 2011-12, which has less than 7 million people. Sounds like good value for our money actually…

      Personally I think Australia should pull out of both Afghanistan and Iraq, put a fence up and let those morons kill each other.

      If you and the Taliban want Afghanistan to go back to being in the stone age, let them. Seriously, that’s your option, leave and let the Taliban run the place?

      But that’s beside the point…because your bulldust needs calling on.

    • Amazed says:

      05:35pm | 08/06/11

      How can you mention gay-bloody-marriage and the sacrifice of young people’s lives in the one sentence? You do not honour the fallen by causing more people to fall you idiot! It is a war we cannot, and will not, ever win and they don’t want us there. Bring the troops home now.

    • Bruce says:

      05:42pm | 08/06/11

      Honour the dead with more dead.  Brilliant!!!!

    • possumfella says:

      06:28pm | 08/06/11

      This is a war commented on by arm chair generals. We aren’t at war 1914 style, so don’t expect 100s - 1000s of enemy killed in action. If you are using that as a KPI then you don’t understand a guerilla war. This is a long war that will take time.
      Besides - 6 times as many people have taken their own life in South Australia, 5 times as many people have been killed on the road - why don’t you put this into perspective.

    • St. Michael says:

      10:10pm | 08/06/11

      Citing the road toll is not putting things in perspective.  It’s a straw man argument, and a pathetic one at that.

      The road toll happens because idiots get drunk, speed, or fall asleep at the wheel.

      Combat deaths, by definition, can happen only because the Australian government sends our troops overseas.  It is consciously putting troops in harm’s way.

      No war, no overseas combat deaths.  It is as simple as that.  They are entirely avoidable.  We should never have gone in with troops into Afghanistan, and the only reason we are there now is the vain hope that Obama can look tough on terrorism for the 2012 elections.

    • Gidgee says:

      07:26pm | 08/06/11

      Damien Parer of my younger days was a man who knew how to tell the awful truth about warfare - this bloke McPhedran gives me the shits because he flogs the jingoistic line ad infinitum and mixes that gung-ho tripe with hatred, not for a hardy peoples who are trying to defend themselves from a deadly well-equipped alien enemy but for their religious belief.
      He exhibits a perverse hatred of those who follow the faith of Mohammad.
      We of Australia got suckered into this war of attrition in Afghanistan as we did in Iraq - tens of thousands of the native peoples of those two nations have been slaughtered on the altar of convenience for the oil starved and increasingly desperate USA.
      The Encyclopaedia Britannica, more than fifteen years ago now, advised that the fuel-guzzling USA would cease producing oil for its domestic needs within eight short years - accordingly, the US set its hungry and covetous sights on the mostly untapped but huge oil fields of Turkmenistan - and in the Caspian Sea arena - but to get at that vital requirement it was necessary to subdue the citizenry of Afghanistan while, at the time of the armed attack on Afghanistan (ostensibly chasing a Saudi-Arabian fellow called bin Laden) the need to do harm to Pakistan was not warranted because Musharraf, a stooge of the US was in charge there - since then, of course, Musharraf has been deposed by the peoples of Pakistan so, to enable the oil to flow from the Caspian Sea area, across US occupied Afghanistan and into ports at Pakistan it has now become necessary for the predatory USA to start laying deadly waste to Pakistan.
      Any excuse will do.
      All wars in mankind’s recorded history have been fought over two issues and two issues only: they are the possession of territory and/or trade dominance - the religious aspect is not in the mix as it is simply a congregational meeting place for the oppressed but as we have been led to believe so obviously of late it is ever so convenient to hurl abuse at those who follow the creed of Islam.
      We of Australia have no right whatsoever to use our “defence” forces to strut around the Afghanistan landscape threatening the natives with death - we have been duped into a deadly and costly war all for the benefit of the hegemonic and oil starved Yanks.
      McPhedran is their local cat’s paw and sycophantic gofer..
      Shame on him and shame on us for being so damned gullible.
      Gidgee.

    • Fiat Lux says:

      07:27pm | 08/06/11

      The majority of Australians want to withdraw the Army from Afghanistan . The majority of Australian Politicians want to keep it there . Ergo , Australia is not a democracy . There is a similar situation in Queensland re Daylight Saving . The majority of people want it , the majority of Politicians oppose it .

    • Greg says:

      07:59pm | 08/06/11

      What an utter load of rubbish!!  Only 3 things are certain….(1) terrorism will NEVER be defeated, (2) our involvement serves absolutely no purpose other than to kill our young Australians and (3) the only reason why we are still involved is so our moronic government can please their masters….the US government.

    • Eddy says:

      08:32pm | 08/06/11

      I just LOVE the way folks say support the ILLEGAL MURDER in Afghanistan.
      IF, you think it’s cool to INVADE another country who has done you no wrong, (NO, Afghanistan was NOT involved with Bali, that was America CIA, just imagine, without Bali, Australia would have NO JUSTIFICATION WHATEVER to be involved with Iraq or Afghanistan) go and volunteer your services to the Australian military and put your money and life where your mouth is.
      As a Vietnam Vet, I’ve lived thry this crap once before, and like then, were again being fed LIES by our Govt and our alleged allies.
      Greg comment @ 07:59 pm has got it right. It’s all about serving our MASTERS in the U.S. nothing else. And if you wish to die doing that, fine, go sign up.

    • Col Sanders says:

      11:08pm | 08/06/11

      Right on, As Afghan President Hamid Karzai said to his U.S. masters before he was shut up;  “You have got Bin laden, now go home.’

    • SuetoniAus says:

      10:26pm | 08/06/11

      McPhedran - Rubbish. Absolute rubbish.

      Q. What do Gallipoli, Phuoc Tuy and Uruzgan all have in common? 
      A. Success in any of them wouldn’t have shortened the wars of which they were a part by even a day.

      The loss of more brave men (albeit volunteers) in a vain attempt to ‘stay the course’ is no more of a strategy than that of ‘hope for the best’ that seems to have been guiding this campaign for the last 10 years. If we cannot come up with a better reason to stay than the one that McPhedran offers then we really are lost…

    • Arabian says:

      04:24am | 09/06/11

      It is said US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to secure energy needs, that it desperately requires, PLUS to support ever hungry arms industry…..
      Now apply the same logic…
      China is nearly there as World Power, holding trillion $ worth of bonds, and is hungry for energy…
      where would it go…..  guesss
      Bring troops back home quickly….

    • thingy says:

      09:23am | 09/06/11

      So tell me - just how can we win this ‘war’? This isn’t like WWI and II where the war will be won by the surrender of an enemy. Non-one is going to surrender. The best we can do is try and stop the Taliban (or similar mobs) taking over and the only way we can do that is by staying there.

      So it’s a complete stand-off. It simply cannot be ‘won’. there is no winning, there is just delaying the inevitable.

    • befuddled says:

      09:24am | 09/06/11

      We have absolutely no business propping up a totally corrupt and morally bankrupt administratuion in Kabul. No matter when we leave, the country will decend into civil war. We are just delaying the inevitable. This “war” is unwinnable. Let’s stop this unnecessary lose of young Australian lives right now.

    • Dan says:

      09:45am | 09/06/11

      this writer is a complete moron, how some people still believe we are in Afghanistan to avenge 9/11 baffles me. His closing statement of ;

      “We honour the memory of the fallen by standing firm and to keep our country and our children safe we must persevere in Afghanistan - and that will involve further sacrifice. “

      what complete bullshit. Children safe? from what? from who exactly? What terrorists? if you want to keep them safe, let them have nothing to do with America or its allies, we are the real terrorists, injecting fear into the naive people of this world for our own agenda. What has America benefited from this war?

      NOTHING. Well except billions to private enterprise (see military industrial complex) , and using ‘terror’ as means to install such freedom ridding polices as the “patriot act”. What complete nonsense, but of course due to the media and the hardcore patriots, us realists are seen as a crazed ‘tin foil hat’  movement. All while your being frisked and babies are being scanned by the TSA. So much for liberty. So much for freedom.

      get a clue people.

    • Macon Paine says:

      10:52am | 09/06/11

      Dan, you’ve thrown up a lot of legitimate talking points but let me ask you this.

      Where does the author make reference to 9/11 or avenging 9/11?

      The author says: “We honour the memory of the fallen by standing firm and to keep our country and our children safe we must persevere in Afghanistan - and that will involve further sacrifice. “

      And you go off on a tangent about 9/11. Ever heard of a Strawman? You just set one up.

    • Nathan says:

      11:01am | 09/06/11

      Too right Dan! Well said. Thats right we are the terrorists along with the media and the government trying to tell all of us we are not safe unless we are opressing and fighting a war in an already opressed country.

      While I believe we need to sit this war out now that we are there I do not by any means believe this war is justified.

      What person in their right mind actually believes they killed Bin Laden in the last month? They buried him at sea in accordance to Islamic practices - when have we ever given a damn about Islamic practices during this war?

      The media and the government are playing an extremely transparent game of attempting to dumb down the masses and envoke fear into the general populations life in order to control us.

      The time is now people…

    • Nathan says:

      11:03am | 09/06/11

      Too right Dan! Well said. Thats right we are the terrorists along with the media and the government trying to tell all of us we are not safe unless we are opressing and fighting a war in an already opressed country.

      While I believe we need to sit this war out now that we are there I do not by any means believe this war is justified.

      What person in their right mind actually believes they killed Bin Laden in the last month? They buried him at sea in accordance to Islamic practices - when have we ever given a damn about Islamic practices during this war?

      The media and the government are playing an extremely transparent game of attempting to dumb down the masses and envoke fear into the general populations life in order to control us.

      The time is now people…

    • Dan says:

      11:08am | 09/06/11

      Ok so why else are we there? aren’t we there to avenge the terrorists? he says;

      “More than 100 Australians have been killed by Islamic terrorists around the globe and so far 27 volunteer soldiers have died taking the fight up to this cowardly, fanatical enemy.”

      Hence hes talking about so called terrorists acts yes? (see 9/11)

      what about the Tens of thousands of innocent people that have died in the middle east since the this oppressive war started, and dont get me started on Iraq (remind me, why were we there again?).  This war is nothing but America doing what it always has done, preserving their interests.

      Poppy’s
      Oil
      And not to mention control of the middle east for the next attack which will be Iran. (currently waiting for the next “terror attack” that we can use as an excuse to invade)

    • James says:

      11:14am | 09/06/11

      Ah no, we honour our living soldiers by getting them the f**k out of Afghanistan.

    • Thommo says:

      11:34am | 10/06/11

      OMG - James said something sane

    • Thommo says:

      12:59pm | 09/06/11

      Yep, gotta make sure that heroin keeps flowing. What where the taliban thinking - shutting down the poppy fields? As if teh CIA could allow that. Naive Waifs.

    • James says:

      01:21pm | 09/06/11

      Notice the age of the KIDs being killed in Afghanistan, they are too young to see all this honour and sacrifice bullshit for what it is.  Before you are 25 your brain does not calculate risk well, interesting how the cannon fodder for all the world’s wars are 99% under 25.

      To all the armchair generals saying WE need to go and fight the Taliban, how about you get off your arse and do it, instead of sending kids to the chopping block.

    • sandy says:

      08:18pm | 09/06/11

      Why are we there? Why are our chidren being sacrificed? To protect Australia? From whom? If we took those youngsters out of Afghanistan and Iraq, what would be the downside? Don’t tell me that we would be prey to terrorists. That is an argument that cannot be sustained. The terrorists? They came from Saudi Arabia predominately, the home of Osama Bin Laden, and also the home of the Bush family’s co-shareholders in common oil interests. The Bin Laden family. Don’t believe that? Google it, you gullible morons.
      Sadly, these supporters of Howard’s arse-licking of Bush and his arms selling mates don’t mind the fact of our youngsters being sacrificed. I do, and obviously so do a number of contributors to this post. When you silly little people with no care for our brave children,( yes, they are someone’s children), lay down at night how do you sleep.  I suppose that before you go to bed you watch a John Wayne movie.Another warmonger who, like you lot, never went to war. Rest easy, you good, misled, fine boys. And all for what? Please tell me, and tell Australia. We really need to know how you justify their sacrifice.

    • Dan says:

      12:59pm | 11/06/11

      Well said,.

    • gra gra says:

      09:47pm | 09/06/11

      Stay the course? What course?  Who set the course? The USA, that’s who, and we follow, like meek little sheep. What advantage is there for us in Afghanistan?  Iraq? Are we in danger of a terrorist attack of sufficient imminency as to justify sacrificing our greatest asset? Our young men and possibly women. Haven’t we been down that dreadful road enough times?
      The horrible people who don’t mind our kids getting slaughtered so that they can feel protected from some bush/howard/blair conspiracy to maintain the interests of the groups to whom they pay their first allegiance continue to amaze and disgust. Do any of you Faux pretenders really believe the crap that you speak? Do you have a reason, apart from second-hand lounge room involvement, ( its good when others are dying for your input, isn’t it), for supporting this nation’s compliance with the Bush/ bin laden plan to increase their share in middle east oil? You don’t believe that? Fools. Google bin Laden/ Bush partnership, and then tell me that their favourite son, Osama is dead. Don’t be as naive as your comments make you to appear. Think!  For your own sake, think!

    • Dan says:

      12:55pm | 11/06/11

      Well said mate, finally some sense.

    • Zabrina says:

      07:15am | 15/06/11

      And I thought I was the sensible one. Thanks for settnig me straight.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

RT @gregprichard: The Victorian Sports Minister has just sent the New Zealand Prime Minister a commiserative email. #stateoforigin

Anthony Sharwood

@VanillathunderV fair comeback. But seriously, if that was a try then I'll book my skiing in Queensland this year

Anthony Sharwood

@BrettS69 the loveliest thing about post-origin is the sledges from gloating qlders #ratherbeagoodloserthanapoorwinner

Anthony Sharwood

That is the video referee howler to end all howlers to end all howlers to end all howlers to end all howlers #stateoforigin

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Punch on: Open thread 24/05/2012

Punch on: Open thread 24/05/2012

Football happened last night. One colour reigned supreme. Or there was a draw. This open thread was written…

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

In the classic Hollywood sports flick script, a ragtag bunch of losers and misfits take on the arrogant…

Schapelle has done her time

Schapelle has done her time

Schapelle Corby has served more than seven years in Kerobokan prison for attempting to import 4.2 kilos…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

242 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter