What is a better spend ... $43 Billion on the Afghan War, or $43 Billion on broadband infrastructure?

What does the war do for this country ... We already have a defense  budget yes it should be more but we still need the NBN to future proof our economy for the digital age

Yes Liberals are pro spending billions on propping up a undemocratic government in Afghanistan ... yet woe be tied if money is spent on Australian infrastructure.

____ wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 11:19pm:

Yes Liberals are pro spending billions on propping up a undemocratic government in Afghanistan ... yet woe be tied if money is spent on Australian infrastructure.

Maybe they just reason that infrastructure is boring, and the people don't deserve it, whereas war is the Great American way and we must follow their lead where others have turned their backs and gone home to wherever they belong.

Tony might be aiming for a peace prize like Obama ha ha, or maybe Gillard will get it this year if our soldiers kill enough people.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 6:41am:

____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2010 at 11:19pm: Yes Liberals are pro spending billions on propping up a undemocratic government in Afghanistan ... yet woe be tied if money is spent on Australian infrastructure. Maybe they just reason that infrastructure is boring, and the people don't deserve it, whereas war is the Great American way and we must follow their lead where others have turned their backs and gone home to wherever they belong. Tony might be aiming for a peace prize like Obama ha ha, or maybe Gillard will get it this year if our soldiers kill enough people.

great thinking lefties great thinking......

yes let the terrorists take a punt on aussie soil and see the reaction then..

sounds daft I know.. but having lived in London during the blitz.albet very young.. I can assure you I would rather a war took place in someone elses country than the one I am living in.. selfish to the core thats me..

if you choose to wait till they are on your doorstep so be it.like a flood, when you put down the sandbags it only stops it for a while then it gets harder.. if you are of the mind that we would never ever be attacked.. you are sillier than I give you credit for.if they would attack America I can assure you they have no fear of us.

however spend your money on NBN.. thats what they are doing anyway.. a very rich man said on TV this morning we are crazy spending $7000 per household on broadband.. and he made all his money on communications... it isnt the money with me its the WASTE.

So does the $43 Billion Australia is throwing at the Afghan war, guarantee terrorism will be defeated codswal?

Or is it a stop gap measure to keep the war machine cashed up.

____ wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 7:33am:

So does the $43 Billion Australia is throwing at the Afghan war, guarantee terrorism will be defeated codswal? Or is it a stop gap measure to keep the war machine cashed up.

$43 bil is a tad of an exaggeration isn't it, considering the entire defence budget is $22 bil /year.


I'd rather we give the terrorist a red hot ring kicking in their own territory rather than wait until they decide to move into ours and start the killing.

No-one expects you to make any effort to defend or support this country, so I don't see what your problem is; is your gay porn not downloading fast enough?

So we are throwing Billions on a war that :

- supports an undemocratic government
- supports the trade in illegal drugs
- united two different muslim groups, who are natural enemies, so they can together unite the west.


Along with just peddle and get no where while other coalition partners like the UK and the USA plan their withdrawal. Will Australia carry on the war once these two countries admit defeat and cut and run?

The $43 Billion on the Afghanistan War that the west has lost because of gung ho attitude of the warmongers who would rather destroy young Australian soldier's lives, than use there brains to counter the fundamental groups in non violent ways.

Verses the investment into the national broadband roll out.

Which is a better spend?

____ wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 11:19pm:

Yes Liberals are pro spending billions on propping up a undemocratic government in Afghanistan ... yet woe be tied if money is spent on Australian infrastructure.

The ALP backed this war at the time, and have continued to do so throughout the entire campaign.

Nice try, but your throw away one liner attacks at the Liberal party are pathetic.  Look in your own back yard, your bed buddies the ALP are just as guilty for partaking in this war.

Verge wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 8:04am:

____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2010 at 11:19pm: Yes Liberals are pro spending billions on propping up a undemocratic government in Afghanistan ... yet woe be tied if money is spent on Australian infrastructure. The ALP backed this war at the time, and have continued to do so throughout the entire campaign. Nice try, but your throw away one liner attacks at the Liberal party are pathetic.  Look in your own back yard, your bed buddies the ALP are just as guilty for partaking in this war.

ALP are not opposed to investing in broadband infrastructure ... the coalition is.



So the Afghan War $43 Billion V Broadband Infrastructure Rollout question can not be asked of Labor. because they support both.

____ wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 8:10am:

Verge wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 8:04am: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2010 at 11:19pm: Yes Liberals are pro spending billions on propping up a undemocratic government in Afghanistan ... yet woe be tied if money is spent on Australian infrastructure. The ALP backed this war at the time, and have continued to do so throughout the entire campaign. Nice try, but your throw away one liner attacks at the Liberal party are pathetic.  Look in your own back yard, your bed buddies the ALP are just as guilty for partaking in this war. ALP are not opposed to investing in broadband infrastructure ... the coalition is. So the Afghan War $43 Billion V Broadband Infrastructure Rollout question can not be asked of Labor. because they support both.

So why are you even drawing comparisions between the two.

Typical woody, diversion tactics at their best.

The greens, anti Australia, anti wealth and anti prosperity.

Verge wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 8:13am:

____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 8:10am: Verge wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 8:04am: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2010 at 11:19pm: Yes Liberals are pro spending billions on propping up a undemocratic government in Afghanistan ... yet woe be tied if money is spent on Australian infrastructure. The ALP backed this war at the time, and have continued to do so throughout the entire campaign. Nice try, but your throw away one liner attacks at the Liberal party are pathetic.  Look in your own back yard, your bed buddies the ALP are just as guilty for partaking in this war. ALP are not opposed to investing in broadband infrastructure ... the coalition is. So the Afghan War $43 Billion V Broadband Infrastructure Rollout question can not be asked of Labor. because they support both. So why are you even drawing comparisions between the two. Typical woody, diversion tactics at their best. The greens, anti Australia, anti wealth and anti prosperity.

Liberals // Nationals support wasting $43 billion on a lost Afghan War ... and oppose $43 billion on Broadband infrastructure.

Rather than try and deflect on Greens, or Labor, how about you guys justify your illogical position.

____ wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 8:19am:

Verge wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 8:13am: ____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 8:10am: Verge wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 8:04am: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2010 at 11:19pm: Yes Liberals are pro spending billions on propping up a undemocratic government in Afghanistan ... yet woe be tied if money is spent on Australian infrastructure. The ALP backed this war at the time, and have continued to do so throughout the entire campaign. Nice try, but your throw away one liner attacks at the Liberal party are pathetic.  Look in your own back yard, your bed buddies the ALP are just as guilty for partaking in this war. ALP are not opposed to investing in broadband infrastructure ... the coalition is. So the Afghan War $43 Billion V Broadband Infrastructure Rollout question can not be asked of Labor. because they support both. So why are you even drawing comparisions between the two. Typical woody, diversion tactics at their best. The greens, anti Australia, anti wealth and anti prosperity. Liberals // Nationals support wasting $43 billion on a lost Afghan War ... and oppose $43 billion on Broadband infrastructure. Rather than try and deflect on Greens, or Labor, how about you guys justify your illogical position.

Yawn, you are trying to justify the expense of one by highlighting another, it wreaks of desperation, much like the GALP.

The greens support bringing down the mining industry with injects BILLIONS of dollars this country in wages, payroll tax, company tax, royalities and jobs, yet the greens want no mines in australia.

How can you support a $43b project, yet you want to cripple and finish a trillion dollar industry?

Once again the coalition cheer squad have been revealed as a spent force. They support the waste of Australian life and limb on a lost war.

They have no exit strategy from Afghanistan so the $43 Billion will grow.

They have not committed to taking over the rolls of America or the UK, when these countries cut and run.

and on the broadband roll out, they oppose investing in Australia and Australians.



So why can't the coalition cheer squad put up a rational explanation of this contradiction ... is it because they are all unbalanced ... politically and in other ways !!!

And once again ... what does the GALP mean?

or do you not understand the difference between an alliance and a coalition?

____ wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 8:32am:

Once again the coalition cheer squad have been revealed as a spent force. They support the waste of Australian life and limb on a lost war. They have no exit strategy from Afghanistan so the $43 Billion will grow. They have not committed to taking over the rolls of America or the UK, when these countries cut and run. and on the broadband roll out, they oppose investing in Australia and Australians. So why can't the coalition cheer squad put up a rational explanation of this contradiction ... is it because they are all unbalanced ... politically and in other ways !!!

Yawn.  Comparing a war and infrastructure.

No wonder the greens needed to forumlate a coalition with the ALP, someone needs to put these irrational comparisions in check.

The greens, anti australia and anti prosperity.

At least Tony is open to a debate on the topic

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott signalled his strong support for the war but agreed a debate would be appropriate.

"I stress that both the coalition and the ALP strongly support that commitment but given that strong support from both sides of parliament I don't think it would hurt to debate this issue," he told reporters.

"Obviously, it is an important commitment.

"We don't lightly put the lives of Australian service personnel on the line in a commitment such as this."

The Greens' stated policy is for the immediate withdrawal of troops. Beyond that, there is wishful thinking. NSW Green Lee Rhiannon, for instance, reckons our military budget could be spent on aid programs for Afghan women and children. Yes, but who will deliver that aid when the Taliban think aid workers are legitimate targets, as are girls at schools built by foreign aid money?

Verge wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 8:57am:

____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 8:32am: Once again the coalition cheer squad have been revealed as a spent force. They support the waste of Australian life and limb on a lost war. They have no exit strategy from Afghanistan so the $43 Billion will grow. They have not committed to taking over the rolls of America or the UK, when these countries cut and run. and on the broadband roll out, they oppose investing in Australia and Australians. So why can't the coalition cheer squad put up a rational explanation of this contradiction ... is it because they are all unbalanced ... politically and in other ways !!! Yawn.  Comparing a war and infrastructure. No wonder the greens needed to forumlate a coalition with the ALP, someone needs to put these irrational comparisions in check. The greens, anti australia and anti prosperity.

Comparing $43 billion plus on a lost war ... to $43 billion on broadband infrastructure.

The coalition has again been revealed as foolish and anti Australian.

____ wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 9:19am:

Verge wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 8:57am: ____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 8:32am: Once again the coalition cheer squad have been revealed as a spent force. They support the waste of Australian life and limb on a lost war. They have no exit strategy from Afghanistan so the $43 Billion will grow. They have not committed to taking over the rolls of America or the UK, when these countries cut and run. and on the broadband roll out, they oppose investing in Australia and Australians. So why can't the coalition cheer squad put up a rational explanation of this contradiction ... is it because they are all unbalanced ... politically and in other ways !!! Yawn.  Comparing a war and infrastructure. No wonder the greens needed to forumlate a coalition with the ALP, someone needs to put these irrational comparisions in check. The greens, anti australia and anti prosperity. Comparing $43 billion plus on a lost war ... to $43 billion on broadband infrastructure. The coalition has again been revealed as foolish and anti Australian.

You are the idiot making the comparison, not us.  You are the idiot trying to compare two completley unrelated issues.

Why dont you make comparisons to the billions wasted in the BER and insulation to broadband?

____ wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 9:19am:

Verge wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 8:57am: ____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 8:32am: Once again the coalition cheer squad have been revealed as a spent force. They support the waste of Australian life and limb on a lost war. They have no exit strategy from Afghanistan so the $43 Billion will grow. They have not committed to taking over the rolls of America or the UK, when these countries cut and run. and on the broadband roll out, they oppose investing in Australia and Australians. So why can't the coalition cheer squad put up a rational explanation of this contradiction ... is it because they are all unbalanced ... politically and in other ways !!! Yawn.  Comparing a war and infrastructure. No wonder the greens needed to forumlate a coalition with the ALP, someone needs to put these irrational comparisions in check. The greens, anti australia and anti prosperity. Comparing $43 billion plus on a lost war ... to $43 billion on broadband infrastructure. The coalition has again been revealed as foolish and anti Australian.

You do realise keeping 1500 soldiers in the field for 10 years, without having to provide air support or even our own artillary doesn't cost $43 bil.

But if you have any evidence to show that we have spent $43 bil on our time in Afghanistan, please feel free to provide it.

I know bullets are expensive and so is overseas allowances, but not that expensive.

Verge wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 9:05am:

The Greens' stated policy is for the immediate withdrawal of troops. Beyond that, there is wishful thinking. NSW Green Lee Rhiannon, for instance, reckons our military budget could be spent on aid programs for Afghan women and children. Yes, but who will deliver that aid when the Taliban think aid workers are legitimate targets, as are girls at schools built by foreign aid money?

Aid money does nothing but create more problems. Back during the great depression in Ireland there was no such thing as Aid programs and population fell 30%. Fast forward too the 1980's we had Live Aid that was suppose to end poverty in Africa. but what happened was the complete opposite. Most the money raised was spend on Military and weapons. So in Hines site anyone who donated was funding increase poverty, famine, murders, rebel & government campaigns

Countries like England and America will have( or are)   re thinking their War  spending budget. England needs to make spending cuts as reported this morning on the news.

I remember not so long ago reading a good article about War on Terrorism will bankgrupt countries. I think I will try and find that article....

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 9:38am:

____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 9:19am: Verge wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 8:57am: ____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 8:32am: Once again the coalition cheer squad have been revealed as a spent force. They support the waste of Australian life and limb on a lost war. They have no exit strategy from Afghanistan so the $43 Billion will grow. They have not committed to taking over the rolls of America or the UK, when these countries cut and run. and on the broadband roll out, they oppose investing in Australia and Australians. So why can't the coalition cheer squad put up a rational explanation of this contradiction ... is it because they are all unbalanced ... politically and in other ways !!! Yawn.  Comparing a war and infrastructure. No wonder the greens needed to forumlate a coalition with the ALP, someone needs to put these irrational comparisions in check. The greens, anti australia and anti prosperity. Comparing $43 billion plus on a lost war ... to $43 billion on broadband infrastructure. The coalition has again been revealed as foolish and anti Australian. You do realise keeping 1500 soldiers in the field for 10 years, without having to provide air support or even our own artillary doesn't cost $43 bil. But if you have any evidence to show that we have spent $43 bil on our time in Afghanistan, please feel free to provide it. I know bullets are expensive and so is overseas allowances, but not that expensive.

Exit from Afghanistan War ... lets say, year 2094

$43 Billion is an underestimation

So coalition cheer squad ... when does the coalition plan to admit defeat in Afghanistan?

Once that is stated, a closer cost is $$$, if not human life, can then be calculated.

wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 9:57am:

Countries like England and America will have( or are)   re thinking their War  spending budget. England needs to make spending cuts as reported this morning on the news. I remember not so long ago reading a good article about War on Terrorism will bankgrupt countries. I think I will try and find that article....

Logical argument eh Vegetable.......UK and The USA are going to cut their budget on combating terrorism and liberating the Afghan people when both countries have lost many civilians and troops in their endeavours so far……..you’re a bloody genius are you not………….NOT!!

____ wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 10:05am:

[quote author=bigol64 link=1285765170/15#20 date=1285803495][quote author=Tony_Abbott link=1285765170/15#18 date=1285802363][quote author=Verge link=1285765170/15#15 date=1285801077][quote author=Tony_Abbott link=1285765170/0#13 date=1285799568] Exit from Afghanistan War ... lets say, year 2094 $43 Billion is an underestimation So coalition cheer squad ... when does the coalition plan to admit defeat in Afghanistan? Once that is stated, a closer cost is $$$, if not human life, can then be calculated.

So now that you have been found out lying about the true cost of the war, you want us to believe that it will now last until 2094.

Ok Ill bite, any evidence that the war will last until 2094, remember you did also state that the US and the UK intend to cut and run.

Like a typical greenie, just make shiat up to support your own idiotic opinions / arguments.  ;D

Green, stick to what you know (stuff all) and leave the complex stuff to people who don't live every moment of their lives based on the teachings of chairman brown the clown.

____ wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 7:33am:

So does the $43 Billion Australia is throwing at the Afghan war, guarantee terrorism will be defeated codswal? Or is it a stop gap measure to keep the war machine cashed up.

let me ask you a question woody..like you usually do rather than answer one... did WW11 bring everlasting peace?????..

stop gap!!! really what an explanation typical greenie..

war is lousy name me a time when we didnt have one.. bet you cant.all male oriented btw..havent heard of too many wars started by the women..oh Bodesia had a way with her didnt she..lol..anyway woody nothing humans do will ever be perfect and I dont expect it to change, unlike you greenies... you think turning off all electricity will save the planet...yeah right!

you dont look at the reasons behind the mistakes.. you just think STOP and it will all change. and go away.. bring the troops home woody you have the power now dont forget and lets see what happens, and see if you will accept any responsibilty.. with actions comes responsibility something you guys havent had to deal with before.

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 10:22am:

____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 10:05am: [quote author=bigol64 link=1285765170/15#20 date=1285803495][quote author=Tony_Abbott link=1285765170/15#18 date=1285802363][quote author=Verge link=1285765170/15#15 date=1285801077][quote author=Tony_Abbott link=1285765170/0#13 date=1285799568] Exit from Afghanistan War ... lets say, year 2094 $43 Billion is an underestimation So coalition cheer squad ... when does the coalition plan to admit defeat in Afghanistan? Once that is stated, a closer cost is $$$, if not human life, can then be calculated. So now that you have been found out lying about the true cost of the war, you want us to believe that it will now last until 2094. Ok Ill bite, any evidence that the war will last until 2094, remember you did also state that the US and the UK intend to cut and run. Like a typical greenie, just make shiat up to support your own idiotic opinions / arguments.  ;D Green, stick to what you know (stuff all) and leave the complex stuff to people who don't live every moment of their lives based on the teachings of chairman brown the clown.

the trouble with some statements they dont mention the massive debt both countries have and unless they want to sink into oblivion they have to start somewhere... England or as I like to call it Britain have their own terrorism in their own back yard... something we are not living every day with... but of course if the lefties get their way I guess its on the cards.

codswal wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 10:26am:

____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 7:33am: So does the $43 Billion Australia is throwing at the Afghan war, guarantee terrorism will be defeated codswal? Or is it a stop gap measure to keep the war machine cashed up. let me ask you a question woody..like you usually do rather than answer one... did WW11 bring everlasting peace?????.. stop gap!!! really what an explanation typical greenie.. war is lousy name me a time when we didnt have one.. bet you cant.all male oriented btw..havent heard of too many wars started by the women..oh Bodesia had a way with her didnt she..lol..anyway woody nothing humans do will ever be perfect and I dont expect it to change, unlike you greenies... you think turning off all electricity will save the planet...yeah right! you dont look at the reasons behind the mistakes.. you just think STOP and it will all change. and go away.. bring the troops home woody you have the power now dont forget and lets see what happens, and see if you will accept any responsibilty.. with actions comes responsibility something you guys havent had to deal with before.

Easy aye cods, with brown the clown controlling the senate in July, the troops should be home by August and all coal mines shut down by Xmas.  ;D

We will be a socialist utopia by this time next year, all thanks to the greens and their voters.  ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 10:22am:

____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 10:05am: [quote author=bigol64 link=1285765170/15#20 date=1285803495][quote author=Tony_Abbott link=1285765170/15#18 date=1285802363][quote author=Verge link=1285765170/15#15 date=1285801077][quote author=Tony_Abbott link=1285765170/0#13 date=1285799568] Exit from Afghanistan War ... lets say, year 2094 $43 Billion is an underestimation So coalition cheer squad ... when does the coalition plan to admit defeat in Afghanistan? Once that is stated, a closer cost is $$$, if not human life, can then be calculated. So now that you have been found out lying about the true cost of the war, you want us to believe that it will now last until 2094. Ok Ill bite, any evidence that the war will last until 2094, remember you did also state that the US and the UK intend to cut and run. Like a typical greenie, just make shiat up to support your own idiotic opinions / arguments.  ;D Green, stick to what you know (stuff all) and leave the complex stuff to people who don't live every moment of their lives based on the teachings of chairman brown the clown.

woody will now have to face the fact that his little minority group are facing responsibility not something they are used to...LOL...

itwill be interesting to see how much responsibility they take... bring back the troops woody stop wasting money on rubbish..like  stopgaps ,we all know NBN is far more important

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 10:39am:

codswal wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 10:26am: ____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2010 at 7:33am: So does the $43 Billion Australia is throwing at the Afghan war, guarantee terrorism will be defeated codswal? Or is it a stop gap measure to keep the war machine cashed up. let me ask you a question woody..like you usually do rather than answer one... did WW11 bring everlasting peace?????.. stop gap!!! really what an explanation typical greenie.. war is lousy name me a time when we didnt have one.. bet you cant.all male oriented btw..havent heard of too many wars started by the women..oh Bodesia had a way with her didnt she..lol..anyway woody nothing humans do will ever be perfect and I dont expect it to change, unlike you greenies... you think turning off all electricity will save the planet...yeah right! you dont look at the reasons behind the mistakes.. you just think STOP and it will all change. and go away.. bring the troops home woody you have the power now dont forget and lets see what happens, and see if you will accept any responsibilty.. with actions comes responsibility something you guys havent had to deal with before. Easy aye cods, with brown the clown controlling the senate in July, the troops should be home by August and all coal mines shut down by Xmas.  ;D We will be a socialist utopia by this time next year, all thanks to the greens and their voters.  ;D

ahhh woody might rethink this through... when they have to stand up and be counted for their actions they might change their minds.. after all its all very well sitting smugly by and just saying do this and do that.. but now its them that control the power  a whole different ball game and dont forget.. Julia will pass the blame as quick as look at them

money should be invested in green technologies .. wireless would be cheaper and people would be more better shape than sitting in one place with NBN .. why give away tax money to a corrupted country without respects to the others ??

bridonta wireless is crap technology and this is why it isn't being used in the developed world as a primary internet source .. as a mobile or secondary source fine .. but if the country regions had to rely on wireless like some do now they just get frustrated at the continual disconnects...

wireless can also not be adapted lie fibre can for other uses therefore is a dead format

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 5:38pm:

bridonta wireless is crap technology and this is why it isn't being used in the developed world as a primary internet source .. as a mobile or secondary source fine .. but if the country regions had to rely on wireless like some do now they just get frustrated at the continual disconnects... wireless can also not be adapted lie fibre can for other uses therefore is a dead format

wish I understood all this talk but I dont and never will do, but all I know is that anyone I know who has invested in new computers is whingeing....I am begining to think that someone is playing a game with us stuff up what we have and that way they will get all the customers they need to pay for the thing...if it ever gets up and running.

____ wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 7:33am:

So does the $43 Billion Australia is throwing at the Afghan war, guarantee terrorism will be defeated codswal? Or is it a stop gap measure to keep the war machine cashed up.

Sadly and ironically, waging the oxymoronic 'war on terror' it is more likely to guarantee the escalation of terrorism...