Each death in Afghanistan is another test of faith

MikeN says:

07:42am | 01/06/11

The Taliban are a very different enemy to the Viet Cong and it’s a very different war. Is pulling out and letting them re group unmonitored a good idea? We have seen the results of leaving them to do as they please. If they were only interested in killing each other maybe time to pull out. BUT they are only interested in killing us in the west. Best to keep the fight in Afghanistan on their soil, not ours thanks.

Dr Jack says:

07:52am | 01/06/11

How can one access the statistics of this catastrophe but surely our losses are disproportionally large for the size of our force in Afghanistan. Who knows the answer to that? If that is so, we should depart urgently.

AAAdam says:

09:10am | 01/06/11

@ Dr Jack - After a quick google I came up with 98000 USA troops in Afghan with 1452 casualties (0.01%). Australia has 1500 troops with 26 casualties (0.01%). Seems pretty close. Though I’ll be the first to admit such stats do not the total number of troops that have been to the country given they rotate every so often. They also do not show the intensity of conflict at various areas in the country or enemy concentrations in the country or the tactics and equipments used by Aussies vs the USA, etc, etc. A disproportionate number of causalities may just mean there are more enemy in the area our troops are based, the intensity of conflict is higher where are troops are based, our equipment or tactics are not as good as those used by our coalition partners or perhaps they take more risk in an effort to reduce civilian casualties rather than just wasting everyone, etc. I do remember our guys in Afghnaistan asking for tanks and the Defence Minister said he’d look into it but nothing ever happened.

No 1 Rosie says:

10:59am | 01/06/11

Remaining in Afghanistan indefinitely - Gillard has already told us our troops will be there for at least a decade. Typical of a leader who hastily says things without taking anything into account only because she is desperately trying to make her mark as PM.

I say bring our brave soldiers home because after this latest incident of an Afgan the troops thought was on their side doing the murdering, they don’t deserve our soldiers. Leave and allow them to shoot each other. I am angry very angry - how dare when we are there to help them.

Walter E. Kurtz Jr. says:

11:18am | 01/06/11

I find it funny that some people here use the “what they stand for” bullshit.

“What they stand for”.. Fu*k off!

They stand for what’s theirs. And so would you if some freckled piece of sh*t marched around in your country, took your opium poppies and fondled your gas-pipelines..

dancan says:

12:05pm | 01/06/11

@MikeN - The problem with that approach is that most Taliban groups are no longer located in Afghanistan they’ve spread far, especially in north Africa. 

I personally doubt that anything would change in the world if tomorrow the war was won in Afghanistan, with so many independent cells operating around the world I wouldn’t even consider Afghanistan a central base anymore.

So with that in mind wouldn’t it be better to bring our troops back and use those resources in better, more localized operations?

Gregg says:

01:51pm | 01/06/11

@Mike,
Of course it is a different war and the Taliban a different enemy and just how different is debatable for there are quite a few parallels.
The Taliban themselves, all be it under another name of the Mujahadeen were supported by the CIA against the Ruskies just as the Vietnamese were supported against the Japanese.
That Al Quaeda were operating in Afghanistan is another matter that has been addressed, not that it is the only country they are supposedly in nor is Afghanistan the only country to have had terrorists operating or supported.
In summary, terrorism needs to be fought and we need to be sure of how that should be done for supporting a puppet government will likely only foster dissent and terrorism.

Walter E. Kurtz Jr. says:

05:22pm | 01/06/11

@dancan

“The problem with that approach is that most Taliban groups are no longer located in Afghanistan they’ve spread far, especially in north Africa.”
—Nah, mate. The only thing that has spread into Noth Africa is militarism. Here’s this thing called EVIDENCE:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=258_1306844068

The efforts of the Revolution is non-religious and apolitical. That’s a double whammy in moral uprightedness. The same cannot be said about the motives of the British (or any other satellite state) considering that this form of support does not occur in helping the Bahraini and the Saudi Revolutionaries depose very ultra-religious, dictators and absolute monarchies - who happen to be Western-backed and OIL-RICH. Libya is also OIL-RICH, however neither Gadhafi nor the Revolutionaries were initially Western-backed.

The motive is clearly OIL.

This form of “assistance” in the shape of BOOTS ON THE GROUND is not appropriated in Yemen neither - where the dictator was Western-backed.

So much for your “spread”.

acotrel says:

09:19pm | 02/06/11

I suggest it’s important for the west to win the propaganda war.  The Taliban rhetoric must be prevented from becoming infectious.  The way we treat islamics here could be important to the final outcome.  We should never provide justification for the ‘crusader’ slur, which seems popular in the middle east. Let’s not create our own problems by reinforcing their behaviour?

L. says:

08:28am | 01/06/11

“The Taliban are passionate nationalists”

Nationalists..?? Surely you jest. The only “nation” the Taliban are intersted in is the natioan of Islam.

The Afghans are largely “tribal”, and as such have no real alignment with the western contruct of the “nation”.

bleD says:

08:31am | 01/06/11

Agreed Joan. Why waste lives supporting an islamic regime which has medieval blasphemy laws on its statute books?  Until they modernize we should not be there.

Joan says:

10:25am | 01/06/11

L…  Be as pedantic as you like, The Taliban know who they are and what the want for their country it is not up to you ... who do you think you are to tell any other country how it should live, and according to what rules?. The tone of your blog just classic `western` arrogance .

Macon Paine says:

11:01am | 01/06/11

@bleD

How will they modernise without our help and influence? They will forever be shut off from the rest of the world under the backward tyranical grip of islam, slaves like those poor souls in North Korea.

@Joan

“Be as pedantic as you like, The Taliban know who they are and what the want for their country it is not up to you”

FYI The Taliban wish to impose strict Islamic law. This includes death for apostasy, stoning women for adultery, executing homosexuals, chopping off hands for theft, treating women as currency and slaves/concubines, preventing girls from being educated, no freedom of religion, no freedom of thought, no freedom of speech, no elections, they are anti science and anti technology (except when it can be used to kill infidels). Is this acceptable to you? Should people who don’t want to live under this be abandoned because you birkenstock wearing hand wringers think it’s “arrogance” to oppose this savagery?

“who do you think you are to tell any other country how it should live, and according to what rules?. The tone of your blog just classic `western` arrogance .”

There may be much wrong with the west but there is no real comparison between us and them.  If you can’t see that then I pity you. We are far more civilised now than those who we oppose will ever be.

John says:

11:03am | 01/06/11

L. says:

Yes, lets give them Atheism, prompt gays rights, feminism, and same sex marriages in Afghanistan.  lol Lets open Hollywood theaters and give them showings of desperate house wife’s and sex in the city. Lets open a porn shops in the main street of Kabul. ha ha ha
They will blow this stuff sky high.

The only reason troops are there, is because they are waiting for future war with Iran as it seems. Someone forgot to tell western troops this, their military commanders just have orders to occupy a barron desert for no reason.

L. says:

12:19pm | 01/06/11

Joan said:

“who do you think you are to tell any other country how it should live, and according to what rules?. The tone of your blog just classic `western` arrogance . “

Umm… where did I tell any country how they should live..??

You made a statement. That statment was incorrect. Don’t have a sook about it and go off on a rant. They are not nationalists, if anything they are probably closer aligned to Islamic fundamentalist gangsters…. Ruling by religion, but growing drugs.

n_dude says:

01:18pm | 01/06/11

@Macon Paine - those things you list as being part of strict Islamic law are also the law in places like Saudi Arabia. Using your logic, then shouldn’t we be invading them giveing them the gift of freedom and democracy?

BMJ says:

07:59am | 01/06/11

I couldn’t agree more.

Let’s get real here people, If 26 deaths in 10 years of war is testing our “faith” in the cause then we are in real trouble.

Ando says:

09:19am | 01/06/11

It is not the only argument and no one is suggesting it is.  26 deaths in world war 2 wouldnt have rated a mention because there was no debate about its importance. Afghanistan and the” fight them over their so we dont have to fight em here” reasoning is giving these tribesman far to much credit, let alone the pipedream of a democracy with a leader worth having within 50 years.

darren says:

01:28pm | 02/06/11

In 1996 we lost 18 good SAS men in a single helicopter training accident. We have lost many many more soldiers in training accidents and accidents in general over the years. Casualties in any war are terrible, but thats part of the job. This fight will make a difference to the lives of millions of people - it is actually saving the lives of maybe thousands or hundreds of thousands of people.  That is no small thing. And the blokes over there should be proud of that. We in turn should be proud of them. And if we lose some good men, then we will keep our promises to them. We will remember them and their sacrifice, and we will make sure their families are given all the help and support they need. And, while there is a good chance of it succeeding, we must not abandon the cause that they have given their lives for . To do so would be to waste the sacrifices of these men. End of story.

AAAdam says:

08:36am | 01/06/11

TChong - Afghanistan was invaded in 2001. Australia had almost no part in this (I believe they may have provided a couple of air to air refuellers but that’s about it. No significant troop commitment).

In about 2006 the Afghan Government and its people requested the assistance of Australia for rebuilding efforts, to promote stability and to promote prosperity. Australia agreed and sent a large commitment of armed forces personnel to the country as part of the UN mandated international security assistance force. Part of this stabilisation effort was to ensure international terror groups were denied safe haven in the country as well as preventing the Taliban from once again oppressing the people, killing govt officials, etc. It was also to assist in training their police and military.

For you to suggest we invaded or occupied them and they don’t want our help is just plain wrong. We are there, at their invitation, on a UN mandated mission, helping them. Furthermore, they currently have a police and military force of approx 300,000 (3:1 to Americans and 200:1 to Aussies). If they didn’t want us there, they’d easily have the force required to remove the 1500 or so ADF personnel in Afghanistan. But they do want us there, helping them with training and to weed out the Taliban and terrorists who plague their country.

A fairer example for your 2nd point would be “If Australia had been oppressed and terrorised by religious zealots (and also become the terrorist den of the world), then the USA came a got rid of them and about five years later NZ came along to help with rebuilding, stability and prosperity, what would most Aussies do?”

TChong says:

09:02am | 01/06/11

AAAdam
The afghan govt - ie the US backed faction , “asked” us there, just the same as General Diem “asked"the US to get involved in Vietnam.
Besides the point either way, as its obvios the majority dont want us there, regardless of which faction is currently in power in Kabaul.

AAAdam says:

09:19am | 01/06/11

@ TChong - The Afghan people elected their government democratically. I realise there was allegations of corruption at the most recent election, however, they did offer to re-hold it but the other guy pulled out (and he was losing by a fair bit anyway). So they stuck with the guy they’d democratically voted into power legitimately at the last election. Anyway, my last post was just because I wanted clear up some misconnections about Afghanistan because I know not many people read up on it and most people don’t know why we are there, etc. They just assume it part of some invasion similar to Iraq.

Agree 100% with you on the majority wanting our soldiers out of there. If only our govt would listen to what the people want (on the carbon tax, on which wars we fight, etc).

Kev says:

12:02pm | 01/06/11

NOT the same TChong, if we were depriving women of an education, if we were selling off girls to old men to marry (and rape as they pleased).  If my Mother and Grandmother were too scared to leave their houses because of religious zealots if I lived in a country where the best I could hope to be was some poorly educated religious FOOL with double standards growing opium in my rock garden then I would WELCOME the Americans or ANY other nation on the face of this planet to come save me.
Did the Germans “want” us there at the end of world war 2, where would they have been without our occupation and rebuilding.
I don’t agree with what is happening in all of Afghanistan but BILLIONS of dollars are being poured into that country in the hope it will someday become a productive member of a global community…. and I can bloody well tell you (before you start yank bashing) that I would MUCH rather live in a world of little America’s than I would a world modelled on ANYTHING the middle east has EVER had to show us in the way of good government (except Israel) Do the yanks get it right all the time (or even most of the time?)... no…. but what the hell are the alternatives.  Do you see China doing ANYTHING that isn’t self-serving? Atleast when the yanks get involved there is a veil of common decency (AND accountability), the Chinese don’t care how many rights are stampled on and they’ll NEVER apologise.
Seriously, some of the tree-hugging left whingers need to get out their dole-paid for chairs and stop being apologists for EVIL (islamic) regimes.

stephen says:

05:09pm | 01/06/11

Australia is responding to a UN mandate to settle Afghanistan, with or without the latters assistance.
Therefore our involvement is legal and, it appears, neccessary.

Septimus says:

08:30am | 01/06/11

How do you start a cultural change?

Help them.

AAAdam says:

08:51am | 01/06/11

@ Seanr - Interesting comments. I’ll try t add to the debate:

1) I agree there is corruption and Afghan ideals are not the same as our own, however, I still think this is better than how things would have been had we left the people under the Taliban (i.e. even worse for women, arbitrary executions, terrorist training camps, etc).

2) Perhaps it does; however, the most effective way to stop terrorism is to have a multi layered defence. If you just rely on or borders, then people can slip through occasionally. However, if you attack terrorists internationally at their source, have strong borders, rigorous policing within the country and a highly trained response force to deal with those that still might get through; this is the most effective way. Although I do note you said “efficient” and perhaps you right about that, however, I personally prefer effectiveness over efficiency in this case.

3) Agree 100%. We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Just look at the USA with Libya. If the US had gone in people would complain they were there for oil and criticise them whenever a civilian died. The USA didn’t go in and people criticised them anyway. Australia has also committed absolutely nothing to Libya, yet I’ve heard Australians criticising the USA for doing nothing. It is bizarre. Yet, meanwhile, all the moderate countries you mention (their apparent muslim brothers) do nothing. The same seems to apply to refugees. Their muslim “brothers” in such moderate countries want nothing to do with them.

Seanr says:

12:27pm | 01/06/11

Septimus - A cultural change could take a generation and it will be driven in my view by the wider Islamic community. Non military aid (which we are providing) is I believe better at achieving this than military aid. 
AAAdam - good point re conditions under the Taliban, difficult one to argue with except to say how long will commit to this before saying it is too long.
A multi layer defence is ideal but as we have seen with Afghanistan, the fluid nature of terrorism means that they shift elsewhere eg Pakistan, hence my comment about efficiency which also ties in with your point on effectiveness.
My point 3 is probably the main one, without this support the West’s efforts are doomed to failure.

TheRealDave says:

01:17pm | 01/06/11

Being Homosexual in Afghanistan can get you killed?

Really?

If this was o we’d have near no-one left to fight since Afghan men seem to have very very very few quibbles about engaging in homosexual activity when the mood strikes…which I hear is quite often…even when you’re supposed to be doing piquet duty in an active insurgent area….

Septimus says:

03:49pm | 01/06/11

Seanr

You have to start somewhere.

AAAdam says:

06:45pm | 01/06/11

Seanr - I’d commit to leaving the country once certain conditions had been met, rather than having a fixed timeline. So I’d leave when their country was capable of running itself and maintaining security effectively, etc. Otherwise, it’ll just go back to how it was before we got there (like East Timor did when we left the first time). And if Afghanistan goes back to how it was before we got there then all these deaths will have been in vain.

I agree terrorism is fluid in nature and some have fled to Pakistan, however, there are still plenty of bad guys left in Afghanistan to keep us busy. Just ask the Army guys over there that are getting killed/wounded on a regular basis. I also believe having a military presence there creates a honey pot effect. Allied forces draw terrorists to themselves in Afghanistan and, more often than not, kill them using our technological superiority. Most terrorists gravitate towards such a honey pot because it saves them the journey all the way to Australia or the USA to have a crack at killing us “infidels”. As such, I’d prefer to have such a honey pot, staffed by trained killers, set up in Afghanistan where it draws terrorists in and generally kills them (just like a spider catching flies). That way, some of these terrorists will instead choose to engage our well trained military over there (who signed up to do this stuff), rather than making the journey to our homeland here and killing civilians. It just seems better than having our military incurring the same fixed costs as they would in Afghanistan (wages, maintenance, etc) to sit at home doing nothing, while we wait for terrorists to come here and attack unarmed people.

I agree with point 3, although, perhaps we are on the way to changing all that by helping to re-create the great country of Afghanistan. Who knows unless we try.

MarvinM says:

10:09am | 01/06/11

Troll much?

Firstly we enjoy our democracy and freedom here in Australia due to the U.S.A.

They have protected us ever since WW2 and have stopped larger more powerful countries from pushing us around and act as a deterance against any future aggression by our larger neighbours.
Although we are a big country in geographical size we have a tiny population size and are very vunerable to invasion by countries much larger in population than us.

They have our back and have proven in the past they were are willing to jump in and help us out. Hence we still owe them greatly for this and their sacrifices made. Look at the number of dead and wounded during the battle of Guadalcanal n WW2. This battle prevented the Japs from isolating the entire east coast of Australia, which would have left most of the major population centres on the east coast vunerable to the Japanese Navy. Look what the Japs did to Darwin, they surely would have no hesitation dishing out the same to our other cities and civilians if they had the chance.

Just like any mate that has your back you stick with them and help them out when they are in need. You never let them down and that is why we have been there for the U.S!

Its foolish to think that we can stand up and defend against larger countries by ourselves. And even if we tried it would drain our budget due to the increased cost of having to spend on the defence forces. So less money for important everyday stuff like roads, hospitals and welfare.

So If you dont like having the U.S as our big brother protecting us who else would you like? China?
Yeah Im sure China would be a very benign friend to us and allow us to operate independantly from them. Afterall look at how vocal they become and try to dictate who we allow into the country. Dalai Lama, Falun Gong etc etc  

So we are stuck with the U.S whether your like it or not. They share our same values of democracy and like any good friend nobody is perfect and they will have bad traits but you realise that friendship in the grand scheme is more important than the minor things.

In the grand scheme the U.S is our saftey net and ultimate protector. So lives lost in expeditions backing them are not in vain.

Also a U.S colonel yesterday just backed this up.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/us-colonel-says-australia-out-of-touch-cannot-defend-itself/story-e6frea8c-1226066081963

switch78 says:

10:37am | 01/06/11

MarvinM,

If China were to invade us, with the help of our neughbouring asian countries, do you REALLY believe that the USA would remove all of it’s armed forces from the middle east to bring them to Australia to save us? They may of helped us 50 years ago, but today America has entered into armed conflicts with several countries, making enemies all across the world and they dont have the military or armed forces to spare (hence why they beg Australia and the UK for help in conflicts caused by their own doing) and if you think they will sacrifice those conflicts to help Australia you do you must believe in the Tooth Fairy too.

Denial says:

11:00am | 01/06/11

BL, Phony Howard sent us into war. The Liberals are to blame.

AAAdam says:

11:03am | 01/06/11

Switch78 - If China begun attacking allies of the USA (Australia, Britain, Canada, etc) of course the USA would get involved. It would be WW3. Just as Austalia would jump in if another country commenced hostilities against one of our allies. You are also very confused if you honestly believe the USA has no capacity left within its military to enter into such a war or that they would not re-deploy troops from around the world to respond to such a massive threat.

John says:

11:15am | 01/06/11

Humans rights is a con, it’s just some type of moral swindle to justifie mass invasions, mass killings and mass immigrations by western governments. It’s also utterly hypocritical. The west has become a liar, a deceiver and manipulator. It lies, then justifies lies with more lies.

Chris says:

11:24am | 01/06/11

Switch78 I believe you are wrong, very wrong.
Despite the obvious problems with the idea of China invading, I’ll humour your hypothetical.

Military forces to spare hey? Even with their current troop deployments, they have multiple devisions that are stationed throughout the Asia-Pacific and at home, they have more than enough military muscle. The big reason they are ‘stretched’ is due to economics, ever since the end of World War 2, the western nations converted their economies back out of ‘total war’.

And it’s not just USA, do you really think the UK/Canada would stand by and watch a prominent ally be invaded? Or even Germany or France stand Idly by?

No, just as when Poland was invaded by Germany in 1939, even though we were closer to UK then, nations united against Germany. Nations will not stand by and watch us perish.

Pete says:

11:26am | 01/06/11

@ MarvinM New Zealand was pretty much in the same boat in regard to the ANZUS treaty, but then they stuck to their principles when it came to ships with nuclear weapons. That was many years ago.  The only group of people waiting to arrive en masse in New Zealand are Australians.

If china wanted to invade Oz they would do it, US or no US end of story.  America is bankrupt and the biggest creditor is,,, you guessed it, China.  Push a few buttons here and there the US would probably not be able to come to our aid due to economic reasons

Darragh Scully says:

11:57am | 01/06/11

If China Invaded Australia! What an awesome subject. When was the last time China invaded anywhere? However lets look at that scenario more indepth. Its along way from China to Darwin or TOWNSVILLE. A long long way Mr. Can you imagine Chinese Freight Ships with crates full of China men storming the ports. Or maybe they are going to disguise some 747s as Troop carriers and para troop into Sydney.  Or are they planning a large expidition force to storm the beaches, watch out Bondi and Goldy here come the Chinnese. lmao. 

China has a water shortage. They are close to peak water which means they are close to peak grain. They have drought problems issues with dams. Then again, they have alot of missing children, little girls who are not valued, and during the financial crisis 40 million chinese people didnt receive benefits and disappeared and hardly anyone blinked here in Australia. Actually you could go on for hours with all the Tough Shit (will i get fined if a cop in melbourne reads that) that goes on in China. Yes the Commies, with their recent herding of all the 80 million Catholics who decided they didnt want to pray in Commie designated praying areas, with their massive military or rather their rather larger secret police force, their aircraft carrier killer missiles, their big nuclear weapons, their uber secret submarine bases that are built with Western Australian Iron Ore, and the submarines that go in them that are built with Western Australian Iorn Ore. Gina Rhinehardt doesnt mind, thats the reason she is the 10 billion dollar baby. If China does invade Australia then it would be our own fault.

What would that mean for the USA. Whooo hooo, here comes the Cavalry. Being a big flat open space the USA would just love that. Part of the problem with Afghanistan is that its big mountains and not suited to modern Cavalry. Unrucky for China though because how the hell are they going to land a force in Australia. They are about to build their first Aircraft Carrier, Western Australian Iorn ore turned into Sino Steel. lol in reality Western Australian Iorn ore is just a supplement to Chinas ore supplies. I think they will porbably go for Taiwan first. The USA has Strategic Nuclear capabilities in the Area that act as a deternce to Nuclear Attacks and a conventional force landing on Taiwan would be up against some pretty sinsiter fire power. China is full opposed to the growing number of Patriot Missiles that sit in wait for them should they go balistic. I could go on but whats the point.

Should the United States fall apart completley then yes you should be worried. Should the relationship with the USA and Australia become bad and the USA decideds to Invade Australia what would you do then. Go crawling to China. Perhaps the Queen will save you.

Tommorow when the War began anyone. I believe the second one is going to be out soon. Dont worry though if the Chinnese come down here looking for trouble Ill be ready will you.

Though perhaps they will pull off a coo. Not sure if thats how you spell it. Imagine if they sneak a suit case nuke into canberra and take over that way. Its the stuff dreams are made of after all.

Jane says:

12:20pm | 01/06/11

@Switch, why would China need help. Lets put things in perspective, China 4.5m currently fully trained militray personel plus an extra 1b who have gone through training in the past. Australia: 82,500 currently trained personal and probably another 200,000 who have been trained in the past, the other 25m Australians have probably never even picked up a gun.

China hasnt invaded because they dont want to, same with Malaysia and Indonesia, both of whom have more than enough trained personel that Australia wouldnt stand a chance.

Do you seriously think a country that sees the inhumane slaughter of animals in another country as more newsworthy than the deaths of its soildiers would stand any chance against any of our neighbours (ignoring NZ and teh Pacifc islands as they are probably the only ones in this region we could win against)?

John the Zombie says:

01:08pm | 01/06/11

Pete you do realise the only reason NZ took that position is because they know that if they are invaded thier nieghbour Australia so inturn USA will come to thier aid. Dont think that NZ that his wasnt the case and Aus would not come to thier aid would they have taken the same position. Remember this came in from a govt that choose to also scrap most thier airforce, naval force and army.

Also note NZ soldiers are in Afghanistan so it seems maybe unknown to you that may have re-established the argeement.

RB says:

01:31pm | 01/06/11

Well said MarvinM.And switch78, you have your eyes closed if you believe the USA doesnt have further military capacity.It has 12 air craft carriers, china has a whole 0.China may have a big population, but it would be interesting to see how china would feed all those ‘troops’ if the USA & its allies cut it off by sea from resupply wouldnt it..?For all Americas faults, it has done a lot of good & i am glad its watching our back with such ‘friendly’ nations like China. Nth korea & singapore checking us out.

TheRealDave says:

01:37pm | 01/06/11

Jeez….I’ve read some crap…and some of the comments here are right up there with them.

China could have eleventy billion ‘Universal Roboto-Soldiers’ and it wouldn’t make jack shit difference to us here in Oz…same goes with Indonesia or any other nation….could you let me know, just one tiny little thing…how the hell are they supposed to get here? Swim? Any movement of any sized force into the big blue puddles around us can and will be picked up from thousands of clicks away and with the help of our erstwhile first world technologically proficient alles any sizeable blobs of ‘men’ on a radar and or sattelite image will be turned into so much burley a the click of a few buttons by head set wearing geeks in trailers on the other side of the world.

The only nation remotely capable of moving large numbers of troops around the globe are the US…and even they can only get around 200 000 moved in around 3 months….and thats in peaceful conditions and clear skies ie no missiles, jets, AAA fire etc

Now lets, for arguments sake, fantasize and say a large ‘Chinese/Indonesian Force’ landed in Oz…..how do you propose the Chinese or Indonesians will support them? Getting them here is only one small part of the problem. They will need to feed them, re-arm them, re-supply them, bring more bodies etc and all over very long, very tenuous and poorly guarded sea lanes. Anyone who actually made it to Oz and wasn’t brassed up on the beach would probably starve to death in a few weeks.

Darragh Scully says:

01:55pm | 01/06/11

@Jane.

What? How exactly would anyone in Asia land an Expeditionary force in Australia.
Even if they wanted to that is which is probably more to the point?
What your saying is more related to anyone else invading say China. It would be hard. Cant really imagine how difficult it would be for the Chinnese to logistically conduct a decent defense with all their bridges, damns and critical infrastructure blown to bits. Imagine sending them back to the dark ages, it would be 4 million people who wouldnt know what to do in a country that is so impoverished that it would massive chaos. The Chinnese are the sort of people who would avoid that at any cost.

I think the mass of Sino Military is a relic of World War 2 when they were invaded by Japan. They are making sure that that never happens to them again. They do however have ambitions to be Hegemonic in Asia. The try to extend to the middle east and to the asia pacific and naturally they call it Commerce and its not a threat to other peoples interests. I doubt it will ever extend to Australia being invaded.

You would be suprised just what sort of fire power could be put together in Australia if push came to shuv. If we were to go Conscription and divert cash from critical infrastructure to defense. I pity the fool who thinks otherwise. What you think were soft? You think we lack the Science? The Diplomatic relations with similar Allies?  And there are so many nations that would join in. Of course the USA seems to think they are our best mates when it comes to defence which is true. As far as I know there was a problem in the USA with exporting the Raptor due to national security issues and guess what? It was also discussed with the USA that we could buy them to if we wanted. For some reason however we went down the F35 pathway. The first fully functional F35 has been delivered to the US Airforce and by 2030 its expected that one will be rolled off the fully Automatic Production Line every day. They are still iorning out problems with this plane and in light of the GFC they are still miles ahead of China despite the chinnese now using their ‘cyber warfare teams’ to hack Lockheed Martin whereby they stole 80% of the F35 designs. And its been reported that despite the application of low freqency radar applications to detecting Stealth Planes the F 35 will still only look like tea cup on the radar and thats without shadowing. So their J20 factory would be a relativley easy Target because we know where it is, dont we Cheng.

And as far as I am aware its now considered an Act of War to cyber attack the US. This is because they can take down the Grid which would cause as much caos as an Invasion would. And one General recently commented that its now likely that if you take down the power grid that your smoke stakes are going to get Demolished by cruise missiles, fairs fair right after all that is. So I wonder whats going to happen if they persist in trying to steal secrets. They are pound for pound the best cyber thiefs of military secrets ever. Take the fact that they got 80% of the JSA data from hacking, they bought the downed stealth bomber from the Serbs to study (talk about desperate) and now they are in negotiations with Pakistan to sell the J20. Do we get a cut from it, I guess we do. I mean they sell it to Pakistan after we (the JSA group)  invested in it and that gives them more money to invest in Gina Rhineharts bid to make it to 20 billion and everyones happy. Why is any of that relevant though. Well it is a bit of a Dillema if somehow they get with in striking distance. I think it will be closely watched as it develops over the next 50 years given that they only have a prototype to sell at the moment.

What ever, I am sure the defence people have these things covered in more depth and we can only go on Wiki Leaks and whats on the Net and then speculate about whats going to go down. If you really think we should expect something Dispicable then please by all means let someone know exactly and be specific as you can as to whats going to happen.  Remember the world was supposed to end the other day and all we got was a few delayed flights near Iceland. 

China has been threatened with Nuclear war before and backed down.
Id have to say that discussing this shit on a story to try and mourn the loss of another soldier is a little bit insensitive. Yes contextually its out of context isint it. Maybe the punch needs to do a story on context and maybe some other literary devices and maybe some word of the days to improve our spelling. 

yours truly still unemployed

loulou says:

10:55am | 01/06/11

@michaelj   You’re the bright spark -  YOU tell us

michael j says:

12:10pm | 01/06/11

@IouIou- Well there is no oil,so the only thing i can think of is to protect the Opium crops so the local Warlords and the C.I.A can keep control of the Worlds Heroin markets,,

loulou says:

01:34pm | 01/06/11

@m j.  I wish I hadn’t asked

Jack says:

02:36pm | 01/06/11

Its not really a valid Question in the first place. The police should just stop attending burgs and bashings and bank robberies because its dangerous. Point taken.

It wasnt an accident it was a pre emptive strike. They were suicide bombers in training. get over it.

michael j says:

05:25pm | 01/06/11

@jack-if the UN leave Afghan in 4 years what will the changes be,,
NOTHING it will be Taliban in the south,,Two areas governed by Warlords to to north-west,,and Kabul holding,what it has now,and i do not believe the F.N bullshit that there are Terrorist there,,
IF nothing is going to change Why are the UN Allies KILLING children,,
when they can fly Predators so accurately from 6,000 miles away,,
ALL troops out now,,

Up the Ante says:

11:28am | 01/06/11

here here, and their kids, I wonder if they would feel the same if one of their own son or daughters was involned in the miltary conflict… I think not.

Tom says:

12:50pm | 01/06/11

My understanding is that incidents of terrorism against the West dropped significantly since the Yanks invaded Afghanistan. Sad, but the choice seems to be the best of two evils.

John says:

03:19pm | 01/06/11

Terrorism incidents dropped most likely because of the 9/11 truth movement. People no longer believe al-qaeda or osama bin laden was behind the 9/11 attacks and 7/7 bombings. So anyone that commits another terror attack on western soil and trys to blame it on al-qaeda is going be criticized heavily and most likely also be accused of being the master minds of the terror attack and for covering up the real terrorists. This most likely why terrorist attacks most likely dewindled. The US government has stated that they have stopped many terror attacks, but this is most likely an illusion to make it look like they are fighting terrorism, that the terrorist threat exists, that they are stopping terrorism, it also serves well with their propaganda to keep the war in Afghanistan and Iraq going. The wool is really being put in front of your eyes. Terrorism real or the illusion of terrorism serves in the interest of warmongers who want to occupy the middleast with western military forces.

Septimus says:

03:48pm | 01/06/11

Welcome Back Tin Foil!

emel says:

09:53am | 01/06/11

Fairsfair you make a valid point. It is not the deaths of soldiers- whom I agree, accept the risk of their chosen employ, it is the deaths of others who don’t have a choice, and the phenomenal waste of resources and futility of the mission that makes this conflict so jejune.

fairsfair says:

11:35am | 01/06/11

Very true. I just can’t get past the whole “pushing sh*t up hill with a stick” bit. It is a waste in every respect. Does that mean that we just up stumps and head home? I don’t think anyone but those involved and in charge are qualified to comment on our withdrawal.

Pete says:

11:28am | 01/06/11

Nobody has ever conquered Afghanistan, including Alexander the Great.  Learn the lesson, bring them home

TheRealDave says:

01:21pm | 01/06/11

Pete, you may actually want to read a history book isntead of parroting other peopels bollocks. Afghanistan HAS actually been conquered and ruled more than a few times in its long history…and for very long periods.

Al says:

08:44pm | 01/06/11

How did Australians cope with the news of 1917 deaths in just one day at Fromelles in July 1916?

Pretty easily - the entire country didn’t hear about it miniutes after it happened on TV, Radio, Twitter etc etc etc

How do you fix Afghanistan? Teach the people how to read for them selves - It stops the Mulahs telling them what ever they want is: “God’s Will”

Denial says:

10:58am | 01/06/11

RyanN, The Liberals sent Australia into war. Phony Howard has blood on his hands

emel says:

11:00am | 01/06/11

RyaN,
Step into the room of mirrors.
‘Our troops’ are trained to kill and die - it is a career choice.
Gillard did not start this process but she has been into the war zone and risked her life by doing so. What have you done? It’s easy to sit back and judge and profess when no one can turn the spotlight back on you.
For all you know, Gillard might be desperately trying to end our involvement in Afghanistan. Politics is difficult, it is not as you might imagine.

Seano says:

11:33am | 01/06/11

That’s pretty low rYaN.

Howard sent them there, Abbott hasn’t said he’d bring them back. And if Gillard announced a withdrawal tomorrow would you complimenting Gillard or castigating her for not staying the course?

Mark says:

12:07pm | 01/06/11

“You have no military occupation or training”

How do you know this? I for one have military training, I may no longer serve but that does not mean I should shut up.

As for the stupid idea that if you are not soldier then you have no right to debate as to if your country should be involved in a war. There are places where that is the case, they are called Military Junta’s.

Shane From Melbourne says:

12:51pm | 01/06/11

@RHYS!!! Absolute Bullshit. The military answers to the politicians and the politicians answer to the public. It’s called a democracy. If any soldier thinks otherwise, they can GTFO of the ADF.

John says:

11:06am | 01/06/11

If this was the case in WWII, Germany could of declared Marxists terrorists and rationalized an occupation of Russia and the entire west because they didn’t want it be a safe haven for marxist terrorists.

RyaN says:

03:17pm | 01/06/11

@Rick: Johnny hasn’t been in power for many years now, clearly you have trouble understanding that. Labor has had how many years to bring the troops home?

Denial says:

04:25pm | 01/06/11

Your an idiot Ryan. If Phony Howard didnt have to send us in in the first place

RyaN says:

04:38pm | 01/06/11

@Denial: You can’t even say the persons name correctly and you are calling me an idiot. Do point out where I justify going to Afghanistan in the first place, I look forward to you saving some credibility by explaining your assumption on my position.
Now that we have established that I am focusing on the now rather than living way back in the past, perhaps we can actually do something about bringing the troops home.

Seano says:

04:44pm | 01/06/11

But Abbott is all for staying the course and would not withdraw if he was in power. If Gillard has blood on her hands as you say, then by your logic by supporting the same course so does Abbott.

Denial says:

04:56pm | 01/06/11

RyaN you sound like you might be a mommy’s boy.

RyaN says:

05:15pm | 01/06/11

@Denial: Wow great come-back, you sure showed me up there, if this was a school yard and I was 12 years old.
Unfortunately for me I have direct experience with war mate, a bush war by terrorists (whoops freedom fighters) in Rhodesia. I know what its all about, what about you?

Denial says:

05:27pm | 01/06/11

RyaN, yeah sure you do. I grew up in California urban jungle bitch.

Seano says:

08:31pm | 01/06/11

@rYAn - I see you are happy to accuse Gillard of having blood on her hands but even though Abbott supports stay the course and would do nothing different he gets off scott free. That doesn’t exactly spell “credibility” either rYAn.

RyaN says:

10:00am | 02/06/11

@Seano: Abbott isn’t the prime minister, when he is, I expect him to do the right thing or else cop the same level of criticism. No the prime minister is Julia Gillard and the blood is on her hands.

RyaN says:

10:03am | 02/06/11

@Denial: so you are saying you are a mollycoddled Californian with an inferiority complex and absolutely zero life experience on the subject. I thought so. Way to completely discredit yourself in one fell swoop buddy, you septic tanks really are not that smart are you.

Seano says:

10:35am | 02/06/11

@RYan - Abbott is the elected leader of the “government in waiting”. He supports stay the course and would not change if there was an election tomorrow.

It’s easy to scream Gillard has blood on her hands when you ignore the fact that Abbott was a part of the government that sent the troops there in the first place and that he would do no different.

You blame Gillard but if she pull them out tomorrow one suspects you’d be blaming protecting terrorists by not staying the course.

You’re playing an obviously fixed game. It’s what you do.

RyaN says:

11:29am | 02/06/11

@Seano: “You blame Gillard but if she pull them out tomorrow one suspects you’d be blaming protecting terrorists by not staying the course.”

Wild assumption on your part and completely incorrect, if Gillard made a decision to bring the troops home it would be the first decision she made that was in the interests of Australia as a whole rather than the regular decisions she makes typically in her own personal interest in her desperate cling to power.

Seano says:

11:46am | 02/06/11

Hardly a wild assumption RyAn when you give Abbott a supporter of stay the course and a member of the government who sent the troops their a free pass.

You have an obviously transparent double standard.

John says:

01:56pm | 01/06/11

I’m surprised this has came out of woman’s mouth. I have the same view of politics as your self. Politicians, Media and the Bankers are part of the same gang, who swindle the entire population to serve their interests. What we have is an illusion of democracy, we have a media that puts the wool in front of eyes and controls political descent, and who also gag’s the people from expressing their political interests. We also have a media dumbifies society. We are indeed captives and slaves this party, cabal who rule over us and see us as cattle and slaves. I suspect you might be a communist. It’s amazing how European Nationalism and Far-lefts view are rather similar. But in context of Multiculturalism, Race, Religion we have different views. Leftists serve the interests of gang by pushing cultural marxist polices.  They keep society divided, they attack the social fabric of western society, which is in the interest of the gang. The left-far left, might look like they oppose the gang, but the reality is they benefit the gang, they are useful pawns. The far-left and left, need to join with the Nationalists, and it’s check mate.

John says:

03:04pm | 01/06/11

There never was a democracy in the west, it’s always been plutocracy. It’s all an illusion. Just look at the media, it’s not the population that creates policy, it’s the government that creates the policy, it’s the media that justifies it and it’s the people that are manipulated, swindled into supporting it and it’s the media that also swindles public opinion by making it look like the public support it. The media does not state “you decide what you want to do”, it proposes whats going to be done and why it’s going to be done. So esstionally you have political swindlers and media swindlers. These politicians once they are voted in they could start World war III, allow the entire third world to emigrate to Australia and you can you can’t do anything about it. Just look at the Carbon tax, The government supports it, the media supports it, but they just can’t make it look like the people are supporting it, i guess they could shut down the internet to silence the mass’s so that they can push the carbon tax. I’m sure these swindlers would love to have the internet shut down, with this they could shut down all political descendant against the cabal rulers of western society, who rule the banks, media and the governments.

John says:

03:05pm | 01/06/11

There never was a democracy in the west, it’s always been plutocracy. It’s all an illusion. Just look at the media, it’s not the population that creates policy, it’s the government that creates the policy, it’s the media that justifies it and it’s the people that are manipulated, swindled into supporting it and it’s the media that also swindles public opinion by making it look like the public support it. The media does not state “you decide what you want to do”, it proposes whats going to be done and why it’s going to be done. So esstionally you have political swindlers and media swindlers. These politicians once they are voted in they could start World war III, allow the entire third world to emigrate to Australia and you can you can’t do anything about it. Just look at the Carbon tax, The government supports it, the media supports it, but they just can’t make it look like the people are supporting it, i guess they could shut down the internet to silence the mass’s so that they can push the carbon tax. I’m sure these swindlers would love to have the internet shut down, with this they could shut down all political descendant against the cabal rulers of western society, who rule the banks, media and the governments.

Maria says:

03:40pm | 01/06/11

Thank you John, you will be surprised how many women are thinking that way , remember Australia is not yet an Islam state but we getting there slowly.

Always remember too it is up to the parents to teach their children what is really democracy and autocracy or autoparticracy.

The arab spring revolution has just opened the door to show how corrupted our system is and I won’t be surprise that freedom of information and the freedom to communicate with internet will end the day with the new NBN will be fully installed.

In a meantime the french president Sarkozy has demanded to introduce the web gestapo in this G8 meeting.

Jay says:

12:06pm | 01/06/11

The same refugees that deserted Sadam’s army in the 1990’s repaid Australia’s generosity by forming the Assyrians and other gangs in Sydney’s west, pushing drugs, bashing and terrorizing inncocent people. They came from a country where criminal behaviour was severley punished and came here where we just lecture them and make excuses for their behaviour and blame Australians. JFK shortly before he was assassinated, said of Vietnam that ultimately it was upto the Vietnamese people whether they kept their democracy. Afghanistan is the same. Sooner or later the Afghans have to make a stand against these Taliban lunatics. The Northern Alliance inflicted severe casualties upon the Taliban and made it clear that they would not be pushed around. I just don’t want to see more young Aussie soldiers die so needlessly whilst Bob Brown and Dick Smith covet and support a traitor like Hicks who openly boasted in letters to his father of having met Osama and of having shot at people in Kashmir.

Rick says:

05:09pm | 01/06/11

Forget the Russians the British got their arses kicked back in the 1800’s no lessons learned there though.“Their blood will stain the sand’ remember that threat when John Howard sent in our troops?

Denial says:

12:53pm | 01/06/11

Jane, 1 life is to much. Do you have your kids or family fighting this war?

St. Michael says:

01:31pm | 01/06/11

@ Jane: the old timers would actually shake their heads at us being in Afghanistan, not at the death toll.

Comparing Afghanistan to World War 2 is such an exercise in straw manning I’m getting hay fever just from arguing it.

WW2 was not an asymmetrical war.  It was not an incursion into a landlocked country with no conventional armed forces or heavy weapons.  It was quite literally a fight for survival on the Eastern and Western fronts, and the Kokoda campaign in Australia was quite literally a fight to save this country from invasion.  WW2 also was a war of no choice: we didn’t start it, Germany and Japan did, and they followed it up not with terrorist assaults but with full-scale invasions of sovereign nations, including invasion of PNG which was an Australian territory by force of the Versailles Treaty.

Afghanistan does not match up to that by any stretch of the imagination.  We are not in there following a declaration of war (either from Australia *or* from the US - their Congress is required to declare war, and they never have) and the nature of the mission has never been clearly defined, unlike WW2 where the clear order given to Eisenhower et. al. prior to D-Day was to enter France, proceed to Germany, neutralise the country, and blow the fuck out of Germany’s armed forces on the way.

In Afghanistan the only reason to be there was the destruction or removal of Al Qaeda.  That objective was demonstrably achieved within roughly 1 year of the initial attack (hell, even ol’ Osama wasn’t there past 2001).  There is no reason for us to be there.  The West’s airpower is unmatched, and its surveillance capacity from orbit (via satellite) is also unmatched.  If someone starts setting up terrorist camps again, visit it again and bomb them out.  And again if they set up again.  If the Afghanis want to change their religion or culture, they should do so.  Doubtless the West will be waiting with open arms when they do decide to embrace secular democracy and 21st century international trade.  But if they don’t, get the hell out and leave them to kill each other.  Their domestic political situation is not our problem, and never was.  This is not the Domino Theory again, because Afghanistan ain’t got a significant world power like Russia behind it.

The road toll is also a straw man.  The road toll involves deaths despite every reasonable effort by government to avoid it.  No matter how many laws you put up on seat belts and speed limits, there will always be fuckheads who drive too fast, drink too much, and kill themselves or other innocent people.  There is a limit to which you can go in controlling people’s freedom.

Sending our armed forces overseas is not the same thing.  It is deliberately putting our young men and women in harm’s way.  Road tolls are accidental; hostile combat deaths usually are not.  Sending people to war is sending them explicitly out to commit mass murder if the situation demands it.  Therefore, sheer morals say you only use your armed forces in extreme circumstances, and not for anaemic political reasons - which is what they’re being used for right now.

I’m in perspective.  Are you?

Surely says:

02:28pm | 01/06/11

A lot of old timers think this war is a waste of time as well. Old timers would probably laugh at your comparison to WW2 as it posed a serious and immediate threat. At what point is it ok to question whether the war is a waste of time. No one would suggest fighting the Germans and the Japanese was a waste of time regardless of how many deaths occurred because it was a matter of survival. 

Some people think the war is a waste of time, that doesn’t mean they don’t have the stomach for war if the cause is just. In this case it seems not to be worth the trillions of dollars the coalition has already spent (and the deaths) to temporarily contain a bunch of uncivilised tribes.

4thJuly says:

03:03pm | 01/06/11

The offical figure is more like 60 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_War_II_Casualties.svg

“World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed”.

If you think about the number of Taliban that have died, and the number of people the taliban have killed its a horrible. Its not just the Taliban either, its a bunch of other Terrorist organisations to.  And now you can add Libya. Sudan seems to have moved a step closer to another war.

Its been reported that the US has suffered 72,000 deaths since the start of the war on terror.

Which is over 20000 more than Vietnam.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/terrorism/a/iraqdeath1000.htm

Jane says:

03:49pm | 01/06/11

@ Daniel. Actually I do AND I also work for the Dept.

I know lots of people who are currently either over there or who have been there. Do you?

TheRealDave says:

04:02pm | 01/06/11

72 000??

Did you get that from a Lancet report? or from an indepth study by the Ponds Institute?

Jane says:

04:05pm | 01/06/11

@ Surely - Australia was involved in WW2 long long before there was a threat to Australia. It started as a war in Europe and a war between China & Japan, both a long way from Australia so based on threat Australia should not have entered the war till 1942 when Australia was bombed.

Denial says:

04:41pm | 01/06/11

Jane my brother and my mates are from Holsworthy Barracks.

St. Michael says:

06:42pm | 01/06/11

@ Surely: “@ Surely - Australia was involved in WW2 long long before there was a threat to Australia. It started as a war in Europe and a war between China & Japan, both a long way from Australia so based on threat Australia should not have entered the war till 1942 when Australia was bombed.”

Nice try, but Australia declared war on Germany for no other reason than Britain said so.  Menzies was explicit on that if you listen to his declaration of war speech.  And British possessions *were* threatened in the far East which justified Australia mobilising: specifically, Singapore.  Japan was moving against them fairly early in the piece.

You also haven’t rebutted the point that Germany and Japan were both involved in direct conventional invasions of other sovereign countries.  This is what triggered WW2 in both cases.  Far as I can tell, Afghanistan ain’t rollin’ its tanks into Pakistan, or anywhere else.

Rick says:

11:32pm | 01/06/11

Yeh I knew one of those ol timers WW2 vetran . When this all started all he had to say was ” their at it again, they’ll never learn. Just remember it’s 26 Aussie versus 1,000,000 dead Iraquis how many dead Afgans? Their all humans.

RB says:

01:50pm | 01/06/11

No BKS, send the gutless Afghani male country shoppers back there to fight for their own country.Personally, i would take an American over a Muslim Afghani any day.You dont have to worry about Americans planning a terrorist attack at Holdsworthy Army base or see them disrespecting our flag on Anzac day.You might learn to appreciate our allies if Australia was ever really threatened.You would probably be a typical bleeding heart screaching “America, help us”.....

bikinis on top says:

02:41pm | 01/06/11

Australians need a new flag, a new political democracy and a republic in Australia rather than in Afghanistan.

St. Michael says:

03:55pm | 01/06/11

As I said above: this argument is a straw man.  Road tolls are a result of accident or recklessness.  They require no conscious choice by government for them to happen.

Overseas war deaths, by definition, cannot occur without a deliberate choice by governments—and thus, by extension, us since we elect them—to put, and keep, the young men and women in our armed forces directly in harm’s way.  The “harm” involved is both at risk of death or injury and at risk of the mental consequences since they ultimately may be called on to commit mass murder at a given moment.

There is no comparison.

The PM has a choice whether to allow deaths to continue in Afghanistan by leaving our troops there.  With road tolls she does not.

She, and her predecessors in that office, have repeatedly chosen to keep us in a conflict where we have a tangential interest at best, and traitors amongst the people we have apparently come to “help”.  The Australian serviceman who was shot by an ANA member wasn’t the first one to be a victim of “friendly fire” over there.

TheRealDave says:

01:48pm | 01/06/11

Why was Vietnam a ‘lsot cause’?

Because we walked away without finshing the job - or even doing the job properly.

So by calling for the ‘boys to come home’ you want to make those 26 lives worth nothing because you don’t support doing the job properly or finsihing what we started?

Jeez…imagine if you actually had to risk something in your life??

Kika says:

01:56pm | 01/06/11

So it must mean the worlds demand for drugs beats the worlds demand for oil.

St. Michael says:

03:40pm | 01/06/11

Do you take regular or extra-crinkly tinfoil for your hats, John?

John says:

04:53pm | 01/06/11

Come on Saint Michael

Have you ever wandered about reality? Can you prove 100% that the reality you perceive is 100% true? eg Osama Bin Laden killed a few weeks ago? How do you know that is true? did you see the body for your self? Did you do the DNA tests your self? People’s so called reality’s are determined by media. How do you know if the media are telling the truth? Its seem to me our so called reality is merely an illusion, it’s so drummed into us, that after a certain while, we can’t see to escape from what is drummed into us. Seriously, Religion, History, News reports, theories can be twisted to make something sound true, but this does not mean that it is entirely true. The notion of reality, is just that a reality formed by variables that can be true and not true. With these variables we form distorted perceptions of society, which becomes our reality. So in sense we have marketed a reality, that is not entirely true. Human beings do this all the time, given the true information, they will deny it as so radical to base reality, that they rejected it out of feeling not of logic. The Communists were big on this, politicians, propagandists, do this all time, creating and marketing a reality for the mass’s which isn’t entirely true. The people eventually become slaves to the reality, and when one attacks their reality, they defend it as they having nothing else to run to. So in sense we can have millions of pathological lairs.

Seano says:

04:56pm | 01/06/11

“Terrorism incidents dropped most likely because of the 9/11 truth movement.”

Oh please. Proof?

Seano says:

08:57pm | 01/06/11

“Have you ever wandered about reality? Can you prove 100% that the reality you perceive is 100% true? eg Osama Bin Laden killed a few weeks ago? How do you know that is true? did you see the body for your self?”

I haven’t seen the bodies of Elvis, Kurt Cobain or Heath Ledger either but I’m willing to accept they are dead because of the lack credible evidence to the contrary.

You live in a world where you can deny any evidence you choose not to accept because you personal haven’t verified it. Only a completely insane person would live that way.

Septimus says:

05:13am | 02/06/11

John = I Call Troll

Dann Da Mann says:

09:55pm | 01/06/11

I agree with Gidgee, There is no need to be there any longer as it is a war we can never win. I also believe that the boat people who come here with the young afghans should be returned to their country and fight for it instead of our men getting killed for no sane reason. Gillard is once again totally wrong(is she ever correct) in stating that we are there for the long haul. I also do not like us being a lapdog for the USA once again, who apparently have to invade other countries-Mugabe should be taken out but I guess there is No oil there eh? This socalled Government of ours is so INCOMPETENT and soul destroying . Call the Aussie troops out ASAP Ms gillard as you certainly are not reckonised as a PM.