Paul L, "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."

Keyword there is "DEFENCE". Iraq is not defensive. Afghanistan is not really defensive, as Osama bin Laden has not been proven to have been in Afghanistan and the pursuit of Osama bin Laden does not adequately describe the campaign to remove the Taliban and occupy the country.

> "to contribute to a better world."

You're in no position to accuse DEMOS of "utopian" views when you offer a sick little euphemism like this for both wars. The millions of people who lie dead or have been displaced would disagree that their world is "a better place". Even those alive are left with the destruction of their posessions, their homes, their infrastructure and the theft of their countries' heritage and cultural artifacts.

On the flip side of the conflict every western democracy has eroded the rights of their citizens at home, and creating more people who hate the west. We saw more terrorist acts after the war and a steady increase in terrorist activity and support for al qaeda. People are living in fear and hatred of one another. Governments are becoming more authoritarian and police oriented. We've seen that with the APEC farce.

> "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."

1. Australia was federated in 1901, not 1807.
2. No one is coming here to invade. Period. Excepting the world wars (more or less), our country has never been threatened.
3. To claim other service men between wars have laid down their lives is a disgrace, when they have not shed a drop of blood.
4. I sleep safe at night because other countries have CHOSEN not to invade Australia... and because my government has not tried to kill or incarcerate me yet. Your own countrymen and government is more likely to harm you than any external threat.

Paul L, "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."

Your remarks are the ugly ones. Those 70s hippies stopped a criminal war that was destroying the lives of the Vietnamese people and stopped the deaths of more soldiers. By the way, learn some history before you open your goddam mouth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai

Please stop idolising soldiers and treating them all like the martyrs the military wants you to believe. They shoot civilians like you and me all the time. They break property, beat, torture, rape and steal. Thankfully Australian soldiers have a hell of a lot more integrity, honour and principles than American soldiers so that helps "me sleep at night".

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

1. What utopia? Describe it.
2. Why is the concept of a "democratic utopia" abhorrent to you? Do you hate freedom (no sarcasm)?
3. You are the one offering such naive, child-like statements as, "to contribute to a better world."
4. You are wrong. Australia need more. Much more.

I don’t need a history lesson from you. I am well aware of the MyLai massacre and to try and encapsulate the whole of that war with that one incident is PATHETIC. Why don’t you instead talk about the 5 thousand who were executed in Hue during TET 1968? Why don’t we talk about the KHMER ROUGE who killed millions of Cambodians. The communists far exceeded us in their obscene acts. Lieutenant Calley was ONE underprepared officer with reluctant soldiers. He deserves to be castigated. But he was not following orders, HE, and his soldiers are responsible. So if wikipedia is the best source you have for the Vietnam War it is you who needs to learn some history.

In any case that was the US experience of the Vietnam war. OUR experience was very different. If you can’t understand this you clearly have no REAL understanding of Australian history of the conflict. You use of the word CRIMINAL to describe the war in Vietnam is typical of the soft lefters. If the people really wanted the communists who INVADED South Vietnam to rule the country why did so many millions of Vietnamese leave in such a hurry after 1975?

You say “ Please stop idolising soldiers .. They shoot civilians ..They.. torture, rape and steal..”

If you have evidence that Sgt Locke was raping or stealing or torturing please provide it. My hunch however is that you are trying to besmirch the memory of this man with your personal prejudices. I am fully aware that not all of our service people are saints. However those in the firing line are prepared to lay down their lives in service to their country. (Something I am SURE you would never do). That should earn them the respect and gratitude of the average Aussie, whether you agree with their mission or not.

My understanding of the Abhu Ghraib matter is that those who committed crimes were punished. Your attempt to again paint all service people with the acts of a few is ugly and prejudiced. You have not produced any evidence to show otherwise. With regards to Iraq there was a significant body of legal opinion based upon international law and UN resolutions which supported the war in Iraq. So the question of whether the war was legal or not is a MORAL one, it has no basis in LAW.

It seems you are in need of a history lesson with regards to the Taliban. They were intimately involved with Al Qaeda and were given every opportunity to hand over Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda fascists. Have you forgotten what the Taliban did with the international soccer stadium that was built for the Afhan people? The Afghans are mostly glad Al Qaeda is gone and some semblance of peace and normality has returned.

It is typical of the loony lefters though to support Dicators and Theocrats over anybody remotely connected to the West. It must be a hangover from the old days when the Evil Empire was still widely supported by the ‘useful idiots.’

Your pathetic attempt to pretend that the terrorist threat didn’t PRE-DATE our war on terror is historical revisionism. 9/11 happened before the war on terror. The bombing of the embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, WTC 1, all these pre-dated the war on terror.

Your juvenile nit picking is laughable.

1) Our soldiers HAVE been serving our country for two centuries, the 21st and the 20th.
2) Except the world wars? Well we can forget about those minor incidents can’t we?
3) What?
4) You think you’re safe because foreign gov’ts have decided not to invade. Do you really think that would have occurred had we not had an army, navy and air force and strong Allies?
5) I shudder to think what you’re solution to terrorism is. Flower Power? Or just plain old surrender to their demands, whatever the price.

Paul L> "I am well aware of the MyLai massacre and to try and encapsulate the whole of that war with that one incident is PATHETIC......."

Do you know what an example is? My Lai was one example of soldiers who were caught (for the record, never punished and were lauded as heroes. no justice for the babies, women or men all). It was symptomatic of several trends. Other crimes include the dropping of napalm on villages of people and the use of chemical agents across their country.
Your description of "unpreparedness and reluctance" is yet another lie. Is it based on anything at all or is it apologist rubbish? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Force#Investigations_of_war_crimes

> "Why don’t you instead talk about the 5 thousand .....1968? Why don’t we talk about the KHMER ROUGE who killed millions of Cambodians"

5000?

From Wikipedia -> "Over 1.3 MILLION military personal were killed in the VIETNAM WAR..., while estimates of civilian fatalities range from 2 to 5.1 MILLION"

And you mention the Khmer Rouge for some reason..... Did the West stop it? No. What did the USA do? Aid it. Who overthrew it? The Vietnamese. In 1979.

wikipedia -> "After four years of rule, the Khmer Rouge regime was removed from power in 1979 as a result of an invasion by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam"
wikipedia -> "Despite American and Chinese aid, these Cambodian forces were repulsed by the Vietnamese"

What was that? The USA helped the Khmer Rouge? Pol Pot invaded Vietnam in 1978 and as the regime fled after being defeated:

wikipedia -> "It was unofficially protected by elements of the Thai Army and the United States Special Forces, and was funded by diamond and timber smuggling."

1-3 million dead under Khmer Rouge. Apparently protected and funded by the USA.

Compared to... 3-6 million dead because of Allies in Vietnam War. This is not counting the illegal Laos secret war as well as chemical and landmine/bomb deaths over generations.

<will post more later, as I find your claims about Abu Ghraib, the Taliban and terrorism (small t) unwise>

Correction - The people who carried out the atrocities at Abhu Ghraib were punished.

The people who gave the orders to commit these acts were not.

A significant difference.

As for the My Lai massacre, there was a concerted official effort to cover the whole thing up and bury it at the time. A certain Mr Colin Powell was involved in this but he failed. In 2001 he gave those evil Taliban a "gift" of $43 million to discourage the cultivation of opium poppies and they were treated as honored guests on visits to the USA to negotiate oil pipeline contracts. This happened while they were harboring Bin Laden (who was already a wanted man) but before September 11th.

John Howard has now inferred that our involvement in these wars is to "maintain America's prestige".

Apparently the loss of Australian lives is but a small price to pay for this.