THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Wednesday, July 09, 2008


Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for some reason seems determined to keep Australian soldiers on Afghani real estate killing Afghanis who are trying to get rid of the foreign invaders from their lands.

Another Australian soldier was killed yesterday bringing the total number of Australian soldiers killed there to six with another forty having been wounded. Australian Defence Chief Angus Houston told a press conference that the latest death would hardened the resolve of Australian forces to "go after" Taliban bombmakers. Houston failed to mention that the soldier’s death would also harden the resolve of Taliban bombmakers to ‘go after’ more Australian and allied soldiers in their efforts to rid their country of the Western invaders that occupy their lands.

Australian soldiers returning from service in Afghanistan, including SAS and other Special Forces soldiers, are saying that they are fighting a losing battle there and it is time to leave. Most concede that they will never be able to win the war there and that the longer they are there, the worse the problem will become.

More and more innocent Afghanis are being killed and for everyone the allies kill so the allies create another hundred enemies. Despite the allies’ sophisticated weaponry and the presence of highly trained Special Forces soldiers, the war in Afghanistan can never be won. All foreign troops that have invaded Afghanistan must leave and the Afghan people must be left to determine their own future and not have it dictated to by self-righteous westerners.


Matt said...

Does pursuing this war in Afghanistan make Kevin Rudd a war criminal?

Damian Lataan said...

Morally, anyone that prosecutes war by invading and then continuing to occupy another’s country and killing the local people is a war criminal.

Legally? I wouldn’t have a clue; I’m an historian, not a judge.

Anonymous said...

How can he be a war criminal when the action is morally backed up by the UN mandate that supports the Afghanistan deployment.

In fact, the most unethical stance is to leave Afghanistan to be taken over again by the worst human rights abusing regime we've seen for a long time, the Taliban. That's criminal for its dearth of morality.

Anonymous said...

It is hard to believe that these day some people still believe that the UN has any moral authority left. The UN has been for a long time a tool of the USA to sanction any criminal act it decides to undertake. The war in Afghanistan is nothing but another imperial war of the West agaisnt a poor country. Any foreign soldier killed in that war is a little victory for all the oppressed people of the world.

Anonymous said...

.... sure ... I've no doubt the women of Afghanistan appreciate your cheerleading the forces of mysoginy.

Very progressive for a Socialist.

Loz said...

Do you believe for one second that the USA and her hirelings are in Afghanistan to fight for justice and freedom?
Why not defend women's rights in Saudi Arabia or any other muslim country under USA control?
This is an imperial war and the rights of women is only an excuse to defend the indefensible.

Anonymous said...

"Do you believe for one second that the USA and her hirelings are in Afghanistan to fight for justice and freedom?"

The USA's motivation could be to steal all of the apple trees in Afghanistan.

I couldn't care.

Whatever their motive is, it DID lead to the ouster of one of the world's worst human rights abusing regimes.

Your path would allow them to get back in.

Leaving women to be slaughtered, strung up and abused by the Taliban is against any notion of human rights, and ethically indefensible.

Loz said...

A US air strike in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday killed 47 civilians, 39 of them women and children, an Afghan government investigating team says

Damian Lataan said...

Anony mouse, the worlds worst human rights abusers are already 'back in'. They're in Afghanistan, Iraq and they'd really like to get into Iran as well and abuse the Iranians.

But, fear not; the worlds worst human rights abusers will eventually be ousted by the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Iraqi insurgents in Iraq and will more than likely regret any attempt to abuse the human rights of the Iranian people just as the Vietnamese people ousted the worlds worst human rights abusers from their country when they tried it there.

Anonymous said...

A vote of thanks from these chicks goes out to you. "Vietnam!!", they no doubt must have been screaming. For sure.

You paint a rosy picture for the peasants in Afghanistan. How they must miss the good ol' days!

Oooh, oooh, not just the women. The minorities as well:,1,5853364.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-utl

The Hazaras will surely celebrate the extra attention from the Taliban's world famous openness and tolerance, an extra gift for them courtesy of this merciful and humane Socialist ideal.

All because those living in the comfort of the West despise the United States to such an extent, that they're even willing to sacrifice ethics and decency by way of abandoning the Afghans to a cruel and oppressive existence.

Just in order to see the USA get a bloody nose, the rubbishing of Afghan human rights is apparently a small price to pay. Meanwhile, the view of this catastrophe to be enjoyed while relaxing in every comfort that the West provides.


The fate to befall the Afghans in this scenario will be far worse than the fate to be met by the Americans.

Yet, even for this relatively mild rebuke to the Americans, this mild bloody nose, you're happy to impart a far worse fate to the Afghans.