Foxy,

I'll make the question simpler for you.

If Australia is 'obliged' to send its soldiers to Afghanistan to be killed merely because it is a member of the UN, why are all other members of the UN not in Afghanistan?

Steel,

You are in no position to criticize ASIO. You have absolutely no idea about the information that they receive or the investigations that they carry out. Its pure speculation on your part to suggest they are incompetent, and being completely ignorant about defence and security matters you are hardly fit to comment anyway.

Further, ASIO is not responsible for the provision of intelligence or enforcement in Indonesia or in the US let alone Iraq or Afghanistan. Look it up. So ASIO’s “alleged” incompetence is irrelevant to the issue of Iraq or Afghanistan.

You say >>” I have read various news reports various sources for a long time and they paint a much more realistic picture. I would expect leaders to have that kind of information awareness.

I ROFLMAO, Mate that it definitely the most ignorant thing I have yet heard anyone say on this site in at least a year. You think that ASIS and DIO should be gleaning their intelligence picture from the pages of socialist weekly, or the green digest? You think because you read that rubbish that they are more realistic. That’s so funny. Greens and socialists are some of the most unrealistic people on the planet. The internet news and blogs are filled with kooks looking for an “alternative” viewpoint that better fits their worldview. You think you have better information awareness than our leaders? Mate you are just getting funnier by the minute.

You say >>” USA has much more influence over Australia's fortune and interests than we citizens could imagine”

Clearly not more than YOU could imagine. Cue spooky music.

>>” The stated intentions of Australia so far have been to repeat how 'Good' and 'Just' the war is and that it must 'Go On', at great cost to Australians”

What? The stated intention is to state that the war is good and just. Who stated that statement steel? IF the war is good and just then an economic cost is both inevitable and acceptable. You think foreign AID is free?

You think Jihad Jack is a likely to be an unbiased observer?

PaulL,

You are wasting your time with Steel; he is as thicks as two short planks, and calls anyone who disagrees with him 'morons'.

Mr Right,

I agree Steel is highly intolerant of anyone who disagrees with him/her and cannot actually debate an issue with any competence, but I owe him/her one for his/her previous mindlessly aggressive attacks.

In regards to your question I would say that there is a lot of dead wood that should be cut out of the UN if it is to be useful. Certainly there are plenty of shirkers.

At the moment NATO is in command of the effort in Afghanistan and 40 countries are there fighting. Britain, the US and Canada are all providing more troops on a per capita basis than we are. The Danes, Germans and Italians are also providing significant troop levels.

Britain, by way of comparison, has 40% of its front line infantry forces committed to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Australia has less than 10%.

If I thought we could contain the Taliban and alQaeda without risking troops on the ground I would support it, but we can't.

Apart from the obvious ramifications to the Afghans of failure, NATO and the wests military reputation is on the line. That might seem to be an empty concept to some, however deterrence has kept the peace far more successfully than any other single factor in the history of warfare. Further, a victory for the Islamo-facists will just encourage them to continue their fight against us elsewhere

I am not as pessimistic as some regarding our chances in Afghanistan. If we can get adequate troop levels and match that with improvements in the ANA and ANP, as well as local and regional governance, then there is a real chance of success. We need an holistic approach, not just a military one.

interesting reading.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33627.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7432700.stm

Particularly interesting is Britain's movement into Helmand province where they saw battle, the likes of which had not been seen since Korea. Britain has lost 100 soldiers, but Helmand has been improving to the point where the Taliban have been driven out of the major towns. Reconstruction is fully underway and kids are back at school.

see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7344717.stm

PaulL,

It seems that Foxy cannot answer the simplest of questions relating to his assertion that Australia is obliged to have a presence in Afghanistan because of some obligation to the corrupt UN organisation. I have to draw the conclusion that, once again, he does not have a clue what he is talking about.

I wonder if he is aware that Australian troops are fighting under the command of NATO, an organisation with which Australia is not related.

As for Steel, you will do as you wish, but I think your knowledge and intelligence is totally wasted on him.

Cheers,

Dear Mr Right,

I apologise for not replying to you sooner. I wasn't able to, due to family commitments. By the way, I'm female.

The reason that I said 'We' were obligated to be in Afghanistan was due to the fact that our Government felt, being a member of the United Nations, Australia had to join forces and support the UN - to drive terrorism out of Afghanistan, and help rebuild the nation.

This was not purely a US driven exercise, as was the case in Iraq. This involved NATO allies.

You asked me - why don't all of the NATO allies support this involvement? Mr Right, this could be due to a variety of reasons.
Economic, political, religious, or involvements elsewhere. Take an intelligent guess.

However, as Kevin Rudd has said, "I've committed this Australian Government to being there for the long haul, but it's not a blank cheque - we'll continue to review it."

I'm sorry that John Pilger 'makes your hair stand on end.' I find his credentials quite impressive.

This is taken from the summation given in the
front of the book that I mentioned in my previous post, and I quote:

"John Pilger, an Australian, has twice won British journalism's highest award, that of Journalist of the Year, for his work all over the world, especially as a war correspondent. For his documentary film-making, he has won France's Reporter sans Frontieres, an American television Academy Award, an 'Emmy,' and the Richard Dimbleby Award, given by the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, for a lifetime's factual broadcasting...He lives in London."

Cheers.