PALE, I must admit, I'm confused as to what you're railing against - have you read the post?

From what I gathered, the point of the post was that Australia's reaction to the death of this soldier risks endangering our other troops fighting in Afghanistan, because it will encourage more attacks.

Aren't we honour bound to question this, if more of our troops are at risk because of our reaction?
Some may argue this to bring troops home, but others may just think that we need to reassess how we react to these deaths.

In any case, I think it's far more disrespectful to pretend nothing happened, and not debate the presence of our soldiers over there. If you're concerned for their lives, how can talking about it be disrespectful?

Politicisation of a soldier's death is unavoidable, though I certainly didn't see any disrespect here.

as i understand it, a professional soldier promises to go where he is told, and kill the people there, if they do not submit to the will of his commander- ultimately, the pm.

"bad luck, mate" is the limit of my sympathy. in fact, since since these two soldiers got killed in someone else's country, i'm more inclined to say:" what did you expect?" are the afghans less than human? is it ok to kill them, but return fire is evil? are they less inclined to defend their country from foreign invaders than ozzies?

oz is in afghanistan for political reasons. both major parties know that a large part of the electorate are hysterically frightened by the outside world and demand to be apparently safe in america's military entourage. the fear is irrational, but real.

"bad luck, mate". but killing people who haven't threatened you is evil, and you signed up to do it.

Demos

You don’t have a clue what you are talking about. The “orders” defence was thrown out at the war trials in Nuremberg. You cannot break international war crimes and claim as a defence that you were under orders. Australian soldiers are well aware of this.

Your simplistic and juvenile analysis is typical. Soldiers in Afghanistan are there fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban who attacked the US killing 3000 people. We are there as allies to the US to honour our obligations under our defence treaties as well as to contribute to a better world.

Your attempt to portray Australian soldiers as at war with ALL Afghans is so typically unimaginative and totally wrong.

Demos you sleep safe from harm every night because Australian service people have laid down their lives over the 2 last centuries for your freedom.

Your ugly remarks show you to be a bitter twisted individual without respect. You belong with the hippies of the 70’s who blamed soldiers for the Vietnam war and called them “babykillers” and other disgusting things. Thank god there aren’t too many of you left.

Why don’t you f@ck off to your democratic utopia, wherever that is. Australia doesn't need people like you.

paul, i never blamed soldiers who fought in vietnam, i was supporting them from the air. i did come to despise the politicians who sent unwilling conscript soldiers there, to do the dirty work that pollies and their families never got near.

paul, learn to distinguish between defending your country, and playing some politician's re-election game. the description you offered to explain why the pm sent soldiers to iraq and afghanistan went out of fashion during the hundred years war.

DEMOS yet again you display your wish for a world so far from reality it never will exist.
Who will show some concern, please show some concern, for the victims of the Taliban.

Paul L., "..the war trials in Nuremberg. You cannot break international war crimes and claim as a defence that you were under orders. Australian soldiers are well aware of this."

I would think a Nuremberg decision wouldn't be required to find moral opposition to comitting a war crime. If I'm ordered by the government to shoot a random civilian, I would not do so. This is always presented as a false dilemma anyway. Usually it's the fault of *both* parties. One is responsible for giving the order. The other is responsible for carrying that order.

Rather than rhetoric I'm going to take two real world examples. Both Abu Ghraib and the Iraq invasion itself have shown that Nuremberg is worthless if no country takes it seriously.

> "Your simplistic and juvenile analysis is typical."

Have you looked at your own argument? Read it.

> "We are there as allies ............as well as to contribute to a better world."

Simplistic? Check.

> "You belong with the hippies of the 70’s....."

Juvenile? Check.

As far as DEMOS comment, it's partially correct. Under wars like Iraq, you know you are signing up to kill people and destroy their private property, not to defend your country. That's what an aggresive war is. It is a war of choice, not defence.

> "Soldiers in Afghanistan are there fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban who attacked the US killing 3000 people."

That is a decietful statement and you should be ashamed of the lie about the Taliban. Both Iraq and the Taliban had nothing to do with the world trade centre attacks. Nothing. Stop parroting that propaganda because it's at least 5 years old now and proven incorrect on countless occasions before and after that time. (before, if you were a wise and intelligent human being).