Prev
Next

The Afghan war is a slow-burn issue for Gillard

Marcus Kuczynski

by Marcus Kuczynski

25 Oct 05:40am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Afghanistan, Online Commentary, Politics

37 comments

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has shown she is not the surrendering type when it comes to the ongoing war in Afghanistan. Last week she forecast Australia would have a presence in the war-torn country for at least another decade.

While this woman was prepared to get thrown out of parliament house over the war, most opposition is sitting comfortably at their computers. Picture: Kym Smith

The definition of a presence in Afghanistan may well change over time, but it was a sobering thought for many Australians and a sign that there is no clear exit strategy in the battle to restore order in the troubled nation.

The start of a parliamentary debate over the issue last week saw Labor and the Coalition Opposition remain committed to Australia’s role in Afghanistan, while the Greens and at least one Independent crossed the battlelines and questioned the sending of troops to fight what many are calling an unwinnable war against terrorism.

The debate may have failed to ignite an explosive public response of the Vietnam War-type protests in the streets, but if the chatter on online news sites is any indication, it is destined to be a simmering issue.

It is clear most commenters have reservations about Australian troops remaining in Afghanistan.

Eric of Armidale, NSW, thought an immediate exit was warranted, writing to The Australian: “Time to get out and fight another stupid and senseless war somewhere else. After all, do we really have to maintain our record as being involved in more wars and military confrontations than any other country since the beginning of the last century.”

Annie Barker of The Hunter, NSW, added: “I never thought I would back the Greens on anything other than the disgrace which is the live sheep and cattle trade. But I am with them on this one. Enough is enough. The US is starting to make pulling out noises and so should we.”

Dragon of Penshurst, commenting to the Daily Telegraph, went further, criticising the expense and linking the war in Afghanistan to the battle to stop asylum seekers: “For once the Greens and an Independent have a hint of sense. The war in Afghanistan is not a winnable one and merely an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer and an encouragement to illegal migration.”

Afghanistan has a long and bloody history of failed invasions. Ex-Lance Jack of Melbourne accused our leaders of failing to learn from past conflicts in a comment to SBS.com.au: “If our leaders studied even a bit of history about the Afghan people, country or culture prior to committing to this venture, they would have realised that this enterprise was doomed to fail from the word go. Welcome to Vietnam Version 2.0.”

But not everyone thinks Australian troops are wasting their time in Afghanistan.

Peto of Nambour, in a post to The Australian, believed they were playing a meaningful role internationally and nationally. “I think our commitment is needed and appreciated by the United Nations and the people of Afghanistan.

The commitment is not open ended, although it is clear that a few more years will be required. This involvement is all part of being a meaningful part of the world community and is essential in bringing purpose to our nationhood.”

Grant, writing to the Daily Telegraph, thought the troops serving in Afghanistan should not be forgotten in the debate and called on two of the most vocal parliamentary opponents of Australia’s role in the war, the Greens’ Adam Bandt and Independent Andrew Wilkie, to consult them: “There is only one person to ask about this and that is the troops. They are the ones over there and are having to leave their families for up to nine months at a time. Adam Bandt and Andrew Wilkie, have a think about your call. It would have been a complete waste of time for the past nine years and also for the diggers that have lost their lives.”

A veteran platoon commander and former defence intelligence analyst, Wilkie last week rejected the excuse to stop terrorism as a reason for remaining in Afghanistan, alleging Australia was merely there to support the United States.

In Parliament, he noted 21 Australians have died so far in Afghanistan. As that figure multiplies - as surely it will - Australia should be prepared for its presence in the war to become a much more hotly-debated issue.

Most commented

37 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Against the Man says:

      05:49am | 25/10/10

      If this government caused civilian deaths thanks to the poor home insulation policy can we depend on them to get the complex solution to war right? New election now, this gso called government is going nowhere fast!

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      07:44am | 25/10/10

      Are the Australians installing home insulation in Afghanistan?  Devious bastards.  That will defeat the wily Taliban.

      Or is there some other reason this response could be relevant?

    • Cate P says:

      12:54pm | 25/10/10

      iansand, well anything’s possible with this surreal govt.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      02:23pm | 25/10/10

      And did it start in 2007 mate?  I could have sworn John Howard sent soldiers to Afghanistan in 2001 while hunting down Afghan refugees on the high seas.

      It was bizarre.  Greg Sheridan wrote at the time: we are sending one warship, one plane and 150 soldiers while we have 25 warships and cruisers with full crews, three planes and whole of government involvement in stopping just 770 Afghans arriving here.

      Hamish McDonald had some stats in the SMH that were not mentioned by anyone.

      OUr 1550 soldiers are in an area with 500,000 people from dozen of different tribes.

      The death rate for kids under 5 is the 37%, the highest in the country. 

      http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/pollies-wax-poetic-on-afghan-quagmire-20101022-16xy1.html

      But to return to our patch, containing some 500,000 of the estimated 28 million Afghans. The 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army and 700 policemen are coming along nicely under their Australian trainers. But how many of the troops are drawn from local tribes, or even speak Pashto? What are the attrition rates from desertion, said to be rife throughout the army? What has been the Taliban penetration of the army and police ranks?

      Another prong of Canberra’s bipartisan approach is civil aid. That is another huge task, on which we’ve barely started. The budget for Oruzgan province this financial year is just $20 million. Last year it was a mere $1.6 million. That is compared to the $1 billion-plus annual cost of the 1550 troops, and the extra $1.1 billion this year for extra armour and other protective measures.

      Oruzgan has 10 per cent male literacy and zero per cent female literacy, trailing the low national averages of 43 per cent for men and 12.6 per cent for women. An estimated 81 per cent of children aged from seven to 13 in the province do not attend school.”

      Now you want to talk about Afghans.

      To jail 680 Afghans outside the law in Curtin cost $200 million for building, $98 million per annum for prison guards.

      To jail a couple of thousand people on Christmas Island is $370 million per annum yet almost every single person jailed will be allowed to stay.

      Leonara to illegally jail 200 women and kids was $50 million.

      Now our so-called aid to the people of Afghanistan amounted to $3.20 per annum per person so we can run the worst stats. and poverty of the entire place and rose to $40 per annum per person this year.

      While we waste $500,000 per person to illegally jail the refugees.

      It would or might mean something if we spent the $1 billion on jailing innocent people on aid for the Afghans we claim to care about.

    • TimB says:

      09:12am | 25/10/10

      “A veteran platoon commander and former defence intelligence analyst, Wilkie last week rejected the excuse to stop terrorism as a reason for remaining in Afghanistan, alleging Australia was merely there to support the United States.”

      Leaving aside the stupidity of the view that stopping terrorism is merely “an excuse”, why shouldn’t we be there to support the US? They were attacked, by terrorists operating out of & aided by a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
      Under the terms of the ANZUS agreement, we should be there, no question about it.

      If Australia ever got attacked I’d expect the same support from the USA, not some Washington pollie to whine “we’re only there to support Australia, we should pull out”

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      12:11pm | 25/10/10

      TimB - My guess is that your expectation would remain just that.

    • TimB says:

      01:27pm | 25/10/10

      Iansand, you basing your guess on anything concrete beyond your own personal opinion of the US?

    • Bobster says:

      01:47pm | 25/10/10

      Britain expected support from the US in 1939 - that was immediately forthcoming wasn’t it.

      Fact is the US will always support us because we’re an unsinkable aircraft carrier today as we were in WW2.

      That’s no excuse to run into petty, ridiculous wars that have done absolutely nothing to prevent terrorism, in fact they’ve made it worse.

      You can’t fight terrorism with conventional armies - if we were serious we’d be throwing every resource we have at ASIO and the other intelligence organisations rather than wasting it playing with our toys in the sand.

    • iansand says:

      02:04pm | 25/10/10

      TimB - US foreign policy has, for many years (at least since Kissinger was Secretary of State) been based on the idea that the US does not have allies - it has interests.  I am not so naive as to believe that Australia has a specisl status.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      02:27pm | 25/10/10

      No Afghans attacked the US.  And ANzus does not require ignorant stupidity in backing liars in the US.

      The attack on Afghanistan was planned in the 1990’s because the US loved and controlled and armed taliban would not allow an oil pipeline across Afghanistan from the Caspian Sea.

      And Tim, the US would tell us to get stuffed as they always do.

      We joined them in Vietnam, that was a glorious success wasn’t it.

      The attackers on the WTC were Saudis who trained in Germany, Spain and America.  They never went anywhere near Afghanistan.

    • TheRealDave says:

      02:30pm | 25/10/10

      @Bobster, we’d have ASIO in the fight but apparently not to many people like the 9-5 requirements :p

    • iansand says:

      02:52pm | 25/10/10

      In fact, TimB, I have heard lots of stuff from the US about “old ally” and “best friend in the Pacific”, but I do not recall ever hearing a statemnt like “We’ve got your back, come what may”.  Have you?  What evidence do you have, from the US side, that the US will come to our aid?  That is not to say that such a thing hasn’t been said privately.

    • TimB says:

      05:36pm | 25/10/10

      @ Iansand- Perhaps you should READ the treaty.

      http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1952/2.html

      Take note of this bit:

      “DESIRING to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that any of them stand alone in the Pacific Area, and”

      Sub out “Potential Agressor” for “Punch Blogger” and the statement now applies to yourself. Unless of course you want to continue to push the line that the US has no intention of upholding its treaty obligations & that ANZUS isn’t worth the paper it was written on.
      Maybe we should just scrap all our treaties then, after all we’re working on the assumption that the other parties aren’t going to uphold them aren’t we?

      Marylin, I believe MarK has a sale on tinfoil hats at the moment, I’m sure he’d happily give you a great deal. In the meantime perhaps you’d like to read this and see how wrong you are about the 9/11 terrorists not having anything to do with Afghanistan.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2213701.stm

    • iansand says:

      08:45pm | 25/10/10

      Gosh.  A treaty.  I’m convinced.

      Perhaps we can ask the UN to enforce it when it’s breached.

    • TimB says:

      07:56am | 26/10/10

      iansand, you have no idea how stupid you sound. Obama himself could appear on TV tonight to confirm US support and you’d still loudly proclaim that he was probably lying.

      You’ve clearly already made up your own mind about what would happen, evidence is meaningless to you.

    • iansand says:

      11:19am | 26/10/10

      No.  He would not be lying but imagine this scenario:

      The US has a need to use the sea lanes between the Pacific to Indian Oceans.  A minor crisis in the Middle East, for example.  At the same time Australia is under threat from Indonesia.  Unlikely but by no means inconceivable.

      Wherefore art thy treaty now?  As I said before, the US does not have allies, it has interests and anyone who does not accept that fundamental premise of realpolitik is naive.

    • TimB says:

      12:16pm | 26/10/10

      I’ll tell you what happens then. The US sends its Pacific fleet across to Indonesia and breaks the back of their naval capacity (such as it is). The treaty is upheld, and the US simultaneously secures the Indian Pacific sea routes for its own forces on route to the Gulf.

      Although why they’d be using the Pacific fleet to respond to a Middle East issue & not any of the units stationed much closer to the Gulf would be beyond me.

      But hey I’ll leave it to the Americans to tell you themselves:
      http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/q-guyon-espiner-interviews-kurt-campbell-3065958

      I like to think the quote ” I think Australia has been probably in the last ten years, has ascended to one of the closest one or two allies on the planet” from US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell makes a mockery of your silly viewpoint.

      You nail it when you say the US has interests. And we’re one of them. ANZUS spells out as much.
      But your statement that “the US doesn’t have allies” & implying that there is no real alliance between Australia and America is an absolutely ridiculous claim based off your own preconcieved opinion.

    • iansand says:

      12:45pm | 26/10/10

      Very hard to sink an island.  You don’t need a navy to block a strait.

      But believe what you want.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:22am | 25/10/10

      “It is clear most commenters have reservations about Australian troops remaining in Afghanistan.”

      If you cherry pick the comments it would. Funny thing is, over the past few months when there have ben articles about the war there seems to me to be a large percentage of people calling for an INCREASE in the numbers of troops on the ground and a desire to ‘do the job properly’ and finish it odd once and for all.

      But I guess its just easier to pretend that the ‘majority’ are against it if it fits in with the tone of the piece.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      01:07am | 26/10/10

      ‘The attackers on the WTC were Saudis who trained in Germany, Spain and America.  They never went anywhere near Afghanistan. ‘

      I never knew that.  So why are we in Afghanistan?

    • TimB says:

      07:45am | 26/10/10

      Acotrel you never knew that because it’s not true. Marilyn is either repeating crackpot conspiracy theory tripe, or just plain making stuff up.

      Read my link, it clearly shows that the ringleader of the 9/11 attacks trained in Afghanistan. I’m sure that if I spent more than a minute with Google I could back up sources showing others involved were there too. Not to mention Osama himself.

      Oh, and PS. PLEASE learn to click the correct reply button when you comment. It’s really annoying seeing all your responses one comment down from where they should be.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:43am | 25/10/10

      We are in Afghanistan to support the US?

      Well - DUH!

      You need a parliamentary enquiry or two day debate just to tell us that?

      I look forward to your next 4 year Royal Commission that discovers that straight men like women’s breasts….

      Reply

    • Anjuli says:

      10:35am | 25/10/10

      We are in Afghanistan now and must finish the job by training up the citizens there ,as well as those Afghans that are in Australia and send them back to defend their democratic rights ,or else bring our troops home .
      What is the point of Kazai meeting with the Taliban they will renege on any thing they agree too,they have no principles neither has Kazai by all accounts.

      Reply

    • Dennis Argall says:

      10:39am | 25/10/10

      Something has changed in Australia, and not for the better, since we all took to the streets to oppose the foolish and dangerous war in Iraq in 2003. Why are we not out in the streets now about Afghanistan? There was a purpose of going into Afghanistan in 2001, and international legal legitimacy, a right of hot pursuit of Osama bin Laden. But that reason has long ago evaporated.

      Tim, the defence treaty with the US does not work like that, it has no such application, it requires us to act in our own national interest, ditto the US.

      There is indeed no logic to support the idea that war in Afghanistan saves us from terrorism. Just as in Iraq, continued war increases terrorism. And in the case of Afghanistan, continued war further destabilises Pakistan, which has enormous consequences. Our military presence, in support of US presence, has entrenched the power of warlords and thugs to whom the US granted power when they went into Afghanistan, the US having earlier empowered and armed the Taliban when Moscow occupied Afghanistan. The British have been seeking and failing to control Afghanistan since the 1830s. It all gets worse, more heavily armed, more productive of opium than ever before. Begin to see it in its complexity. Cease to imagine that the US is some kind of superpower with capacity to control countries it occupies. The only case of success for the US in the past 60 years is Grenada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada [340 sq km, 100,000 people surrounded by water compared with Afghanistan 640 sq km, 28 million people, surrounded by mountains.]

      Reply

    • TimB says:

      11:25am | 25/10/10

      Dennis was the US in Afghanistan before 9/11? Iraq? No. The terrorists started this. Don’t sit there and tell me that the war is the excuse for terrorism.

      And given the events in Bali, yes I would think the war against these extremists IS in our National interest. Clearly a multitude of other nations agree, or they wouldn’t be there either.

      Finally this:
      “There was a purpose of going into Afghanistan in 2001, and international legal legitimacy, a right of hot pursuit of Osama bin Laden. But that reason has long ago evaporated. “

      Has it? When? How? If we pull out with the job incomplete and let the Taliban take control again,  then Afghanistan once again becomes a haven for those responsible for terrorism. We end up back at square one.

    • JustBackFromAFG says:

      06:31pm | 25/10/10

      No the US didn’t train/arm/support the Taliban (or Al Qeada) against the Soviets. It was the Mujihadeen who subsequently splintered into a civil war and were then overthrown by the Taliban. But don’t let facts destroy a good conspiracy

    • Dan says:

      10:34pm | 25/10/10

      Actually TimB, the reason why multiple nations are in Afghanista is because it was seen as legitimate following 9/11. It has nothing to do with Bali or terrorism in general. It wasn’t eveen about preventing Afghanisan from being a haven for terrorism, and there is no indication that if we pull out, it will become one.

      JustBackFromAFG, many of the Mujihadeen became the Taliban. That’s the whole point.

    • DaveO says:

      12:21pm | 25/10/10

      Like your article says we need to learn from past conflicts, unfortunately we have a PM that refuses to admit she has no idea how to manage this situation. We need real leadership from real leaders.

      Reply

    • Cate P says:

      12:56pm | 25/10/10

      DaveO, cut the poor woman some slack, she’s given herself 10 years or so to think about it ...

    • Agsinst the Man says:

      02:26pm | 25/10/10

      Man oh man can you believe that we will be an aquisition of the Singapore government HaHa ALP selling us out. Our stock exchange is worth more yet in this ‘merger’ only 4 Aussie out of 15 representation on the board. 22million Aussies will be controlled by 3million Singaporeans in a police state. Good ol’ ALP voters getting value from their votes. This is war at a whole different level everyone!

    • Bobster says:

      01:11pm | 25/10/10

      Sick of this issue. It’s taken us 10 years to work out what was blindingly obvious from the start - this was always an unwinnable and idiotic war and we’ll be there for at least another decade unless we seriously change our approach.

      With the slightest bit of luck though, the geniuses who sent our soldiers to die for nothing, with no hope of winning, will be remember as fondly as the mob of idiots who did the same thing in Vietnam.

      Reply

    • Dennis Argall says:

      01:24pm | 25/10/10

      Yes Tim, the US was heavily involved in Afghanistan before 9/11 please read some history.

      No Tim, I cannot see a reason in Bali for increasing commitment in Afghanistan.

      Well, Tim, hot pursuit is like it is what it sounds like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_pursuit
      ... and [1] the chase was broken off when focus shifted to Iraq and the trail is very cold.

      Tell me, Tim, what is ‘job complete’ and in what sense are we equipped to complete it? In what way is our continued engagement contributing to what completion? Very important to get past this oft repeated cliche, to examine practicabilities.

      Potential for terrorism increases as people’s lives are ravaged by war and disruption, by lack of recourse to other means and as it gets encouragement: as in the US support for the Taliban in the 1980s.

      The presence of foreign forces in Afghanistan delays resolution by Afghans of outcomes among themselves. Tim, how will you get to play favourites in Afghanistan, given the evident failure of most great-power-colonialist-intentioned governments ever to succeed with such pick-a-winner ambitions. Does your mother pick your partners? Life’s not like that…

      Reply

    • TimB says:

      06:17pm | 25/10/10

      Prior US involvement in Afghanistan- That was in the 1980’s. Are you telling me that 9/11 was in retalliation for the US’s support in Afghanistan against the Soviets a generation prior? Really?

      Bali Bombings- Perpertrated by members of Jemaah Islamiyah, an organization with strong ties to Al Qaeda. If you can’t draw a link from Bali to terrorists in Afghanistan, there’s something wrong.

      Pursuit of Bin Laden- Ah I see. We’ve been at it for too long and we got a little distracted in the meantime. I guess that means we should just give up. I’ll go let the police know that they can drop any outstanding arrest warrants over 5 years old too.

      Job complete- When fundementalist forces such as the Taliban no longer pose a threat to the West, or the Afghan people, as well as ensuring that the country doesn’t degenerate into a terrorist haven again.

      I’m not even sure what your last paragraph means.  If you can explain it better, I’ll answer it.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      02:29pm | 25/10/10

      I tell you what Tim, get a copy of Charlie Wilson’s war.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      04:09pm | 25/10/10

      Just like most comments you get with news online posts so it is no different with posts on punch and the wild imaginery and emotionally charged statements coming forth with points on other topics like politics and asylum seekers attempting to be made.
      Call it terrorism or a criminal act, that is why the US attacked in Afghanistan and it has morphed into regime change and unlike when you had the Reich or Nazis on the invasionary march, it is not only the success that will be questionable but the role itself.
      US history has its War of Independence and Civil War!
      Sure, seek the perpetrators of criminally terrorist acts but as others have indicated, the 911 attackers were not Afghani nor even Taliban and do we really know just how much connection they had with Osama, whether he actually planned and directed it?
      How were Bali bombers connected with Afghanistan or the Taliban?

      One sound comment above was re the culture of Afghanistan and the role of war lords besides the Taliban rather than necessarily alongside them and it might just be better to concentrate on seeking the terrorists rather than attempting to reform war lord and Taliban territory for that is what the Aussie forces seem to be more involved in and it is that culture which will mean non commitment and desertion that will see any effort eroded.
      If we had our own neighbourhoods being run by uncontrolled gangs we may also choose wisely with who we sided.

      Some may say we are giving up on the Afghanis and that can be said but it can also be said we did not go there to give them anything and there just is not the manpower to fix something that needs to be resolved from within.
      Vietnam are doing that and will likely be well ahead of Australia in having a Nuclear power station, one being planned.
      And if we say we have to be there to finish the job, a job that is not really so well defined and if it is to train an Afghani Army brigade or whatever and that seems to be more a recent revelation, would training not be better done by qualified trainers to train Afghanis to train their own, taking into account cultural differences.

      Australia is there as a bit player to a greater US debacle that not only Obama will find some words to complement his pull out ones and be using them along the lines of success in Iraq, the fighting supposedly stopped there when US forces have been withdrawn from active duty [ unless needed ] and the blood baths will continue and the US likely only needed as determined by whose blood is flowing regardless of whether they will have a government or not from the election they had.
      The blood flow timetable for Afghanistan is likely to be determined by the 2012 US Presidential election campaign and Karzai’s talks with the Taliban.
      They both may claim some success, a US draw down on numbers and quite likely a return to life as was normal whatever that may be with the Taliban ultimately emerging with the upper hand.

      It would be utter stupidity for any Australian government to leave forces in Afghanistan with such circumstances prevailing.
      Hopefully there is a rapid evacuation plan for when the time comes.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      01:30am | 26/10/10

      It sounds to me as though the original gripe is Islamic hatred of the Jews, because of their presence in Palestine. The beneficiaries and instigators were initially the British. I suggest we’ll have to get a lot smarter, if we’re ever to find an answer to this problem.  When you have the Iranians financing Karzai, that’s an indication of whose agenda is getting played out in Afghanistan.

      Reply

    • www.thepunch.com.au says:

      09:04am | 03/06/11

      The afghan war is a slow burn issue for gillard.. Reposted it smile

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter