australian chicken shit
john
Australia to withdraw its 150 special forces from Afghanistan
http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp?id=%7B90EA2D4F-6B68-4A13-8C98-8BE598AD5
E9F%7D
DB
"john" <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ddb...@news.starhub.net.sg...
Dan
"DB" <anti...@antispam.com.SPAMMY> wrote in message
news:3ddb9935$0$12762$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> it is easy to say that sitting behind your computer :)
>
Dont fee the trolls (hiding behind a yahoo address/didnt read the whole
article etc)!
Dan
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13.11.02
PAPADOC
in saving American Lives during the War in Afganistan....were it not
for Australian Spec Ops alot of our soldiers would have died. We thank
them for their wonderful efforts and hope that their Christmas is
wonderful. They have never failed to be there when it counted and
dumbasses like you just show ignorance of monumental proportions by
posting an article header like that...
PAPA DOC
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001
www.papadoc.net
Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the
10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in
more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."
Mitchell Holman
> NEWS STORY
> Australia to withdraw its 150 special forces from Afghanistan
>
>
So?
We should appreciate the service they
already gave.
PS: How many troops would America send
to avenge an attack on an Australian landmark,
do you think?
PAPADOC
a Certain Axis Power to invade Australia.
PAPA DOC
>
> PS: How many troops would America send
>to avenge an attack on an Australian landmark,
>do you think?
>
>
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Anthony Evans
japan in this point in time if it wasn't for many us casualties in world war
II...
Anthony
"PAPADOC" <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in message
news:iebntuoker3uk0qda...@4ax.com...
Twist
the US enter the conflict in WW-2?
Churchill cried out to the USA many, many, months before they would do
anything..thus the greatest war statement ever made....."VERY WELL, ALONE"!
Yes, they did enter, and thank God..but it took the US a while to wake
up....oh, and speaking of waking up....Pearl Harbor.......the statement "I
fear we have woken the giant" was spoken by a Japanese Admiral.
If the US hadn't been "woken" up at PH, who knows what Australia might have
had to go through??(read: the almost leveling of one of the world's greatest
cities, London)
I love my brothers to the South(I was born in England moved to Canada when I
was 10. Joined the Canadian Armed forces and served in W\Germany during the
height of the Cold-War)
If you find any safety in the World today a large portion of the thanks
should go to the US..........
But, history does tell the story of a sleeping giant needing to get bonked
on it's own head before it wakes up...
Thank God again that it does wake up.
"PAPADOC" <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in message
news:iebntuoker3uk0qda...@4ax.com...
Dusty Rhodes
completely forgotten. It was in effect well prior to 7 December, so don't
go hollering that we just sat on the sidelines the whole time. There were
Americans fighting the Battle of Britain, in fighter planes. There were
many American merchant sailors who lost their lives to the Wolf Packs of the
Nazi's. No, we were deeply involved in WWII well before 7 Dec, 1941.
Dusty Rhodes
"Twist" <cantdoj...@home.maybesometime> wrote in message
news:5LRC9.146201$MGm1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Mitchell Holman
news:iebntuoker3uk0qda...@4ax.com:
> Err...maybe you forgot but US troops were instrumental in not allowing
> a Certain Axis Power to invade Australia.
>
Australian troops did the same thing.
50 years ago.
But returning to the 21st century, how
many Americans would be willing to die to
avenge an attack on an Australian landmark?
Bunyip
his top paddock ..
the Aussies are being brought back from Afghanistan for several reasons,
including ..
* to get ready in case they are needed to fight in Iraq
* to be around because of the latest terror alert to people in Australia
* to let the guys spend some well deserved time with families over
Christmas
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92CC9BE31...@204.127.202.16...
PAPADOC
answered is that the US has been involved in all the wars of the 20th
century that it never started but was instumental in finishing and we
lost a million or so.
And what the fuck does a landmark have to do with anything. Are you
actually saying that you consider the WTC just a fucking landmark. Its
a fucking landmark alright you prick...if you consider a tombstone a
landmark. Tell you what if Australia is filled with pricks like you
then I will vote against going...
But gladly I know a bunch of Australians and they arent ignorant
pricks like you.
PAPA DOC
> But returning to the 21st century, how
>many Americans would be willing to die to
>avenge an attack on an Australian landmark?
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
PAPADOC
coming and then you arent happy when we come to fast...make up your
fucking mind...hehe
Seriously we have a huge streak of isolationism that runs deep in this
country. Part of the reason I voted for G W Bush was his stated
intention to get the heck our of everyones business...and just worry
about ourselves. Its our natural state...we dont give a fuck about
Europe and we certainly dont give a fuck about the Middle East or Far
East...it was all Roosevelt could do to get us into the war. And he
was enormously popular. Europe should thank the Japanese for their
screw up and the sneak attack without that we probably would not have
entered the war. Its our nature.
PAPA DOC
Twist
find at least two with hundreds of years more history than
America.............England(British Isles) for one, and Germanic...these two
groups of people throughout history have THRIVED during adverse
conditions..Read: spitfire's made by women using cans and other mettle
recyclables.
Has America ever known a foreign enemy storming it's shores? Nope, only
Hawaii. But the US other than civil war, and the war of independence have
never known what it's like to be under siege.
Papa-doc you are a moron. Without Europe the US wouldn't be!! Fuck how
myopic you are.
It's Americans like you who give the US a bad name over sea's. Your lack of
historical knowledge is laughable. And yet, with such arrogance and naivety
you say FUCK the world???
Ass-hole...!!
Thank-God you're a minority.......................
Take it on the chin PD you're a bigoted asshole whose self-imposed
importance borders on ludicrous...
If England had cared more about retain the "colonies" instead of putting
more importance on other fronts
you would be talking with a cockney accent instead of a southern drawl...
Now, go read some more then come argue.
Dick head!
"PAPADOC" <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in message
news:ng1otu0k4ieioecop...@4ax.com...
L'acrobat
I don't suppose you could tell us why you feel SASR should remain in
Afghanistan after the need to have them there is finished?
L'acrobat
> Err...maybe you forgot but US troops were instrumental in not allowing
> a Certain Axis Power to invade Australia.
>
I'm afraid that is simply not true.
Whilst US assistance in WW2 was greatly appreciated, the Japanese never had
the capacity to invade Australia (nor the intention).
A limited Nth Aust invasion was proposed by the IJN (to isolate Australia)
and the IJA refused on the grounds that they did not have the troops to do
it.
It is also worth noting that the USA did not "send troops to avenge an
attack on an Australian landmark" in WW2 (as per the original posters
question), the USA and Australia were fighting a common enemy (who attacked
the US forces first).
Not anti American, just correcting a few errors.
L'acrobat
"Bunyip" <hor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ddc00f1$0$14053$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> * to be around because of the latest terror alert to people in Australia
Nope, SASR has a CT Sqn who do that - one of the other Sqns would be in
Afghanistan, they are coming home because they are no longer needed there.
Mitchell Holman
news:cv0otukld6togeks4...@4ax.com:
> What a fucking goofy hypothetical question....the only way it can be
> answered is that the US has been involved in all the wars of the 20th
> century that it never started but was instumental in finishing and we
> lost a million or so.
In what war did the US lose "a million or more"?
>
> And what the fuck does a landmark have to do with anything. Are you
> actually saying that you consider the WTC just a fucking landmark. Its
> a fucking landmark alright you prick...if you consider a tombstone a
> landmark. Tell you what if Australia is filled with pricks like you
> then I will vote against going...
>
Do you really think that Americans would be
lining up to go fight a war to avenge the deaths
of Australians?
> But gladly I know a bunch of Australians and they arent ignorant
> pricks like you.
If you had a valid point to make you would not
be reduced to tossing around childish insults.
Sunny
To clear the air a little - (from the "article")
(btw: Our "Commando" troops are a different branch from the "SAS" troops mentioned in the article)
"Australia has had 150 Special Air Service commandos in Afghanistan since last December.
Australia also contributed two surveillance aircraft, three navy frigates, four fighter jets and a
troop carrier to the U.S.-led coalition - a total of about 1,500 personnel.
Howard's speech said that by January only two surveillance aircraft and two navy frigates working
under an international force to police United Nations embargoes on Iraq would remain in Gulf region.
Howard's announcement came a day after the government said that it had received and was taking
seriously a threat that Australia could be targeted by terrorists "in the next couple of months."
Analysts said the threat highlighted the price Australia must pay for its strong support of the U.S.-led war on terror.
Howard said that "Australia will continue to make a strong military contribution to the international coalition."
It may have escaped your attention, in Singapore, that we also helped Timor get its independence, and still have troops
there. (Unless you are one of the "chickenshit" raghead radical sympathisers, and wish to ignore anything Western)
Sunny
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> PAPADOC <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in
> news:iebntuoker3uk0qda...@4ax.com:
>
> > Err...maybe you forgot but US troops were instrumental in not allowing
> > a Certain Axis Power to invade Australia.
> >
>
> Australian troops did the same thing.
> 50 years ago.
>
> But returning to the 21st century, how
> many Americans would be willing to die to
> avenge an attack on an Australian landmark?
Stop being a dink, 'Mitchell'.
DrOk
Dusty Rhodes
we lost a million or so during all the wars of the 20th Century. Trying to
put your own spin on it? Or just plain lying? Only two explanations for
your stupidity.
I think we are in a war that we are losing American lives, that have to do
with WTC, Bali Bombing etc. etc. It shows your lack of knowledge that you
call the WTC a landmark. It was where almost 3000 living human beings from
several dozen countries lost their lives DUMB ASS. You think we went to war
only because Americans were amongst those killed and injured? You
underestimate us just like many people do, until we end up pulling the
worlds ass out of a wringer because no one has the balls to step up against
these low lifes. Australia and Britain are always there with us, EVERY
TIME. You bet your bottom dollar we would send Americans, just like we have
done in the past when Austalia was in peril.
I would bet you are a 20 something know it all who thinks he knows
everything about the world, REGARDLESS OF HISTORY OR FACTS. Go away dumb
ass. You underestimate the US tremendously and are looking like a complete
idiot in the process.
Dusty Rhodes
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92CCB6C70...@216.148.227.77...
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> PAPADOC <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in
> news:cv0otukld6togeks4...@4ax.com:
>
> > What a fucking goofy hypothetical question....the only way it can be
> > answered is that the US has been involved in all the wars of the 20th
> > century that it never started but was instumental in finishing and we
> > lost a million or so.
>
> In what war did the US lose "a million or more"?
How many Aussies died on US territory?
Ok, Now
How Many US died on Aussie territory?
Stop being a dink, 'Mitchell"
[snipster]
> a fucking landmark alright you prick...
The big thee-aaa-ter, in Sydney harbor, is kinnda annoying..
Just a thought...
>
> Do you really think that Americans would be
> lining up to go fight a war to avenge the deaths
> of Australians?
How many Aussies died on US territory?
Ok, Now
How Many US died on Aussie territory?
See, we've already done it for you.
Now it's your turn.
Stop being a dink, 'Mitchell'
>
> > But gladly I know a bunch of Australians and they arent ignorant
> > pricks like you.
>
> If you had a valid point to make you would not
> be reduced to tossing around childish insults.
Stop being a prudish, foppy, poofTAH, dink, 'Mitchell'
And THATS valid.
DrOk
Dusty Rhodes
about the Battle of the Coral Sea and what the defeat of the Japanese there
prevented! Course we lost several hundred in that attack alone, not to
mention the USS Lexington, and severe damage to the USS Yorktown. Those two
carriers prevented the Japanese from invading Port Moresby and cointinuing
on with a conquest of Australia. Those two carriers and the USS Enterprise
were the only three Aircraft Carriers in the Pacific Ocean that could stop
the Japanese, AND THEY DID! Yorktown after only 48 hours repair time was
lost in the next big battle at Midway. Read your history sir.
Dusty Rhodes
"L'acrobat" <husky65@iDelete_me.iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ddc1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Dusty Rhodes
countries with great ties to each other. Some kid with nothing better to do
then post bullshit.
Dusty Rhodes
"Sunny" <womba...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:jyVC9.23290$nK4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Arcturus
excercise , that can be handled by the regulars. But you are right, Iraq is
the next one and they need some R&R before going to that one in January.
With regards to the original post, certain people will be desparate to cause
a rift in the US-AU alliance. Our history goes back to far for that to
happen. Sometimes the pervasive nature of US culture is annoying, and thier
foriegn policy is somewhat hypocrital and thier idea of Free Trade seems to
be more like " Do as I say not as I do". But at the end of the day, I'd
rather have them for a friend than as a enemy. Although, New Zealand have
taken a a more impartial approach to world affairs, and they don't lose any
citizens to Islamic Terroism. Maybe there's something to be learnt there.
By making ourselves a target, it does give our governments an excuse for
greater powers that infringe on our ever-dwindling civil liberties. We
weren't a target before John Howard opened his mouth, it all seems a bit
contrived to me. But thats not to say, weren't next on the list. Getting a
bit off topic, but worth a mention.
--
Arcturus
"Bunyip" <hor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ddc00f1$0$14053$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
PAPADOC
about...?? What positions are you responding to..? Be
specific...because right now it looks as though you were drinking and
posting at the same time and it appears that you havent the brains to
do either.
>If you're talking about a nation whose people thrive on war then you can
>find at least two with hundreds of years more history than
>America.............England(British Isles) for one, and Germanic...these two
>groups of people throughout history have THRIVED during adverse
>conditions..
And what the fuck does that have to do with anything I said...?
>Has America ever known a foreign enemy storming it's shores? Nope, only
>Hawaii. But the US other than civil war, and the war of independence have
>never known what it's like to be under siege.
No asshole we always come to other peoples lands to fight off the big
bad wolves...and we always get shit on by sacks of shit like you.
>Papa-doc you are a moron. Without Europe the US wouldn't be!! Fuck how
>myopic you are.
Thats fucking brilliant Twist did you come up with that yourself or
did some English Lit major clue you in..?? No shit guess what asshole
without Africa none of us would be so shut up. Now how relevent is
that...?
>It's Americans like you who give the US a bad name over sea's. Your lack of
>historical knowledge is laughable. And yet, with such arrogance and naivety
>you say FUCK the world???
No its all Americans according to asswipes like you who give Americans
a bad name...twits like you find reasons to not like any Americans
except for those sorry fucks who apologize for breathing. Fuck that.
I dont apologize for anything and I have forgotten more about history
than your thimbal sized brain will ever learn.
>Ass-hole...!!
>Thank-God you're a minority.......................
No fuck I am a majority and its getting to be an even bigger majority.
The more fucks like you speak the more Americans realize that
depending on you is a exercise in stupidity.
>Take it on the chin PD you're a bigoted asshole whose self-imposed
>importance borders on ludicrous...
Me..bigoted...? How because I dont think Islam is the religion of
peace...?? Because I believe the Sharia is a corrupt disgusting code
to live by..?? Fine bigoted I am...fuck that religion. I will tolerate
other religions who have learned to play nice with those who dont want
to follow them but any religion who believes that Jews are apes and
pigs can go fuck themselves...any religion that believes that my
little girls have to be ignorant and slaves can fuck themselves...when
Islam proclaims itself at peace with other religions I will make peace
with it...till then they are the enemy.
>If England had cared more about retain the "colonies" instead of putting
>more importance on other fronts
>you would be talking with a cockney accent instead of a southern drawl...
Not likely...
PAPA DOC
PAPADOC
58,000 in Vietnam...your right I didnt get the exact number right.
Shoot me.
> In what war did the US lose "a million or more"?
I said wars in the 20th century....
>>
>> And what the fuck does a landmark have to do with anything. Are you
>> actually saying that you consider the WTC just a fucking landmark. Its
>> a fucking landmark alright you prick...if you consider a tombstone a
>> landmark. Tell you what if Australia is filled with pricks like you
>> then I will vote against going...
>>
>
> Do you really think that Americans would be
>lining up to go fight a war to avenge the deaths
>of Australians?
No certainly not for people like you. But so far we have lost close to
a million people fighting enemies who by and large hadnt directly
threatened our land.
>> But gladly I know a bunch of Australians and they arent ignorant
>> pricks like you.
>
> If you had a valid point to make you would not
>be reduced to tossing around childish insults.
Me try and make a valid point to a prick who says that the WTC is a
landmark...you who trivialize the worst attack on this country
ever....fuck you.
PAPA DOC
PAPADOC
consolidate its advances...? Do you think they would have allowed
Australia to surive past the time that they could regroup and rearm..?
And if they hadnt had to fight us then they certainly would have had
the troops to attack Australia.
PAPA DOC
>
>A limited Nth Aust invasion was proposed by the IJN (to isolate Australia)
>and the IJA refused on the grounds that they did not have the troops to do
>it.
>
>It is also worth noting that the USA did not "send troops to avenge an
>attack on an Australian landmark" in WW2 (as per the original posters
>question), the USA and Australia were fighting a common enemy (who attacked
>the US forces first).
>
>Not anti American, just correcting a few errors.
>
>
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Mitchell Holman
news:utogjnh...@corp.supernews.com:
> Well let me toss a few then you fucking brain surgeon! It was written
> that we lost a million or so during all the wars of the 20th Century.
> Trying to put your own spin on it? Or just plain lying? Only two
> explanations for your stupidity.
>
> I think we are in a war that we are losing American lives, that have
> to do with WTC, Bali Bombing etc. etc. It shows your lack of
> knowledge that you call the WTC a landmark. It was where almost 3000
> living human beings from several dozen countries lost their lives DUMB
> ASS. You think we went to war only because Americans were amongst
> those killed and injured? You underestimate us just like many people
> do, until we end up pulling the worlds ass out of a wringer because no
> one has the balls to step up against these low lifes. Australia and
> Britain are always there with us, EVERY TIME. You bet your bottom
> dollar we would send Americans, just like we have done in the past
> when Austalia was in peril.
>
Horsehockey. Did America go to war when
Europeans were being killed in WW1 or WW2?
Did Americans go to war when the Lusitania
was sunk or London was being bombed? Did
America go to war over the Hungarian revolt
or the Prague Spring was being crushed? Did
America lift a finger following the Tianimen
Square massacre?
If we do not go to other country's aid
when they are being attacked, what makes any
other country obligated to come to US assistance?
> I would bet you are a 20 something know it all who thinks he knows
> everything about the world, REGARDLESS OF HISTORY OR FACTS. Go away
> dumb ass. You underestimate the US tremendously and are looking like
> a complete idiot in the process.
Like I said, if you had a valid point to
make you would be reduced to tossing around
childish insults.
Mitchell Holman
@annex.annex:
>
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> PAPADOC <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in
>> news:cv0otukld6togeks4...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > What a fucking goofy hypothetical question....the only way it can be
>> > answered is that the US has been involved in all the wars of the
20th
>> > century that it never started but was instumental in finishing and
we
>> > lost a million or so.
>>
>> In what war did the US lose "a million or more"?
>
> How many Aussies died on US territory?
You tell us.
>
> Ok, Now
>
> How Many US died on Aussie territory?
You tell us.
>
>
> Stop being a prudish, foppy, poofTAH, dink, 'Mitchell'
>
Sigh............
Mitchell Holman
news:eqnotu4akg7tfsd5a...@4ax.com:
> Yea we ONLY lost 126,000 in WW1 and 408,000 in WW2, 33,000 in Korea,
> 58,000 in Vietnam...your right I didnt get the exact number right.
> Shoot me.
>
>> In what war did the US lose "a million or more"?
>
> I said wars in the 20th century....
>
>>>
>>> And what the fuck does a landmark have to do with anything. Are you
>>> actually saying that you consider the WTC just a fucking landmark.
Its
>>> a fucking landmark alright you prick...if you consider a tombstone a
>>> landmark. Tell you what if Australia is filled with pricks like you
>>> then I will vote against going...
>>>
>>
>> Do you really think that Americans would be
>>lining up to go fight a war to avenge the deaths
>>of Australians?
>
> No certainly not for people like you. But so far we have lost close to
> a million people fighting enemies who by and large hadnt directly
> threatened our land.
>
>
>>> But gladly I know a bunch of Australians and they arent ignorant
>>> pricks like you.
>>
>> If you had a valid point to make you would not
>>be reduced to tossing around childish insults.
>
> Me try and make a valid point to a prick who says that the WTC is a
> landmark...you who trivialize the worst attack on this country
> ever....fuck you.
What is about people who hide behind
anonymous handles and toss out childish
insults?
PAPADOC
>
> What is about people who hide behind
>anonymous handles and toss out childish
>insults?
What is it about motherfuckers who trivialize hallowed ground where
3,000 people died by calling it a landmark?
PAPADOC
> Horsehockey. Did America go to war when
>Europeans were being killed in WW1 or WW2?
Yea we ONLY lost 126,000 in WW1 and 408,000 in WW2 but who is
counting. The British lost 350,000...and everyone a tragedy.
>Did Americans go to war when the Lusitania
>was sunk or London was being bombed?
Eventually we entered a war on the other side of the world and lost
over 400,000 men. If that doesnt count for something then fuck you.
Did
>America go to war over the Hungarian revolt
>or the Prague Spring was being crushed?
America was the only one willing to build the arms required to hold
back the Soviets from crushing the rest of Europe..and chastising us
for not going to war with the Soviets and risking a nuke war over the
terrible events in Europe is pretty stupid considering what would have
happened to the world had a nuke war ensued.
> Did
>America lift a finger following the Tianimen
>Square massacre?
Nuke wars have a tendency to concentrate the mind wonderfully
well...we will eventually go to war with China but not yet.
> If we do not go to other country's aid
>when they are being attacked, what makes any
>other country obligated to come to US assistance?
Nobody said anyone was obligated...to support us except a troll. But
at least he knows he is a troll you are just a stupid git.
> Like I said, if you had a valid point to
>make you would be reduced to tossing around
>childish insults.
Coming from a person who called the WTC a Landmark thats really
fucking rich...you stupid fuck.
PAPA DOC
Dean Morgan
Government located the american school close to the border with malaysia so
the malaysians couldnt invade without causing an international incident.
Who is the Chicken Shit. Its ok for you to sit in your HDB and write filth.
Mitchell Holman
news:2j1ptu4qcv6ksfo8h...@4ax.com:
> Horsefuckinghockey...???? You ARE stupid...!
>
>> Horsehockey. Did America go to war when
>>Europeans were being killed in WW1 or WW2?
>
> Yea
Wrong. We let millions of French and British
die in WW1. Waited a full three years before
getting involved, and then only because we were
attacked. Ditto for WW2.
Since you cannot discuss politics without
throwing insult-laden temper tantrums I have
nothing else to say to you.
PAPADOC
408,000 in WW2 doesnt mean we were wrong it means we went. But nothing
an American will do is enough for you because you just fucking hate
Americans...big deal Get in line.
And boy will I miss you I love talking to people who trivialize
hallowed ground of the WTC by calling it a landmark.
Throw yourself off a very tall building.
PAPA DOC
> Wrong. We let millions of French and British
>die in WW1. Waited a full three years before
>getting involved, and then only because we were
>attacked. Ditto for WW2.
> Since you cannot discuss politics without
>throwing insult-laden temper tantrums I have
>nothing else to say to you.
>
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Dr Oddness Killtroll <an...@annex.annex> wrote in news:3DDC3CB7.A1A739D8
> @annex.annex:
>
> >
> >
> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>
> >> PAPADOC <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in
> >> news:cv0otukld6togeks4...@4ax.com:
> >>
> >> > What a fucking goofy hypothetical question....the only way it can be
> >> > answered is that the US has been involved in all the wars of the
> 20th
> >> > century that it never started but was instumental in finishing and
> we
> >> > lost a million or so.
> >>
> >> In what war did the US lose "a million or more"?
> >
> > How many Aussies died on US territory?
>
>
> You tell us.
No, You tell me, you pontificating jackass. Or shut the fuck up, and go away.
On second thought, none...
>
>
> >
> > Ok, Now
> >
> > How Many US died on Aussie territory?
>
> You tell us.
A lot more than none, bucko. Or do fighter pilots killed, while flying outa
NW Australia not count, in your version of reality?
Why engage in trolling, if your ill equiped to compete?
> >
> >
> > Stop being a prudish, foppy, poofTAH, dink, 'Mitchell'
> >
>
> Sigh............
Is that, somehow, supposed to convey an image OTHER THAN that of a fopish
pofftah? It doesnt. Stop sighing, answer the questions, or simply disapear
Punk.
DrOk
Mitchell Holman
>
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>> Dr Oddness Killtroll <an...@annex.annex> wrote in
>> news:3DDC3CB7.A1A739D8 @annex.annex:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> PAPADOC <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in
>> >> news:cv0otukld6togeks4...@4ax.com:
>> >>
>> >> > What a fucking goofy hypothetical question....the only way it
>> >> > can be answered is that the US has been involved in all the wars
>> >> > of the
>> 20th
>> >> > century that it never started but was instumental in finishing
>> >> > and
>> we
>> >> > lost a million or so.
>> >>
>> >> In what war did the US lose "a million or more"?
>> >
>> > How many Aussies died on US territory?
>>
>>
>> You tell us.
>
> No, You tell me, you pontificating jackass. Or shut the fuck up, and
> go away.
What is it about people who hide behind
anonymous handles and throw out childish
insults?
Sigh..........
PAPADOC
you are probably an American. So hurry the hell up and jump off the
nearest tall building.
Dr Oddness Killtroll
L'acrobat wrote:
> "PAPADOC" <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in message
> news:iebntuoker3uk0qda...@4ax.com...
>
> > Err...maybe you forgot but US troops were instrumental in not allowing
> > a Certain Axis Power to invade Australia.
> >
>
> I'm afraid that is simply not true.
Japan invaded CHINA.
Do you undertstand?
You were intended to whither on the vine. For a while. Then...
>
> Whilst US assistance in WW2 was greatly appreciated, the Japanese never had
> the capacity to invade Australia (nor the intention).
Japan invaded CHINA.
They fealt they had the capacity to sibdue CHINA...
> A limited Nth Aust invasion was proposed by the IJN (to isolate Australia)
> and the IJA refused on the grounds that they did not have the troops to do
> it.
If 'canal had not be fought, then, ultimately, Fiji or father east, would have
been the end of the Japanese expansion in the SWAPO.
Thats would have completely isolated Austrailia. No food, no supplies, nothing.
Our fight at Guadalcanal (using newly deployed Marines, in NZ, who were not
intended to go into action until Dec, 42,) was specifically desgined/intended
to remove the threat to Australia.
And, for no other reason.
> It is also worth noting that the USA did not "send troops to avenge an
> attack on an Australian landmark"
Were you attacked? Did we respond helpfully? Whats your point? The landmark
thingy was simply stupididty on teh part of the original troller. A pair of
buildings, destroyed, causing the deaths of approx 2500 people, is not properly
describes as a 'US landmark'...
> in WW2 (as per the original posters
> question), the USA and Australia were fighting a common enemy (who attacked
> the US forces first).
Why is this 'first' distinction relevant, in that it was only a matter of days
before Austrian troops were attacked?
> Not anti American, just correcting a few errors.
I dont hoink you're anti American, but I think youve been fed a selective
version of history...
DrOk
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Horsehockey. Did America go to war when
> Europeans were being killed in WW1 or WW2?
Ummmm...
Yup.
Look it up, numbskull...
> Did Americans go to war when the Lusitania
> was sunk or London was being bombed?
Hmmm, so, now it isnt 'did we?', its 'did we when you wanted us to?'...
America had very little role in the nonsense that precluded WWI. Britain,
OTOH, had plenty of culpability there. Dont blame us. Blame Germany.'
You did, harshly, at the end, contributing to an atmosphere which made
Hitlers rise more likely. We all know the consequences of that...
> Did
> America go to war over the Hungarian revolt
> or the Prague Spring was being crushed?
Hmmmm...
You a Hungarian? Or a Cheko? Seems they just joined NATO. They aint cryin'
Stop being a dinklette...
> Did
> America lift a finger following the Tianimen
> Square massacre?
Did you?
> If we do not go to other country's aid
> when they are being attacked, what makes any
> other country obligated to come to US assistance?
How about you eat a tub o' drano?
That'll be good for ya...
> > I would bet you are a 20 something know it all who thinks he knows
> > everything about the world, REGARDLESS OF HISTORY OR FACTS. Go away
> > dumb ass. You underestimate the US tremendously and are looking like
> > a complete idiot in the process.
>
> Like I said, if you had a valid point to
> make you would be reduced to tossing around
> childish insults.
And, if you did, I would not be compelled to deal with you as an
incompetant, simplistice, troll wanabe.
But, I must, as you've not the sophistication to deal with these problems in
their complexity...
So, eat drano, and shut up...
Or else.
DrOk
<stockholderindranocorp>
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> PAPADOC <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in
> news:2j1ptu4qcv6ksfo8h...@4ax.com:
>
> > Horsefuckinghockey...???? You ARE stupid...!
> >
> >> Horsehockey. Did America go to war when
> >>Europeans were being killed in WW1 or WW2?
> >
> > Yea
>
> Wrong. We let millions of French and British
> die in WW1. Waited a full three years before
> getting involved, and then only because we were
> attacked. Ditto for WW2.
So what? Without us, the war would have been lost. We engaged when attacked.
Actully before, with casualties. I leave the verification of that to you.
But, Iceland, destriyers, eagle Squadron, and AVG ALL preceded 7 Dec, 41.
> Since you cannot discuss politics without
> throwing insult-laden temper tantrums I have
> nothing else to say to you.
You've had nothing to say since you first posted. Get that drano, and eat
it. Or else...
DrOk
<pissed>
Dusty Rhodes
Dusty Rhodes
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92CD609BA...@204.127.68.17...
Dusty Rhodes
wouldn't fit in to your argument. You completely lack any fundamental
knowledge of America's involvement in that time period. Study up son, you
need it before you continue to make yourself look like a 13 year old.
Dusty Rhodes
"Dastardly Dan" <not@for_email.invalid> wrote in message
news:n8qptu44nplc0m0k3...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:20:13 -0800, "Dusty Rhodes"
> <james...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > There were
> >Americans fighting the Battle of Britain, in fighter planes.
>
> Yea, all seven of them. But much thanks to those brave seven!
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > No, You tell me, you pontificating jackass. Or shut the fuck up, and
> > go away.
>
> What is it about people who hide behind
> anonymous handles and throw out childish
> insults?
You dont deserve to know my full name, and you do deserve the insults. Now,
shut the screaming blue fuck up, and die.
Ok?
Now you go.
And make it something more meaty than "...sigh..."
Thats too damn distaff for this combat oriented arena...
DrOk
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Dastardly Dan wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:20:13 -0800, "Dusty Rhodes"
> <james...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > There were
> >Americans fighting the Battle of Britain, in fighter planes.
>
> Yea, all seven of them. But much thanks to those brave seven!
You claim that only 7 American were enlisted, or officers, in the RAF,
prior to Dec 7? I just want to be sure I understand your position, DD.
DrOk
Simon Robbins
news:3ddc00f1$0$14053$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> To get back to the original troll, who seems to be short of a few roos in
> his top paddock ..
> the Aussies are being brought back from Afghanistan for several reasons,
> including ..
> * to get ready in case they are needed to fight in Iraq
> * to be around because of the latest terror alert to people in Australia
> * to let the guys spend some well deserved time with families over
> Christmas
And let's not forget the Australians went into the arena in the first place
not because they had to, but as a sign of solidarity with the US after 9/11,
making Australia itself a target for the Al Quaeda network. But then if that
support isn't appreciated perhaps they shouldn't have bothered.
Si
Dusty Rhodes
but of course if I didn't you should have already known of the hundreds that
died pre 12-7-41, since you know so much about this. Hey lets not forget
CBI (China, Burma, India) How many Americans died in that theater of the
war with the AVG and such? Go away son, you are late for your history
class.
Dusty Rhodes
"Dastardly Dan" <not@for_email.invalid> wrote in message
news:keiqtu0hbs7lkmb97...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:14:21 -0800, "Dusty Rhodes"
> <james...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >That right, forget about any of American Merchantmen and sailors. Those
> >wouldn't fit in to your argument. You completely lack any fundamental
> >knowledge of America's involvement in that time period. Study up son,
you
> >need it before you continue to make yourself look like a 13 year old.
> >
> >Dusty Rhodes
>
> I was stating a fact you ass. There were exactly seven pilots that
> fought in The BoB. Look at the credits at the end of the movie, BOB.
> It tells you exaxctly how many pilots fought from various nations. You
> specifically mentioned americans in *fighter planes*. Not merchant
> seamen! And my thankyou was sincere, dillweed.
>
Maddog
> NEWS STORY
> Australia to withdraw its 150 special forces from Afghanistan
>
>
>
> http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp?id=%7B90EA2D4F-6B68-4A13-8C98-8BE598AD5
> E9F%7D
>
>
What's the problem. Everything stated in the story is true. The need for
special forces in Afghanistan is greatly reduced.
You are way over reacting.
Maddog
No.T...@here.com
<not@for_email.invalid> wrote:
snipped a whole lot here...
}The three Squadrons were Nos 71, 121 and 133.
Dude! You got squads named after ya!!! COOL.
Avatar
Mitchell Holman
news:arjhi6$9r7$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk:
That was my original point. The Americans
ought to be grateful for the troops that were
sent instead of complaining when they get
recalled home.
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
how the Americans wouldnt come to anyones rescue were they attacked.
You then went on to describe the hallowed ground of the WTC and
Pentagon and Penn. state as landmarks....thereby trivilizing the
deaths of 3031 people.
PAPA DOC
L'acrobat
> What would have been the result of the US allowing Japan to
> consolidate its advances...? Do you think they would have allowed
> Australia to surive past the time that they could regroup and rearm..?
> And if they hadnt had to fight us then they certainly would have had
> the troops to attack Australia.
If they hadn't had to fight USA, they would have stuck to trying to
conquering China - their entire war aim.
Perhaps if you actually read up on the subject?
L'acrobat
"Dusty Rhodes" <james...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:utoh6nl...@corp.supernews.com...
> Well you would be correcting them if you gave accurate information. Read
> about the Battle of the Coral Sea and what the defeat of the Japanese
there
> prevented! Course we lost several hundred in that attack alone, not to
> mention the USS Lexington, and severe damage to the USS Yorktown. Those
two
> carriers prevented the Japanese from invading Port Moresby and cointinuing
> on with a conquest of Australia.
Rubbish, it prevented an invasion of Moresby, the Japanese had neither the
logistic capacity, the troops, nor the intention of invading Aust.
L'acrobat
"Dr Oddness Killtroll" <an...@annex.annex> wrote in message
news:3DDCFDBB...@annex.annex...
>
>
> L'acrobat wrote:
>
> > "PAPADOC" <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in message
> > news:iebntuoker3uk0qda...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > Err...maybe you forgot but US troops were instrumental in not allowing
> > > a Certain Axis Power to invade Australia.
> > >
> >
> > I'm afraid that is simply not true.
>
> Japan invaded CHINA.
>
> Do you undertstand?
>
> You were intended to whither on the vine. For a while. Then...
No, I'm afraid that Japan never had any 'intention' towards Aust.
Perhaps if you provided a cite...
>
> >
> > Whilst US assistance in WW2 was greatly appreciated, the Japanese never
had
> > the capacity to invade Australia (nor the intention).
>
> Japan invaded CHINA.
>
> They fealt they had the capacity to sibdue CHINA...
>
a. What they believed does not equal capability,
b. Japan started the war with far too little in the way of shipping to
support their economy, the shipping required to move and supply troops in
China (v a non industrialised and fragmented country) that is 'next door' is
vastly different from that required to invade an industrialised country in
the other hemisphere, that has is politically solid and already gearing up
for war - they didn't have it.
> > A limited Nth Aust invasion was proposed by the IJN (to isolate
Australia)
> > and the IJA refused on the grounds that they did not have the troops to
do
> > it.
>
> If 'canal had not be fought, then, ultimately, Fiji or father east, would
have
> been the end of the Japanese expansion in the SWAPO.
Shipping, lack of, read up on it.
>
> Thats would have completely isolated Austrailia. No food, no supplies,
nothing.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
Whilst I can see where this would have inconvenienced the USA (read up on
Trumans speech to congress re reverse lend lease), it would hardly have
inconvenienced Aust - BTW, you might want to explain how a force like the
IJN, that sucked at RAS and lacked fuel was going to blockade a continent
(ie have to run blockade ops all the way down to the far southern ocean on
both the east and west coast of Aust (and if you think the Japs were short
on merchants, they were far worse off in relation to tankers).
>
> Our fight at Guadalcanal (using newly deployed Marines, in NZ, who were
not
> intended to go into action until Dec, 42,) was specifically
desgined/intended
> to remove the threat to Australia.
What utter bullshit, breathtaking in its scope and scale!, you, sir are to
be congratulated.
Given that the 'threat' to Aust was only a perceived one and not a real one
(ie the Japanese army ruled it out in early 42) and that Guadalcanal
occurred post Midway, even if the 'threat' was real, it was over before
Guadalcanal started - can't you even see the inconsistencies in your own
argument?
>
> And, for no other reason.
It gets better! see above.
>
> > It is also worth noting that the USA did not "send troops to avenge an
> > attack on an Australian landmark"
>
> Were you attacked? Did we respond helpfully? Whats your point? The
landmark
> thingy was simply stupididty on teh part of the original troller. A pair
of
> buildings, destroyed, causing the deaths of approx 2500 people, is not
properly
> describes as a 'US landmark'...
My point is that the USA did not (as Papadoc suggests) come to Australias
aid in WW2, the USA was already fighting Japan and so was Australia very
shortly afterwards.
I'm sorry, but you are complaining that a foreigner is not overly moved by
an attack on the USA? As I recall the USA was not overly moved when the
Nazis swept across Europe and then headed into the USSR - perhaps you can
see why large chunks of the planet are not overly moved by your predicament?
Once again I am not suggesting that the US deserved it or anything along
those lines and I do support a limited commitment of Aust forces to the war
on terror, but I can certainly see the irony in a US president declaring
that this vast tragedy requires a response from all nations when the USA was
late for both world wars.
>
> > in WW2 (as per the original posters
> > question), the USA and Australia were fighting a common enemy (who
attacked
> > the US forces first).
>
> Why is this 'first' distinction relevant, in that it was only a matter of
days
> before Austrian troops were attacked?
Because it utterly invalidates any idea that the USA 'came to our aid' we
were all in the same boat and the USA was in that boat first.
>
> > Not anti American, just correcting a few errors.
>
> I dont hoink you're anti American, but I think youve been fed a selective
> version of history...
An accurate one, you have a fair bit of reading to do - go for stuff that is
sourced from primary material rather than historians who rehash others work.
L'acrobat
"Arcturus" <no_...@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:3ddc59d1$1...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
> By making ourselves a target, it does give our governments an excuse for
> greater powers that infringe on our ever-dwindling civil liberties. We
> weren't a target before John Howard opened his mouth, it all seems a bit
> contrived to me. But thats not to say, weren't next on the list. Getting a
> bit off topic, but worth a mention.
Don't you people read anything?
OBL himself has said we were targeted because of our (this won't be an exact
quote, but it is close) 'despicable acts in seperating E.Timor from
Indonesia and our involvement in Afghanistan' - feel free to look up the
exact quote, IIRC it was in the SMH a week or two ago, but it is quite clear
that E.Timor is the one that really got OBL worked up.
L'acrobat
"Simon Robbins" <si...@NOSPAMsjrobbins.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:arjhi6$9r7$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
Already covered in another post - OBL himself points to E.Timor as the big
issue in his latest radio talk.
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
>If they hadn't had to fight USA, they would have stuck to trying to
>conquering China - their entire war aim.
>
>Perhaps if you actually read up on the subject?
Not sure why you want to be insulting but hey Im all for being
insulting if thats what you want.
America was the biggest threat to Japans desire to expand thru
Asia...you can provide your sources on your assertion that they
planned to stop short of Australia and only conquer the Far East.
Surely you dont believe that after they had consolidated their hold on
China, and the rest that they would have not applied at least
significant unacceptable pressure on Australia or emboldened by
America NOT opposing their drive through Asia would have continued.
PAPA DOC
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
say that we werent overly moved...what a prick. These were wars that
we entered specifically to insure the destruction of Dictators that
were oppressing you assholes...not us. Had we NOT been overly moved we
could have just said hey fuck it Japan dont worry about us we wont
enter the war and we wouldnt have ever been attacked by Japan.
>I'm sorry, but you are complaining that a foreigner is not overly moved by
>an attack on the USA? As I recall the USA was not overly moved when the
>Nazis swept across Europe and then headed into the USSR - perhaps you can
>see why large chunks of the planet are not overly moved by your predicament?
What the fuck kind of drugs are you takiing..? Exactly how many
people are we supposed to lose in wars not of our making before you
think we are concerned. We were in BOTH of those wars NOT because they
threatened us directly but to protect our allies.
>Once again I am not suggesting that the US deserved it or anything along
>those lines and I do support a limited commitment of Aust forces to the war
>on terror, but I can certainly see the irony in a US president declaring
>that this vast tragedy requires a response from all nations when the USA was
>late for both world wars.
Late...??? Late...?? The only way you would have a point is if we
NEVER came...but losing 408,000 of our people in your wars means you
get to shut the fuck up and be happy we showed.
PAPA DOC
L'acrobat
"Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <pleg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e59rtusqet5tl0mkt...@4ax.com...
> Provide your sources...
>
> >If they hadn't had to fight USA, they would have stuck to trying to
> >conquering China - their entire war aim.
> >
> >Perhaps if you actually read up on the subject?
>
> Not sure why you want to be insulting but hey Im all for being
> insulting if thats what you want.
I'm not being insulting, its clear that you lack subject knowledge.
>
> America was the biggest threat to Japans desire to expand thru
> Asia...you can provide your sources on your assertion that they
> planned to stop short of Australia and only conquer the Far East.
D.S Detwiler (ed.) 'War in asia and the pacific 1937-1949 Vol 7, the
southern area part 2, section 4 document 55412
Its also breifly mentioned in John Ellis' 'Brute force' and A.T Ross' 'armed
and ready', and, I suspect a great many other references.
The Japanese army did not have the forces available and stated it quite
clearly, they also stated that they were unable to guarantee victory [for a
limited Nth Aust invasion] with 12 Divs (over 20% of the amount of Inf Divs
they started the war with) - even if they had the forces, the logistics to
move and supply them were sadly lacking.
> Surely you dont believe that after they had consolidated their hold on
> China, and the rest that they would have not applied at least
> significant unacceptable pressure on Australia or emboldened by
> America NOT opposing their drive through Asia would have continued.
The problem with the above is it ignores reality, consolidating a hold on
China does not remove the need to garrison a vast area, it does nothing to
lessen the massive and growing threat that the USSR posed (in Dec 41 the
Japanese had 27 Divs in China/Manchuria and in Aug 43 there were 41 divs),
China was their primary war aim, leaving it unprotected was not an option,
and consolidating a hold in China does absolutely nothing to improve the
Japanese logistic problems.
Meanwhile Australian military production continues, by the time Japan could
credibly subdue China, they are unlikely to win the air battle for Aust let
alone the ground battle.
Remember at the time Aust was exporting vast amounts of military equipment
and supplies.
L'acrobat
> What a fuck....we lose 408,000 men in wars Oceans away from us and you
> say that we werent overly moved...what a prick.
Not winning the argument so you want to try to make it an emotional issue.
It won't wash, the USA sat back and did little whilst the Nazis ran amok in
europe and the USA only declared war on them after Hitler declared war on
the USA, Japan bombed you into WW2.
So perhaps the high and mighty, 'we came rushing to everyones aid' is a tad
misplaced, you were dragged into it against your will.
> These were wars that
> we entered specifically to insure the destruction of Dictators that
> were oppressing you assholes...not us.
a. I don't recall Aust being oppressed you lackwit.
b. you take the record for bullshitting, well done.
Germany declared war on you and Japan bombed you into the pacific war -
remember when I suggested you read up on the subject?
> Had we NOT been overly moved we
> could have just said hey fuck it Japan dont worry about us we wont
> enter the war and we wouldnt have ever been attacked by Japan.
The USA imposed an oil embargo to restrict the growing Japanese threat to US
interests, this sanctimonious crap really must end.
>
> >I'm sorry, but you are complaining that a foreigner is not overly moved
by
> >an attack on the USA? As I recall the USA was not overly moved when the
> >Nazis swept across Europe and then headed into the USSR - perhaps you can
> >see why large chunks of the planet are not overly moved by your
predicament?
>
> What the fuck kind of drugs are you takiing..? Exactly how many
> people are we supposed to lose in wars not of our making before you
> think we are concerned. We were in BOTH of those wars NOT because they
> threatened us directly but to protect our allies.
Utter crap.
You stayed out of both until threatened in the first (the Zimmerman
telegram) and in the second the Japanese bombed you into the Pac war and the
Germans declared war on you and started sinking your coastal shipping.
Neither had anything to do with protecting allies.
>
> >Once again I am not suggesting that the US deserved it or anything along
> >those lines and I do support a limited commitment of Aust forces to the
war
> >on terror, but I can certainly see the irony in a US president declaring
> >that this vast tragedy requires a response from all nations when the USA
was
> >late for both world wars.
>
> Late...??? Late...?? The only way you would have a point is if we
> NEVER came...but losing 408,000 of our people in your wars means you
> get to shut the fuck up and be happy we showed.
No, trying to stay out means that perhaps you should shut your sanctimonious
mouth and be happy that your allies are prepared to forgive your unwilling
involvement in our wars and still help you in yours, in spite of your sad
track record.
PAPADOC
call yourself educated....save me from the knowledge that allows you
to say that.
>No, trying to stay out means that perhaps you should shut your sanctimonious
>mouth and be happy that your allies are prepared to forgive your unwilling
>involvement in our wars and still help you in yours, in spite of your sad
>track record.
PAPA DOC
Gonzo
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:14:21 -0800, "Dusty Rhodes"
> <james...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >That right, forget about any of American Merchantmen and sailors. Those
> >wouldn't fit in to your argument. You completely lack any fundamental
> >knowledge of America's involvement in that time period. Study up son,
you
> >need it before you continue to make yourself look like a 13 year old.
> >
> >Dusty Rhodes
>
> fought in The BoB. Look at the credits at the end of the movie, BOB.
> It tells you exaxctly how many pilots fought from various nations. You
> specifically mentioned americans in *fighter planes*. Not merchant
> seamen! And my thankyou was sincere, dillweed.
You need go back to Dusty's posting my friend because he did IN FACT post
about the merchant seamen. Being an ex Navy man myself I think that you
belittling them is insulting.
I think an appology is in order. You might want to actually read ALL of a
posting before flaming BTW.
PAPADOC
your cites do nothing at all to prove your point of view. In addition
you charge us with finding first hand sources so in your cite I was
expecting to read documents from the Japanese Government proclaiming
their reluctance to invading Australia. Instead I am directed to a
great history not written by the Japanese government. How about living
up to your demands of us and citing first hand sources. Where are the
documents that show the Japanese government had forsaken all hopes of
either controlling or outright conquering of Australia....written by
the Japanese themselves.
>If they hadn't had to fight USA, they would have stuck to trying to
>conquering China - their entire war aim.
>
>Perhaps if you actually read up on the subject?
Perhaps if you actually understood what your read. The Japanese were
not acting rationally and to ascribe rationality to their acts is
naive.
Dr Oddness Killtroll
L'acrobat wrote:
> a. What they believed does not equal capability,
I know you're former military, so I am surprised at your selective choices for
historical sources. What a nation BELEIVES it can do DEFINES it national
strategy.
The deficiencies you speak of were not apparent until '43, or later, to most
(except Yamamoto, and likely a few of his close associates), and, furthermore,
the entire Japanese strategy was bold enough to include the investment of Samoa,
Miday, and Hawaii.
And the total isolation of Australia.
>
>
> [snip 20 20 hindsight stuff]
>
> > If 'canal had not be fought, then, ultimately, Fiji or father east, would
> have
> > been the end of the Japanese expansion in the SWAPO.
>
> Shipping, lack of, read up on it.
>
> >
> > Thats would have completely isolated Austrailia. No food, no supplies,
> nothing.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
Get up, and clean out your headgrear troop. This is history.
> Whilst I can see where this would have inconvenienced the USA (read up on
> Trumans speech to congress re reverse lend lease), it would hardly have
> inconvenienced Aust -
No?????
Ask anyone alive at the time? Heh. Your NW airfields were being strafed, and
bombed, nearly daily. The diggers were keeping them on the N side of the Own
Stanley, by the skjin of thgier teeth, all the dutch possesions were falling. PI
was cut off, and going to fall. Guam fell. Ditto singapore.
The roof was coming in, whether you want to accept it or not. And aus was very
afraid of what Japan was intending next. Whatever it was...
> BTW, you might want to explain how a force like the
> IJN,
The Japanese intended to cut you off, and watch you wither on the vine. They
never lacked for aggressiveness, or arrogance...
> that sucked at RAS and lacked fuel was going to blockade a continent
> (ie have to run blockade ops all the way down to the far southern ocean on
> both the east and west coast of Aust (and if you think the Japs were short
> on merchants, they were far worse off in relation to tankers).
The S ports dont count, if Indian Ocean, and SW Pacific are closed to shipping
from GB, USA, etc...
> >
> > Our fight at Guadalcanal (using newly deployed Marines, in NZ, who were
> not
> > intended to go into action until Dec, 42,) was specifically
> desgined/intended
> > to remove the threat to Australia.
>
> What utter bullshit, breathtaking in its scope and scale!, you, sir are to
> be congratulated.
This truly displays your ignornace. The discovery of what became Henderson
Field, on Guadalcanal, prompeted the US Marines to invade same, from NZ, on Aug
7 (also Tulagi, etc), as opposed to some less specific target, scheduled to
start in approc Dec '42.
Thats what happened. You dont need to agree.
> Given that the 'threat' to Aust was only a perceived one and not a real one
> (ie the Japanese army ruled it out in early 42)
No. They didnt. They simply put off a plan to invade N australia, as taking the
French possesions eats of there would effectively isolate you. And you'd be
dealt with later.
Again, your dealing with a leadership that invaded CHINA, and intended to win.
And nearly did.
Do you know how many troops japan had in China in '45?
> and that Guadalcanal
> occurred post Midway,
The impact/meaning of Midway was not apparent to anyone, in 6/42.
> even if the 'threat' was real, it was over before
> Guadalcanal started - can't you even see the inconsistencies in your own
> argument?
>
> >
> > And, for no other reason.
>
> It gets better! see above.
Only your myopia seems to be growing...
> > > It is also worth noting that the USA did not "send troops to avenge an
> > > attack on an Australian landmark"
> >
> > Were you attacked? Did we respond helpfully? Whats your point? The
> landmark
> > thingy was simply stupididty on teh part of the original troller. A pair
> of
> > buildings, destroyed, causing the deaths of approx 2500 people, is not
> properly
> > describes as a 'US landmark'...
>
> My point is that the USA did not (as Papadoc suggests) come to Australias
> aid in WW2, the USA was already fighting Japan and so was Australia very
> shortly afterwards.
We came to your aid. Pure and simple. We provided food, supplied, warships,
training, transport, ammunition, logistical provisioning, troopships, etc ad
infanatum.
The statement you make is simply nonsense. It is a semantic game, intended to
circumvent reality, for your own personal reasons. We had a common enemy. We had
greater resource than anyone else. We helped everyone, came to everyones aid,
and we won the war.
Without the US, the world wouyld eiother be destroyed, via Hitler and Stalin
acquiring atomic weapons, and proceding to wreak more havoc aon the planet, or
it would be some fascist prison planet, with the same rules, but differing
jailers, depending upon your hemisphere.
Its a bitter pill, the fact that we have been so helpful to sa many. I can see
where that wuld breed almost irrational resentment. Even among frinds. I know,
no good deed goes un piunished. We have onluy our selves to blame.
But there it is...
> I'm sorry, but you are complaining that a foreigner is not overly moved by
> an attack on the USA?
What does this mean, or have to do with the issue being discussed?
Nothing?
Ooops. Sorry, I was simply expecting relevance.
> As I recall the USA was not overly moved when the
> Nazis swept across Europe and then headed into the USSR
There was a great debate, in the states, ath the time, regarding how we should
respond. Many were quite upset. If you had a balanced historical view, you'd
know that we were invloved before 12/7. Lost more than 100 guys killed, in 41,
IIRC. USS Panay was sunk in '37. And the list goes on...
> - perhaps you can see why large chunks of the planet are not overly moved by
> your predicament?
Thats not why "large chunks of the planet are not overly moved by your
predicament". Its the propoagation of ingnorant, self indulgent phoney history
that breeds that, troll in tights...
> Once again I am not suggesting that the US deserved it or anything along
> those lines and I do support a limited commitment of Aust forces to the war
> on terror,
Well, goody...
How many more Balis do YOU need?
<smirk>
'limited'
<smirk>
You'll get more.
> but I can certainly see the irony
You folks from the Empire are entierly too enamored with 'irony'. You see it
everywhere.
> in a US president declaring that this vast tragedy requires a response from
> all nations when the USA was
> late for both world wars.
And this is related, in what way? I dont hear any endigtment of Stalin, or
Hitler, or even the silly 'peace in our time' Brit.
We didnt attack you, or the world, you know.
And, furthermore, the actions taken on 9/11 were not soley directed at the US.
The are directed at western civilization.
Tou, too, ARE a target. The fact that you dont know it yet, or bbeleive it,
doesnt make you anything like immunce
> > > in WW2 (as per the original posters
> > > question), the USA and Australia were fighting a common enemy (who
> attacked
> > > the US forces first).
> >
> > Why is this 'first' distinction relevant, in that it was only a matter of
> days
> > before Austrian troops were attacked?
>
> Because it utterly invalidates any idea that the USA 'came to our aid' we
> were all in the same boat and the USA was in that boat first.
No, it does not. 'Coming to ones aid' does not presuppose some time separation,
where the one needing aid, is stricken first, or however your interpreting this.
It simply means you needed help. And we provided it. Willingly.
After all, Amers were as over payed, over sexed, and over there, in australia,
as in England, no? You cant say this wasnt a fairly common complaint, as nerarly
every man in Australia and NZ as overseas, while 100 thousand, or more Americans
were in Australia, NZ, and environs.
Put simply, we were attacked first, by a matter of days, BUT, you needed help,
we sent the 1 St Marine division, as well as a Raider battalion, to NZ, and the
SW pacifica Area, (as well as a host of US Army troops, and those retreating
from PI, whjo could get out), to protect you, Australia, specifically, from
being cut off, isolated. Additionally, why did Digger troops come home from N
Africa, and the ME, id there was no threat?
> >
> > > Not anti American, just correcting a few errors.
> >
> > I dont hoink you're anti American, but I think youve been fed a selective
> > version of history...
>
> An accurate one, you have a fair bit of reading to do -
I've done more reading, for decades, regarding this, than Carter has Liver
pills. My description of events stands. I listened, again, to an interview, dont
in '44, dealing with EXACTLY this subject. It was amongst US senior commanders
in the SWAPO.
Are they valid sources?
> go for stuff that is sourced from primary material rather than historians who
> rehash others work.
Read above. Its hard to get better sources that Smith, Vandegrift, Nimitz, Hong
Kong Hill, etc They were there.
You're free to disagree.
DrOk
Dr Oddness Killtroll
L'acrobat wrote:
> So perhaps the high and mighty, 'we came rushing to everyones aid' is a tad
> misplaced, you were dragged into it against your will.
This apprently escapes you, as your wit is dim,
BUT,
So Were You.
Dummy...
>
> > These were wars that
> > we entered specifically to insure the destruction of Dictators that
> > were oppressing you assholes...not us.
>
> a. I don't recall Aust being oppressed you lackwit.
You werent alive, so you cant. Speak to your elders. Why doest the Aussie Army
have a required histroy course, like the US Army does? As a former para, you
should know the truth.
You dont.
Why?
> b. you take the record for bullshitting, well done.
Not from you, troll in tights. You're a winner, in this dept...
> Germany declared war on you and Japan bombed you into the pacific war -
> remember when I suggested you read up on the subject?
And how, exactly, was the UK (to include YOU) drawn in to the war? Invitation?
No.
The bombing of Poland.
> > Had we NOT been overly moved we
> > could have just said hey fuck it Japan dont worry about us we wont
> > enter the war and we wouldnt have ever been attacked by Japan.
>
> The USA imposed an oil embargo to restrict the growing Japanese
Because Japan had invaded, and was rpaing China.
You cant have it both ways, troll in tights. Condemn us for not being involved,
and them claim our involvemnent was catalytic in complelling the Japs forward
with the dastardly 'South East Asia Co-Prposperity Sphere' version of hellish
oppression.
Ever read about Nanking?
Thas was before the embargo, simpleton...
Japan intended to attach the US are far back as 1913 (or was it 1902).
> threat to US interests, this sanctimonious crap really must end.
No, not as a result of threats to US intersest. As a result of a recognition mof
the fundementally inhumane (for decades) nature of japanese expansionism.
And you are the only one being sanctimoneous here, troll in tights. Thats not
debateable.
> >
> > >I'm sorry, but you are complaining that a foreigner is not overly moved
> by
> > >an attack on the USA? As I recall the USA was not overly moved when the
> > >Nazis swept across Europe and then headed into the USSR - perhaps you can
> > >see why large chunks of the planet are not overly moved by your
> predicament?
> >
> > What the fuck kind of drugs are you takiing..? Exactly how many
> > people are we supposed to lose in wars not of our making before you
> > think we are concerned. We were in BOTH of those wars NOT because they
> > threatened us directly but to protect our allies.
>
> Utter crap.
Simpleton. Or bad troll.
Or mabe a simple troll in tights...
Yes...
> You stayed out of both until threatened in the first (the Zimmerman
> telegram)
What about the evil oil sanctions, you mentioned previously. I though these
started the whole mess. Were we in or out?
Stop being confused.
I know its against your nature. I'm simply trying to help you.
First, clean the scata outa yer ears, then...
> and in the second the Japanese bombed you into the Pac war and the
> Germans declared war on you and started sinking your coastal shipping.
The Japanese sank the first US warship lost in the war (by offical record) in
1937. The USS Panay. The germans sunk at least one US destroyer, more than 6
months before 7 dec. We occupied Iceland, prior to that date too. And there are
numerous other example of our involvement.
> Neither had anything to do with protecting allies.
Everytnig we did had to do with protecting allies. We werent truly threatened.
You siad so yourself.
If you dont post nonsense, people cant tie you up in knots with it, you know.
Thats a lesson for ya, troll in tights...
> >
> > >Once again I am not suggesting that the US deserved it or anything along
> > >those lines and I do support a limited commitment of Aust forces to the
> war
> > >on terror, but I can certainly see the irony in a US president declaring
> > >that this vast tragedy requires a response from all nations when the USA
> was
> > >late for both world wars.
> >
> > Late...??? Late...?? The only way you would have a point is if we
> > NEVER came...but losing 408,000 of our people in your wars means you
> > get to shut the fuck up and be happy we showed.
>
> No, trying to stay out means that perhaps you should shut your sanctimonious
> mouth and be happy that your allies are prepared to forgive your unwilling
> involvement in our wars and still help you in yours, in spite of your sad
> track record.
Your consistenmtly sanctimonious, whaen you're drinking, or the dingos and roos
arent up for play, or whatever it is that gets your dander up. But, I dont think
PD, or anyone, is disatisfied with the contributions of our allies. We
appreciate it, although we dont REALLY NEED it. I'm sure you know that,
BUT, to denigrate the great service we did you the people of australia, by some
reviosnist, barie shrimp eating neo liberal, new australia form of post mad max
history, complete with blonds and surfin', down under, is both insulting, and
whaen deliverd by YOU, Troll in Tights, particularly sanctimonious.
You're simply wrong.
But thats not new.
Now, bring on something substantial, or crawl away.
DrOk
Dr Oddness Killtroll
> Read above. Its hard to get better sources that Smith, Vandegrift, Nimitz, Hong
> Kong Hill, etc They were there.
Errror correction: Hong Kong Hill SHOULD read King Kong Hill.
DrOk
Dusty Rhodes
to change what you said to fit your argument. No, don't apologize to me,
taking reading comprehension lessons and that is thanks enough for me.
Your attempt to trivialize our contribution to the war effort pre 12-7-41
but ONLY including the 7 folks who flew fighters and completely leaving out
the Merchant Seaman, the AVG, basically the entire group of Americans and
America's contribution pre 12-7-41, shows the utter ignorance of your
argument, and the complete lack of knowledge and understanding of what
actually historically happened. You are an ignorant fool who is just
arguing and making shit up, just to argue.
Dusty Rhodes
"Dastardly Dan" <not@for_email.invalid> wrote in message
news:cunstugrecgjm4339...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:16:28 GMT, "Gonzo" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> >You need go back to Dusty's posting my friend because he did IN FACT post
> >about the merchant seamen. Being an ex Navy man myself I think that you
> >belittling them is insulting.
> >
> >I think an appology is in order. You might want to actually read ALL of
a
> >posting before flaming BTW.
> >
>
> Look! I was commenting specifically on the part about US fighter
> pilots in The BoB. If you think I'm going to apologize for that then
> you got a long wait coming. And Gonzo, you're an idiot, as always.
> Seems to me that what I said was taken out of context and the apology
> should be coming my way.
L'acrobat
> Bullshit you have zero way of knowing what their war aims were....and
> your cites do nothing at all to prove your point of view.
The Japanese were quite clear on their war aims, perhaps if you read
something on the subject you would not be making such a fool of yourself..
Also, perhaps if you read the cites provided.
> you charge us with finding first hand sources so in your cite I was
> expecting to read documents from the Japanese Government proclaiming
> their reluctance to invading Australia. Instead I am directed to a
> great history not written by the Japanese government. How about living
> up to your demands of us and citing first hand sources. Where are the
> documents that show the Japanese government had forsaken all hopes of
> either controlling or outright conquering of Australia....
The IJA ruled it out categorically, try reading the cites.
> written by
> the Japanese themselves.
You are reading scholarly works sourced from primary documents, perhaps if
you actually read them you buffoon?
>
> >If they hadn't had to fight USA, they would have stuck to trying to
> >conquering China - their entire war aim.
> >
> >Perhaps if you actually read up on the subject?
>
> Perhaps if you actually understood what your read. The Japanese were
> not acting rationally and to ascribe rationality to their acts is
> naive.
The Japanese were actining in acordance with their culture, they believed
they had a right and a duty to get China for the emperor, funnily enough
invading a country of that size on their own doorstep seemed to be a big
enough chunk for them to bite off.
And the IJA ruled an Aust invasion out not on 'rational' or 'irrational'
cultural grounds but on the lack of troops and capability to win even if
they had the number of troops the IJN suggested were needed.
Its pretty clear that your subject knowledge is sadly lacking, but feel free
to keep making an arse of yourself.
L'acrobat
> Sad record...408,000 of us die and you call that a sad record. You
> call yourself educated....save me from the knowledge that allows you
> to say that.
>
Yes, facts can be painful.
The sad and humiliating truth is you are squealing like a pig over the
deaths of 2500 or so Americans and insisting that the world should side with
you utterly and be sensitive to your pain - yet your country did little for
2 years whilst 100s of thousands died in Europe, whilst the US did nothing
the einsatzgruppen had already begun work and the gas chambers were
operating - pretty fucking sentive then weren't you?
Yet you don't even see why nations that stood up to be counted back then can
see the irony in your bleating.
And perhaps less than 408,000 would have died had your country been prepared
to stand up and fight beside civilisation rather than have to be dragged out
from under the table by the Japs and the Germans to do it?
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
readig suggests that they were having furious internal debates about
what could be accomplished. On top of that they werent rational.
>Also, perhaps if you read the cites provided.
>
>The IJA ruled it out categorically, try reading the cites.
Did read your main cite...didnt have any categorical statements in
that particular cite.
>
>> written by
>> the Japanese themselves.
>
>You are reading scholarly works sourced from primary documents, perhaps if
>you actually read them you buffoon?
You say that you have the actual Japanese documents...you say we
shouldnt trust someones interpretation of history. I am just taking
you at your word.
>
>The Japanese were actining in acordance with their culture, they believed
>they had a right and a duty to get China for the emperor, funnily enough
>invading a country of that size on their own doorstep seemed to be a big
>enough chunk for them to bite off.
Oh so they didnt invade Russia and get their asses kicked...???
Exactly what was their goals in attacking Russia...?
>And the IJA ruled an Aust invasion out not on 'rational' or 'irrational'
>cultural grounds but on the lack of troops and capability to win even if
>they had the number of troops the IJN suggested were needed.
>
>Its pretty clear that your subject knowledge is sadly lacking, but feel free
>to keep making an arse of yourself.
Sure dont worry I dont mind being embarrassed...I will let you know
when that starts happeniing
PAPA DOC
L'acrobat
"Dr Oddness Killtroll" <an...@annex.annex> wrote in message
>
>
> L'acrobat wrote:
>
> > So perhaps the high and mighty, 'we came rushing to everyones aid' is a
tad
> > misplaced, you were dragged into it against your will.
>
> This apprently escapes you, as your wit is dim,
>
> BUT,
>
> So Were You.
You might want to have a look at when Australia joined WW2, idiot.
> > > These were wars that
> > > we entered specifically to insure the destruction of Dictators that
> > > were oppressing you assholes...not us.
> >
> > a. I don't recall Aust being oppressed you lackwit.
>
> You werent alive, so you cant. Speak to your elders. Why doest the Aussie
Army
> have a required histroy course, like the US Army does? As a former para,
you
> should know the truth.
Feel free to explain the oppression Aust suffered, as a country that was not
invaded or occupied - this will be a hoot.
>
> You dont.
>
> Why?
Because it is all a sad little dream on your part.
>
> > b. you take the record for bullshitting, well done.
>
> Not from you, troll in tights. You're a winner, in this dept...
Not doing well are you - the pattern is clear, when you are making an arse
of yourself you go for the 'troll' accusation - the whole NG sees you do
this again and again, why don't you just run up a white flag? the effect is
the same, we all know you've lost the argument when you head down that
path..
>
> > Germany declared war on you and Japan bombed you into the pacific war -
> > remember when I suggested you read up on the subject?
>
> And how, exactly, was the UK (to include YOU) drawn in to the war?
Invitation?
I'm afraid that the UK does not include Australia, perhaps you REALLY need
to read up on it.
Australia chose to go to war, Australia could have chosen not to.
>
> No.
>
> The bombing of Poland.
See above, stupid and ignorant is not a winning combination.
>
> > > Had we NOT been overly moved we
> > > could have just said hey fuck it Japan dont worry about us we wont
> > > enter the war and we wouldnt have ever been attacked by Japan.
> >
> > The USA imposed an oil embargo to restrict the growing Japanese
>
> Because Japan had invaded, and was rpaing China.
>
> You cant have it both ways, troll in tights. Condemn us for not being
involved,
> and them claim our involvemnent was catalytic in complelling the Japs
forward
> with the dastardly 'South East Asia Co-Prposperity Sphere' version of
hellish
> oppression.
The USA was acting in support of its own policy goals (I note the USA did
not impose oil embargos when the Japs invaded Manchuria in 31 or China in 37
or Mongolia in 37 and 39), the USA imposed them when the USA was concerned
about the Japanese potential to impinge on US interests, the atrocities in
China made a useful pretext but they were hardly new, the Japanese had been
doing that sort of thing for years in China.
And I don't 'claim' that the US oil embargo was the cause of the Japanese
attacking south, it is well documented historical fact.
Read something on the subject. anything.
>
> Ever read about Nanking?
>
> Thas was before the embargo, simpleton...
note the USA did not impose oil embargos when the Japs invaded Manchuria in
31 or China in 37 or Mongolia in 37 and 39, all well before the embargo and
all with the usual assortment of Japanese atrocities, Nanking was a pretext,
not a cause.
>
> Japan intended to attach the US are far back as 1913 (or was it 1902).
cite, master bullshitter.
>
> > threat to US interests, this sanctimonious crap really must end.
>
> No, not as a result of threats to US intersest. As a result of a
recognition mof
> the fundementally inhumane (for decades) nature of japanese expansionism.
What a hoot, the USA did nothing for a decade, yet suddenly took an interest
in the NATURE of Jap expansionism rather than the FACT of it?
A stunning display of stupidity. even from you. well done.
>
> And you are the only one being sanctimoneous here, troll in tights. Thats
not
> debateable.
>
the white flag is waved yet again - you don't have knowledge, you fall back
on 'troll'.
> > >
> > > What the fuck kind of drugs are you takiing..? Exactly how many
> > > people are we supposed to lose in wars not of our making before you
> > > think we are concerned. We were in BOTH of those wars NOT because they
> > > threatened us directly but to protect our allies.
> >
> > Utter crap.
>
> Simpleton. Or bad troll.
>
> Or mabe a simple troll in tights...
>
> Yes...
Content free reply, the white flag is waved yet again - you don't have
knowledge, you fall back on 'troll'.
>
> What about the evil oil sanctions, you mentioned previously. I though
these
> started the whole mess. Were we in or out?
Refusing to supply oil is hardly on a par with actively opposing is it sad
boy.
You triggered the attack south by refusing to supply oil to Japan in an
attempt to protect US pacific interests, that is hardly on a par with
standing up and directly opposing Nazism in combat is it?
>
> Stop being confused.
>
> I know its against your nature. I'm simply trying to help you.
>
> First, clean the scata outa yer ears, then...
Content free reply, the white flag is waved yet again - you don't have
knowledge, you fall back on insults.
>
> > and in the second the Japanese bombed you into the Pac war and the
> > Germans declared war on you and started sinking your coastal shipping.
>
> The Japanese sank the first US warship lost in the war (by offical record)
in
> 1937. The USS Panay. The germans sunk at least one US destroyer, more than
6
> months before 7 dec.
Yet still you refused to stand up and be counted - exactly how gutless is
that on a national scale?
> We occupied Iceland, prior to that date too.
I weep for the American victims of Icelandic Nazism, storming up the pier in
the face of British NAAFI tea and biscuits, with inadequate supplies of
coffee and cookies - the courage they displayed on that immortal day will
live forever in our hearts...
And then to have to do a handover/takeover from the Brits who were already
there must have been hell - Fuck, those Icelandic Nazis must have been
tough.
> And there are
> numerous other example of our involvement.
Selling stuff, partial escorts of stuff sold and volunteers who were so
embarassed by the national level of cowardice (79% of American wanted to
stay out of the War in a May 1941 - Gallup poll) that they went and joined
other countries armed forces to fight.
>
> > Neither had anything to do with protecting allies.
>
> Everytnig we did had to do with protecting allies. We werent truly
threatened.
> You siad so yourself.
Pearl Harbour wasn't bombed? US sailors weren't washing up on American
shores in early 42?
I'd say both of those actions are proof of a threat, not one of invasion,
but certainly of attack.
>
> If you dont post nonsense, people cant tie you up in knots with it, you
know.
> Thats a lesson for ya, troll in tights...
>
Content free reply, the white flag is waved yet again - you don't have
knowledge, you fall back on troll.
The problem is you haven't managed it, it really helps if you know what you
are talking about when you post. You have a fair bit of reading to do now
sonny, run along.
>
> BUT, to denigrate the great service we did you the people of australia, by
some
> reviosnist, barie shrimp eating neo liberal, new australia form of post
mad max
> history, complete with blonds and surfin', down under, is both insulting,
and
> whaen deliverd by YOU, Troll in Tights, particularly sanctimonious.
You have yet to address the fact that your own examples such as Guadalcanal
happened after there was no theoretical threat to invade Aust (there was
never an actual one as IJA records show), insert the usual 'troll' rubbish
and it is clear that your 'argument' (and I use the term in its loosest
possible sense) has utterly collapsed, the fact that the Japanese never had
the troops or equipment to invade Aust, never had the intention to invade
Aust and never had the logistic capability to move or supply such an
invasion rather precludes the suggestion by Papadoc, now well refuted - that
the USA kept Aust free from Japanese Invasion.
You have to actually show that such an invasion was possible and intended
for this 'great service' to be actually done for the people of Australia,
you have yet to show this.
If you have ANY facts that show that the Japanese had the troops, adequate
equipment, enough shipping or the intention to invade Aust - post it here,
or slink away defeated.
Don't bother with the 'troll post' that is rather past its use by dat now,
just post some facts as above-
Or are you suggesting that in spite of the fact that Japan was unable and
unwilling (even before they lost Coral Sea) to invade Australia the USA
somehow prevented it?
>
> You're simply wrong.
You have yet to prove that.
>
> But thats not new.
>
> Now, bring on something substantial, or crawl away.
Facts son, facts, provide some.
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
humiliated...? Losing 408,000 lives in the defense of your homeland is
being humiliated...? You almost looked rational for a second but
trivilizing the deaths of 408,000 people by saying they arrived too
late for you war...is testament to your idiocy.
PAPA DOC
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
apparent that you just hate Americans...fine. I can deal with
that...envy is a terrible burdern and you carry alot of it.
PAPA DOC
Dusty Rhodes
during the BOB, is selective arguing and you know it. I countered you with
other examples of Americans who got involved or were involved due to foriegn
policy. You then lied and came back here saying I didn't mention them when
I most certainly did in my argument back at you. IF you can't keep up, then
quit the game and STFU.
Dusty Rhodes
"Dastardly Dan" <not@for_email.invalid> wrote in message
news:069ttu82es7qq0ddn...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:46:33 -0800, "Dusty Rhodes"
> <james...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >Nice, you call me a liar about something I said, are proven wrong, then
try
> >to change what you said to fit your argument. No, don't apologize to me,
> >taking reading comprehension lessons and that is thanks enough for me.
> >Your attempt to trivialize our contribution to the war effort pre 12-7-41
> >but ONLY including the 7 folks who flew fighters and completely leaving
out
> >the Merchant Seaman, the AVG, basically the entire group of Americans and
> >America's contribution pre 12-7-41, shows the utter ignorance of your
> >argument, and the complete lack of knowledge and understanding of what
> >actually historically happened. You are an ignorant fool who is just
> >arguing and making shit up, just to argue.
> >
> >Dusty Rhodes
>
> Like hell I am. I posted facts about how many US pilots fought in The
> BoB and didn't make anything up. You have evidence that says
> otherwise? I wasn't commenting on anything else. I see lots of people
> further down this thread saying lots worse about US involvement prior
> to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Take up your beef with them.
Dusty Rhodes
> Yes, facts can be painful.
>
> The sad and humiliating truth is you are squealing like a pig over the
> deaths of 2500 or so Americans and insisting that the world should side
with
> you utterly and be sensitive to your pain - yet your country did little
for
> 2 years whilst 100s of thousands died in Europe, whilst the US did nothing
> the einsatzgruppen had already begun work and the gas chambers were
> operating - pretty fucking sentive then weren't you?
Do you ever get tired of trying to sound smart, and ending up looking
stupid? Guess not!
We are "squealing" over the loss and trivialization of almost 3000 people
who were from MANY NATIONS FUCKWIT, not just the United States! But then
you know that because you know everything!
We did little prior to 12-7-41? I have some studying for you to do pea
brain. Find out the extent of the Lend Lease Program where we ended up
GIVING millions in equipment to Britain, Russia, Free French, the list goes
on. All in a time we we WERE NOT PREPARED FOR WAR due to a shitty economy
and our lack of desire to get involved in ANOTHER WAR started by Europeans
against Europeans and Asians against Asians! Our Armed Forces were in sad
shape and not prepared for war at all. Find out why most of the American
Pacific Fleet was in Pearl that fine December day! At the time we were
dragged into the war, it was not known about the gas chambers and the final
solution. Tell me fuckwad, when were the first documented cases of mass
gassings during WW II by the Germans? When were these gassings actually
known by the US Govt. as having happened. Not when they heard rumor, when
they really knew what was happening?
You arguments are so full of revisionism, piss poor recitation of history,
and putting your own spin on things, it is sickening.
>
> Yet you don't even see why nations that stood up to be counted back then
can
> see the irony in your bleating.
Stood up to be counted? ROFLMAO Oh that is a good one. The British at the
time were giving Hitler whatever he wanted!!! The Sudentland, The Rhine
Valley. The French did not a GOD DAMN thing but sit behind the Maginot Line
until they were invaded and got their asses handed to them. Then part of
the countries hierarchy allied themselves with Germany. (Vichy France) The
Russians were fucking Allies of Germany until Op Barbarosa (which is what
lost the war for Germany)!!!! Just who are these fucking countries that
stood up and were accounted for? They were all dragged kicking and
screaming also, but of course looked our way AGAIN for the second time in
the then, past 25 years to pull there ass out, when we weren't ready,
capable or willing at the time. But we did what we could. You think
Britain could have won the BOB without our logistical support and the Lend
Lease? You think Russia could have stopped the Germans without the MASSIVE
amounts of supplies and equipment we GAVE them?
Fucking A rights we didn't just jump in!!! And we protected our interests,
JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE WAS ATTEMPTING TO DO!!!! If we jump in too quick,
today is a perfect example, we are war mongers and expansionist, and every
other bullshit adjective you can think of. If we sit back and let others
solve their problems we are isolationists and are seen as doing nothing.
>
> And perhaps less than 408,000 would have died had your country been
prepared
> to stand up and fight beside civilisation rather than have to be dragged
out
> from under the table by the Japs and the Germans to do it?
We were about as prepared to fight as every other allied nation after coming
out of the world economy of the 30's. Maybe Britain would have had less die
if they had made a stand early instead of just giving Hilter Carte Blanche
and emboldening him to further expand. Maybe France would have had less
people die if they had been prepared for invasion instead of rolling over
and dieing with thier WW I tactics with the Maginot Line. Maybe Russia
would have suffered less had they not ALLIED themselves with Germany in an
attempt to rule Europe, when they weren't even prepared to defend
themselves!
Tell others to read history? Maybe you should read more then every third
word of those history books and sources you claim to know of. It is plainly
obvious that you didn't read it all and have blinders on to what really
happened. You want to get down to nitty gritty little boy? Lets do it!
You will lose and lose mightily!
I love it when you pickle brained spin doctors come in here with your own
version of history and try to sell it as fact because you read it in one or
two books. STudy the event from all sides you dickless wonder, you just
might get an education then.
Dusty Rhodes
Wondering what other horseshit revisionism you will come up with.
Gonzo
"Dastardly Dan" <not@for_email.invalid> wrote in message
> On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:16:28 GMT, "Gonzo" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> >about the merchant seamen. Being an ex Navy man myself I think that you
> >belittling them is insulting.
> >
> >I think an appology is in order. You might want to actually read ALL of
a
> >posting before flaming BTW.
> >
>
> pilots in The BoB. If you think I'm going to apologize for that then
> you got a long wait coming. And Gonzo, you're an idiot, as always.
> Seems to me that what I said was taken out of context and the apology
> should be coming my way.
No, you are the idiot for either your lack of reading comprehension and your
arrogance and ignorance towards our war involvment. You trivialized the
deaths of hundreds just so you could try and make yourself look better on
the usenet and that is pretty damn low.
If you are not man enough to apologize then at least do us all a favour and
crawl back under the rock that you came out from under and STFU!
L'acrobat
"Dr Oddness Killtroll" <an...@annex.annex> wrote in message
>
>
> L'acrobat wrote:
>
> > a. What they believed does not equal capability,
>
> I know you're former military, so I am surprised at your selective choices
for
> historical sources. What a nation BELEIVES it can do DEFINES it national
> strategy.
Actually, its goals and its capabilities define national strategy.
Japans goal was China, its merchant fleet alone made it clear that it had no
'long distance' strategic interests.
>
> The deficiencies you speak of were not apparent until '43,
The Deficiencies in Shipping were apparent well before the start of the Pac
war, or do you think that the Japanese didn't know that the bulk of their
oil was carried in foreign ships or that in 1938 of 62.2 million tons of
shipping entering Jap ports only 36.6 million was Jap flagged?
Army equipment problems were very clearly explained by Gen Zhukov on Aug 20
1939
>or later, to most
> (except Yamamoto, and likely a few of his close associates), and,
furthermore,
> the entire Japanese strategy was bold enough to include the investment of
Samoa,
> Miday, and Hawaii.
I'm afraid that Japanese plans did not extend that far, there were a few
half arsed proposals put forward but they were quickly disposed of for lack
of troops, usually they never got to the 'how will we move them' stage.
>
> And the total isolation of Australia.
Cites please, and you might want to explain how Japan would manage it even
if they believed they could do it, hint too few tankers, little capability
at RAS.
> > > If 'canal had not be fought, then, ultimately, Fiji or father east,
would
> > have
> > > been the end of the Japanese expansion in the SWAPO.
> >
> > Shipping, lack of, read up on it.
> >
> > >
> > > Thats would have completely isolated Austrailia. No food, no supplies,
> > nothing.
> >
> > ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
>
> Get up, and clean out your headgrear troop. This is history.
I'm afraid you have to prove it, you see it isn't history sonny, its utter
rubbish, Aust was a major exporter of supplies and military equipment.
>
> > Whilst I can see where this would have inconvenienced the USA (read up
on
> > Trumans speech to congress re reverse lend lease), it would hardly have
> > inconvenienced Aust -
>
> No?????
No, it would have simply meant that Aust would not have been exporting
Weapons, Ammunition, food, AFVs etc, they would have simply stayed in Aust.
It would have inconvenienced the Brits and forced the US to ship vast
amounts of supplies from the US that they got from Aust.
You didn't look up Trumans speech did you.
>
> Ask anyone alive at the time? Heh. Your NW airfields were being strafed,
and
> bombed, nearly daily. The diggers were keeping them on the N side of the
Own
> Stanley, by the skjin of thgier teeth, all the dutch possesions were
falling. PI
> was cut off, and going to fall. Guam fell. Ditto singapore.
Bombing and strafing, well thats it then Aust was done for - you do know
that that sort of thing goes on in wars don't you?
Funnily enough a fair bit of it went on in Britain, yet they did not fall.
Losing PNG would have increased raiding, but would not have brought on the
invasion that the Japanese had ruled out - they did not have the men.
PI, Guam, DEI, Singapore - what, exactly have they got to do with invading
Australia?
>
> The roof was coming in, whether you want to accept it or not. And aus was
very
> afraid of what Japan was intending next. Whatever it was...
Yet again you confuse perception with reality, Japan was not up to invading
Aust - the fact that people worried that they were does not make it true.
>
> > BTW, you might want to explain how a force like the
> > IJN,
>
> The Japanese intended to cut you off, and watch you wither on the vine.
They
> never lacked for aggressiveness, or arrogance...
I see you have chosen not to explain HOW they could do it.
Intention does not equal capability.
>
> > that sucked at RAS and lacked fuel was going to blockade a continent
> > (ie have to run blockade ops all the way down to the far southern ocean
on
> > both the east and west coast of Aust (and if you think the Japs were
short
> > on merchants, they were far worse off in relation to tankers).
>
> The S ports dont count, if Indian Ocean, and SW Pacific are closed to
shipping
> from GB, USA, etc...
The S ports do count as southern routing is a clear and obvious move in the
face of an attempted blockade.
Now you have to show how the IJN could close the Indian Ocean and the SW
Pac, simultaneously, all the way down to below 40 degrees south.
Its nice that you have all these 'throw away' lines like 'close the SW Pac
and the Indian Ocean' but you have to actually back them up with facts, that
how grown ups do it.
>
> > >
> > > Our fight at Guadalcanal (using newly deployed Marines, in NZ, who
were
> > not
> > > intended to go into action until Dec, 42,) was specifically
> > desgined/intended
> > > to remove the threat to Australia.
> >
> > What utter bullshit, breathtaking in its scope and scale!, you, sir are
to
> > be congratulated.
>
> This truly displays your ignornace. The discovery of what became Henderson
> Field, on Guadalcanal, prompeted the US Marines to invade same, from NZ,
on Aug
> 7 (also Tulagi, etc), as opposed to some less specific target, scheduled
to
> start in approc Dec '42.
>
> Thats what happened. You dont need to agree.
Well after Coral Sea, well after Midway.
Indeed that is what happened, it is your laughable interpretation that I
disagree with - the specific reason to invade Guadalcanal was 'to remove the
threat to Australia' fucking good swimmers those Japs! - they had less
troops available now than when they ruled out an invasion, less a/c, less
fuel, less shipping to move them and they had to be removed to protect Aust!
The US wanted to exploit the victory at Midway.
Put your analyst on danger money!
BTW, on 2 July 42 the directive to recapture the Solomons was issued - on 5
July the Japanese airstrip was discovered and the invasion date was pushed
back from 1 Aug to 7 Aug.
Want to talk about displays of ignorance now son?
ie The USA wanted the Solomons before they knew there was any airbase there,
you might want to tell me exactly what threat a bunch of poorly supplied Jap
troops squatting in the jungle without even an airfield and over 1000 miles
from Cairns posed, that the USA felt the urgent need to protect Aust from?
>
> > Given that the 'threat' to Aust was only a perceived one and not a real
one
> > (ie the Japanese army ruled it out in early 42)
>
> No. They didnt. They simply put off a plan to invade N australia, as
taking the
> French possesions eats of there would effectively isolate you. And you'd
be
> dealt with later.
No, they ruled it out, I've provided cites, now you provide some - prove
that they had a plan to invade Aust in spite of the acknowledged fact that
they lacked the troops.
Facts, not insults, facts.
>
> Again, your dealing with a leadership that invaded CHINA, and intended to
win.
>
> And nearly did.
They held around Peking and Nanking and a few coastal enclaves - Manchuria
was held but only as long as the USSR was busy elsewhere
>
> Do you know how many troops japan had in China in '45?
Yes, do you know how quickly they were crushed by well equipped Mechanised
forces?
The fact is, that even if China had fallen to Japan - not very likely at
all, Japan could not withdraw many troops because the still had to garrison
a vast area and maintain a force that was a credible detterent to the USSR,
that means a far larger force than the USSR can deploy given the Soviet
superiority in Tanks, Arty, Small arms, Aircraft - basically in every area
except Naval, which is not particularly relavant to a war in China.
>
> > and that Guadalcanal
> > occurred post Midway,
>
> The impact/meaning of Midway was not apparent to anyone, in 6/42.
Yet the US command intended Guadalcanal to exploit the success of Midway,
clearly it was apparent to them - are you suggesting that the IJN high
command did not know of their losses?
>
> > even if the 'threat' was real, it was over before
> > Guadalcanal started - can't you even see the inconsistencies in your own
> > argument?
> >
> > >
> > > And, for no other reason.
> >
> > It gets better! see above.
>
> Only your myopia seems to be growing...
No refutation I see.
> > My point is that the USA did not (as Papadoc suggests) come to
Australias
> > aid in WW2, the USA was already fighting Japan and so was Australia very
> > shortly afterwards.
>
> We came to your aid. Pure and simple. We provided food, supplied,
warships,
> training, transport, ammunition, logistical provisioning, troopships, etc
ad
> infanatum.
I see that you have not read President Trumans speech to congress on reverse
lend lease -
Let me quote from it- 'on balance, the contribution made by Australia, a
country having a population of about seven millions, approximately equalled
that of the United States' - 27 Dec 1946.
We supplied as much to the US as the US supplied to Aust, perhaps now you
can drop the 'we provided' rubbish - at the time it was called 'lend
lease/reverse lend lease' and it balanced out.
Just out of curiosity I would love to see a list of the food exported to
Australia (a major food exporter) and a list of warships supplied.
It might also be interesting to see what training was supplied given that
Aust had a supply of 'current' combat veterans from the last 2 years of war
and the USA was only just starting to fight - so some sort of list there
would be nice.
>
> The statement you make is simply nonsense. It is a semantic game, intended
to
> circumvent reality, for your own personal reasons. We had a common enemy.
We had
> greater resource than anyone else. We helped everyone, came to everyones
aid,
> and we won the war.
We had a common enemy, you supplied as much to Aust as Aust supplied to you,
and did not come to Austs 'aid' - in particular you did not prevent an
invasion of Aust, there was never going to be one and actually the USSR won
the war - look at the casualty figures.
>
> Without the US, the world wouyld eiother be destroyed, via Hitler and
Stalin
> acquiring atomic weapons, and proceding to wreak more havoc aon the
planet, or
> it would be some fascist prison planet, with the same rules, but differing
> jailers, depending upon your hemisphere.
That is assumption and you have yet to show that Japan had any capability to
defeat China or the USSR let alone then invade Australia.
>
> Its a bitter pill, the fact that we have been so helpful to sa many. I can
see
> where that wuld breed almost irrational resentment. Even among frinds. I
know,
> no good deed goes un piunished. We have onluy our selves to blame.
What breeds resentment is simple lies, no matter how often they are told.
The 'we came to the worlds aid' lie for example, the US tried to sit it out
and got dragged in - that is not a problem - a country has a right to do
that, it is just a bit tacky when they then pretend to have fought the good
fight.
>
> > As I recall the USA was not overly moved when the
> > Nazis swept across Europe and then headed into the USSR
>
> There was a great debate, in the states, ath the time, regarding how we
should
> respond. Many were quite upset. If you had a balanced historical view,
you'd
> know that we were invloved before 12/7. Lost more than 100 guys killed, in
41,
100!! what a fucking joke! a whole company worth, good to see you were
really serious.
> > - perhaps you can see why large chunks of the planet are not overly
moved by
> > your predicament?
>
> Thats not why "large chunks of the planet are not overly moved by your
> predicament". Its the propoagation of ingnorant, self indulgent phoney
history
> that breeds that, troll in tights...
Back to the troll line, its a give away - try a different line.
>
> > Once again I am not suggesting that the US deserved it or anything along
> > those lines and I do support a limited commitment of Aust forces to the
war
> > on terror,
>
> Well, goody...
>
> How many more Balis do YOU need?
>
> <smirk>
> 'limited'
> <smirk>
>
> You'll get more.
Frankly Bali is of little concern to me, it was always going to happen -
we've fought Indonesia before and we will fight them again, they hate us and
E.Timor intensified it and added another point of conflict.
Its unfortunate but the people who chose to travel to a predominatly muslim
country that hates them were not thinking very clearly when they went.
>
> > but I can certainly see the irony
>
> You folks from the Empire are entierly too enamored with 'irony'. You see
it
> everywhere.
No, we just see a fair bit of it in US policy.
>
> > in a US president declaring that this vast tragedy requires a response
from
> > all nations when the USA was
> > late for both world wars.
>
> And this is related, in what way? I dont hear any endigtment of Stalin, or
> Hitler, or even the silly 'peace in our time' Brit.
They are assumed and also they are not around taking 'high and mighty' moral
stances after trying to sit out world wars against tyranny.
>
> We didnt attack you, or the world, you know.
As noted before, I'm not anti US, I'm anti uneducated American spouting
shit - we encounter quite a few of them and you are a classic example.
>
> And, furthermore, the actions taken on 9/11 were not soley directed at the
US.
> The are directed at western civilization.
Actually they were directed at the US, quite specifically.
>
> Tou, too, ARE a target. The fact that you dont know it yet, or bbeleive
it,
> doesnt make you anything like immunce
>
Aust is a target of Indonesian radicals who are trying to build support and
destabilise their own Govt.
> >
> > Because it utterly invalidates any idea that the USA 'came to our aid'
we
> > were all in the same boat and the USA was in that boat first.
>
> No, it does not. 'Coming to ones aid' does not presuppose some time
separation,
> where the one needing aid, is stricken first, or however your interpreting
this.
> It simply means you needed help. And we provided it. Willingly.
You see this is based on the false assumption that we needed more help than
the USA, read Trumans speech.
>
> After all, Amers were as over payed, over sexed, and over there, in
australia,
> as in England, no? You cant say this wasnt a fairly common complaint, as
nerarly
> every man in Australia and NZ as overseas, while 100 thousand, or more
Americans
> were in Australia, NZ, and environs.
They were based in Aust because it was more convenient to the combat zone
than the west coast of the USA, Aust also provided large areas of Jungle to
train in.
>
> Put simply, we were attacked first, by a matter of days, BUT, you needed
help,
> we sent the 1 St Marine division, as well as a Raider battalion, to NZ,
and the
> SW pacifica Area, (as well as a host of US Army troops, and those
retreating
> from PI, whjo could get out), to protect you, Australia, specifically,
from
> being cut off, isolated.
You have yet to show that Australia could be cut off, I have already shown
that the 1st Marine Div was NOT sent to Guadalcanal to protect Aust, when
the plan was formed there was nothing on Guadalcanal that posed any threat
to Aust and frankly had the airbase been built a 600 mile southern routing
of convoys would have made it irrelavant.
>Additionally, why did Digger troops come home from N
> Africa, and the ME, id there was no threat?
You have yet to show a threat, and the Aust troops were returned as a
precaution as well as to provide experienced forces for the counter attacks
to come, frankly it seemed silly to be shipping supplies and men to fight in
Nth Africa when we had a fight much closer to home.
> > > I dont hoink you're anti American, but I think youve been fed a
selective
> > > version of history...
> >
> > An accurate one, you have a fair bit of reading to do -
>
> I've done more reading, for decades, regarding this, than Carter has Liver
> pills. My description of events stands. I listened, again, to an
interview, dont
> in '44, dealing with EXACTLY this subject. It was amongst US senior
commanders
> in the SWAPO.
Then clearly you have an understanding deficit.
>
> Are they valid sources?
>
> > go for stuff that is sourced from primary material rather than
historians who
> > rehash others work.
>
> Read above. Its hard to get better sources that Smith, Vandegrift, Nimitz,
Hong
> Kong Hill, etc They were there.
the IJA as regards Japanese intentions and capabilities trumps them pretty
nicely shithead.
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
motherfucker who sits around pontiificating about issues he knows
nothing about....typical little over educated shit who reads and does
not understand. You have ridiculed the service and death of your
betters and you make lite of our fight now. Who needs little shits
like you...
>Facts son, facts, provide some.
Sure but only if you promise to shoot yourself.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/ww2.htm
Japan entered the war in December 1941and swiftly achieved a series of
victories which resulted in the occupation of most of south-east Asia
and large areas of the Pacific by the end of March 1942. Singapore
fell in February, with the loss of an entire Australian division.
After the bombing of Darwin that same month, all RAN ships in the
Mediterranean theatre, as well as the 6th and 7th Divisions, returned
to defend Australia. In response to the heightened threat, the
Australian government also expanded the army and air force and called
for an overhaul of economic, domestic and industrial policies to give
the government special powers with which to mount a total war effort
at home.
In March 1942, after the defeat of the Netherlands East Indies,
Japan's southward advance began to lose strength, easing Australian
fears that an invasion was imminent. Further relief came when the
first AIF veterans of the Mediterranean campaigns began to come home,
and when the United States assumed responsibility for the country's
defence and provided reinforcements and equipment. The threat of
invasion receded further as the Allies won a series of decisive
battles: in the Coral Sea, at Midway, on Imita Ridge and the Kokoda
Track, and at Milne Bay and Buna.
=======================================================
Darryl McIntyre, author of the book "Townsville at War 1942" states in
his book that the "Brisbane Line" did not exist. General Douglas
MacArthur stated in his reminisces that the Australian General Staff
planned to defend Australia on a line of defence that followed the
Darling River from Brisbane to Adelaide.
After the Japanese bombed Darwin on 19 February 1942, Major-General
George Vasey issued an operational instruction on 10 March 1942
explaining the role for the Australian Army's Northern Command.
Thursday Island and nearby islands were to be defended to the "limit
of human endurance". Townsville was to be defended by its local
brigade group which was required to be active and aggressive. In the
event of impending defeat there was to be a scorched earth procedure
implemented and a withdrawal to Charters Tower to the west. Brisbane
was to be defended against sea, land and air attacks.
In January 2001 Dallas Goodwin from Mount Isa told me about the
remains of concrete tank traps that he had visited near Tenterfield.
They were used to span a bottle neck in the Clarence River Valley east
of Tenterfield in northern New South Wales, in an area known as Paddys
Flat. The concrete pillars are still visible in and beside the river
near the crossing. Dallas indicated that this was part of the
"Brisbane Line" defence plan. Dallas also described some well known
tank traps just north of Tenterfield on the Bald Rock Road. They
consist of log pillars and a concrete wall in the valley. They are
sign posted on the road and again Dallas indicated that they formed
part of the "Brisbane Line" defences.
=================================================
Make sure you hold the gun steady...
PAPA DOC
Dusty Rhodes
no
> 'long distance' strategic interests.
>
It's merchant fleet was small because of the lack of steel imports from the
good old US of A.
> The Deficiencies in Shipping were apparent well before the start of the
Pac
> war, or do you think that the Japanese didn't know that the bulk of their
> oil was carried in foreign ships or that in 1938 of 62.2 million tons of
> shipping entering Jap ports only 36.6 million was Jap flagged?
>
Again, their lack of shipping was due to the lack of steel imports from the
US. Your argument about this was all started by the lack of steel due to
embargo on Japan from the US of A. Expansion into China was due to
Colonialism and the need for natural resources to expand teh Japanese war
machine. Most of the deficiencies noted by General Zhukov were addressed
thru alternate means by the time the Japanese attacked PH. I.e. Wooden
flight decks on Japanese Carriers, wooden propellers and aircraft for many
warplanes, I could go on and on.
> Army equipment problems were very clearly explained by Gen Zhukov on Aug
20
> 1939
>
> I'm afraid that Japanese plans did not extend that far, there were a few
> half arsed proposals put forward but they were quickly disposed of for
lack
> of troops, usually they never got to the 'how will we move them' stage.
That is funny, then why did the vast majority of the Japanese fleet attack
Pearl Harbor, with the Yamato in tow some 300 miles with an invasion force
for the taking of Midway which would have required fewer then a few thousand
troops to defend due to how small the island is. It's main reason was to
have a jump off point for further attacks directly at PH. If htere was such
a lack of troops, why did they attack Midway, while simulataneously
attacking Attu and Kiska as a diversion and taking Dutch Harbor? Your
"argument" or should I say revisionism is falling apart.
> >
> > And the total isolation of Australia.
Japan had planned, under General Tojo who was the main driving force behind
all of Japans militarism, to isolate and starve Australia into submission
with a small invasion of the vast north of Australia to keep a foothold.
Also the invasion of New Guinea, which turned into a quagmire from both
sides, was done for strictly the reason of bombing the beejesus out of Aus,
and to have a jump off point for an invasion. Militarily it was a good move
on paper, but it turned into a mess due to the terrain and supply problems.
Your theme is short sited and blinded to fact due to your assumption that
all of Japans resources would imminate from Japan itself. Again you are
falling apart.
>
> I'm afraid you have to prove it, you see it isn't history sonny, its utter
> rubbish, Aust was a major exporter of supplies and military equipment.
Guadacanal was the key to an invasion of Australia and was the reason the
Japanese fought so hard for control of the Canal and Henderson Field.
Combine Henderson Field with the Huge garrison of Rebaul and the Japanese
could control the ocean for thousands of miles around and cut off shipping
lanes to Australia. Add that to the taking of China and Idonesia and Japan
chokes off Australia from the East and the West. Australia would have
wilted on the vine SONNY. Sheesh you are so short sited and full of shit.
> Losing PNG would have increased raiding, but would not have brought on the
> invasion that the Japanese had ruled out - they did not have the men.
Increased raiding? Well no shit sherlock. It was also slated as the small
toe hold on the continent so that raids could be carried out to the major
places in Australia until it was choked off.
>
> PI, Guam, DEI, Singapore - what, exactly have they got to do with invading
> Australia?
>
They are all in close proximity to Australia dumb ass!
> Yet again you confuse perception with reality, Japan was not up to
invading
> Aust - the fact that people worried that they were does not make it true.
>
Another revisionist try. They were up to it and ready, ONCE they had
secured the Solomons and to the west All of Asia, which they were damn close
to doing. You need to read some more my pea brained opponent.
I see you have chosen not to explain HOW they could do it.
> Intention does not equal capability.
I have above, based on history of what actaully was happening and not your
blindfolder revisionist, I think this is what happened, view of history.
>
> The S ports do count as southern routing is a clear and obvious move in
the
> face of an attempted blockade.
And they wouldn't have come into play had the Japanese been able to secure
the Solomon islands and farther south. Guadacanal and Henderson Field was
the key to it all! Control them and operate from them and they would have
choked off the sea lanes and could have also continued as far south as they
wanted.
>
> Now you have to show how the IJN could close the Indian Ocean and the SW
> Pac, simultaneously, all the way down to below 40 degrees south.
Explained above, the Solomons and Indonesia and they would have controlled
Australia.
>
> Its nice that you have all these 'throw away' lines like 'close the SW Pac
> and the Indian Ocean' but you have to actually back them up with facts,
that
> how grown ups do it.
> >
If you would research things and understand the tactics and knew the tactics
that were used, you might be able to play with us grown ups. Instead you
would rather be a condescending twit who is short on facts and long on
revisionism.
> Well after Coral Sea, well after Midway.
>
> Indeed that is what happened, it is your laughable interpretation that I
> disagree with - the specific reason to invade Guadalcanal was 'to remove
the
> threat to Australia' fucking good swimmers those Japs! - they had less
> troops available now than when they ruled out an invasion, less a/c, less
> fuel, less shipping to move them and they had to be removed to protect
Aust!
Perfect example of your complete lack of knowledge of the military strategy
employed at that time. You condescending prick, they were going to use
Henderson Field........Oh fuck, read what I wrote above about the strategic
importance of the Canal and Henderson Field. Funny how they lacked the
troops but were sending over a thousand troops down the slot each night on
the Tokyo express to keep reinforcing the Canal. They were escorted by
ships using logistics bases from Rebaul and further north from Truk! Take
those facts that you so usefully leave out and tell me if they had the
troops or supplies?
>
> The US wanted to exploit the victory at Midway.
Guadacanal was planned long before the Midway invasion DUMB ASS! They
didn't just one day say, Hey, lets go take Guadacanal. It was understood
the strategic importance of the Canal. How the fuck do you exploit a
victory at Midway that left us with only two operating carriers in the
entire Pacific! Hey Bull Halsey, throw them Carriers down to Guadacanal!
Didn't happen homer. I suppose the attack on Tokyo by the Hornet was just
put together on a whim to exploit the victory at Midway also. You are
digging deeper and deeper.
> BTW, on 2 July 42 the directive to recapture the Solomons was issued - on
5
> July the Japanese airstrip was discovered and the invasion date was pushed
> back from 1 Aug to 7 Aug.
> Want to talk about displays of ignorance now son?
WRONG, they knew about the airfield prior to that from the Aussie and NZ
coast watchers! What they didn't know what the extent of it's operations so
they pushed the date back for precautionary reasons.
>
> ie The USA wanted the Solomons before they knew there was any airbase
there,
> you might want to tell me exactly what threat a bunch of poorly supplied
Jap
> troops squatting in the jungle without even an airfield and over 1000
miles
> from Cairns posed, that the USA felt the urgent need to protect Aust from?
This is where you really fall into the shitter!!!! The US didn't want to
fight in the Solomons! They wanted to slice the Pacific in Half (MacArthurs
idea) and fight north and south instead of south to north. The reason being
MacAruthur wanted to get back to the PI Post Haste. The discovery of the
operations in the Solomons changed things thanks to Bill Halsey.
Now lets address the "bunch of poorly supplied Jap
troops squatting in the jungle without even an airfield " The Japanese
garrison was continually supplied by the Tokyo express which the Americans
couldn't stop! They had reinforcements and supplies continuously. You show
here you haven't a fuck what you are talking about in regards to the battle
of Guadacanal, and you show above your lack of strategic knowledge and
historical facts.
> No, they ruled it out, I've provided cites, now you provide some - prove
> that they had a plan to invade Aust in spite of the acknowledged fact that
> they lacked the troops.
>
> Facts, not insults, facts.
Facts are your cites a weak and historically wrong if what you say about
them is true. Of course I seriously doubt at this point that you are
accurately portraying them. You need to get out more and study from more
then one source about history before you continue to get your ass stomped by
facts of history, not speculation and revisionism!
>
> They held around Peking and Nanking and a few coastal enclaves - Manchuria
> was held but only as long as the USSR was busy elsewhere
>
What? You are trying to say that teh Japanese only held a few cities and
were only held Manchuria because the Soviets were busy? STOOOOOOOPID.
Funny how Japan held much of China even when they surrendered and the
Soviets didn't declare war on Japan until 1945 you fuck. The Japanese never
feared the Russians since they kicked the Russian Fleets ass in the early
1900's. Christ learn all of history not just select things!
> Yes, do you know how quickly they were crushed by well equipped Mechanised
> forces?
>
What war are you talking about? Japan held a large part of China and
Indo-China and Southeast Asia when they surrenedered!!!!! Where in the hell
do you get your stories from?
>
> Yet the US command intended Guadalcanal to exploit the success of Midway,
Horse manure. Read above for the actual historical explanation of why the
Canal was taken from the Japanese.
> I see that you have not read President Trumans speech to congress on
reverse
> lend lease -
>
> Let me quote from it- 'on balance, the contribution made by Australia, a
> country having a population of about seven millions, approximately
equalled
> that of the United States' - 27 Dec 1946.
>
> We supplied as much to the US as the US supplied to Aust, perhaps now you
> can drop the 'we provided' rubbish - at the time it was called 'lend
> lease/reverse lend lease' and it balanced out.
What you are leaving out here is that Aussie wasn't shipping it to the US as
we were, they were supplying the American troops and airman and seaman that
were in their country defending it. THAT is what Truman was referring to!
It eased the burden of the US supplying our troops all the way from the US.
>
> Just out of curiosity I would love to see a list of the food exported to
> Australia (a major food exporter) and a list of warships supplied.
LOL, by all means supply the same list of food exported the US from Aussie.
Include munitions, RAW materials, supplies and warships. Nice try cowboy,
that was stupid.
>
> It might also be interesting to see what training was supplied given that
> Aust had a supply of 'current' combat veterans from the last 2 years of
war
> and the USA was only just starting to fight - so some sort of list there
> would be nice.
>
The majority of troops in Australia at the time were NOT combat hardened
vets like you are trying to say. Those troops were still abroad fighting
for Britain, and Australia was still a commonwealth.
>
> We had a common enemy, you supplied as much to Aust as Aust supplied to
you,
Not exactly Gus. They were supplying......Shit read above for the actual
facts!
> and did not come to Austs 'aid' - in particular you did not prevent an
> invasion of Aust, there was never going to be one and actually the USSR
won
> the war - look at the casualty figures.
So your stance is that you didn't need us because we didn't come to your aid
in any way. Dude, go back to the 7th grade will ya. I know it was the best
3 years of your life, but you need a 4th year obviously!!!!!
And Russia won the war. STOOOOOPID. You think they would have rebounded as
quick as they did without the MASSIVE aid we provided them through Lend
Lease (Lend, Keep it, in actuality). Yeah they won it all on their own.
Casualty figures aren't what you determine the winner of a war by.
> That is assumption and you have yet to show that Japan had any capability
to
> defeat China or the USSR let alone then invade Australia.
>
Japan could have indeed beat China. Without our assistance China would have
lost the war for sure. The question would have been if India would have
been next. The USSR has not a damn thing to do with any of it as it didn't
declare war until just weeks before the end of the war.
> What breeds resentment is simple lies, no matter how often they are told.
>
And you ahve told some whoppers! Your simplistic and revisionist diatribe
of WW II is so ridiculous, it defies logic.
> The 'we came to the worlds aid' lie for example, the US tried to sit it
out
> and got dragged in - that is not a problem - a country has a right to do
> that, it is just a bit tacky when they then pretend to have fought the
good
> fight.
>
Take the US out of the equation and tell me who had the industrial might to
defeat the Germans. Had Britain not received the aid it did from us, they
would have been a stationary German Aircraft Carrier! Hitler could have
then thrown all his might at the Russians and toward South Asia in an
attempt to link of with the Japanese, WHICH WAS THE GOAL OF THE AXIS POWERS.
There wasn't a country on the Allied side that was dragged into WW II
kicking and screaming. We were no different then the others, though you try
to characterize it differently.
> 100!! what a fucking joke! a whole company worth, good to see you were
> really serious.
That was just 1941. And for a country who wasn't involved and hadn't been
attacked, it could be viewed as 100 too many. What about the rest of 39 and
40? Does that count all the American sailors lost in the Atlantic on cargo
ships? Does that count those who went to China to fight along side the
Japanese. Gee it certainly seems that the common denominator along EVERY
front of the war, was the US of A, whether militarily or the massive Lend
Lease. Fuck you and your view we did nothing. You don't have a clue to
the actual facts of history punk.
> Back to the troll line, its a give away - try a different line.
>
That is exactly what you are melon head, a TROLL, with not one bit of actual
knowledge of historical facts. You read a book somewhere and now you think
you know it all of what happened. You are so simplistic in your arguments
it is funny as shit. Your lack of knowledge on the subject dictates that
you are nothing but a troll as you have no clue what you are talking about
yet you keep flapping away. THAT IS A TROLL.
>
> Frankly Bali is of little concern to me, it was always going to happen -
> we've fought Indonesia before and we will fight them again, they hate us
and
> E.Timor intensified it and added another point of conflict.
Nothing is of concern with you if you dont' care that innocent people out on
the town for a good time were SLAUGHTERED!!!! Sit and drink your tea and
talk your shit about it, while someone goes and fights for that right for
you to sit on your sorry ass and tell people your version of history you
coward.
>
> Its unfortunate but the people who chose to travel to a predominatly
muslim
> country that hates them were not thinking very clearly when they went.
>
I guess you will make up some excuse why someone in your homeland, when it
happens, gets killed from a terrorist attack. I suppose those people that
went to work in the WTC from several different countries weren't thinking
straight?
> They are assumed and also they are not around taking 'high and mighty'
moral
> stances after trying to sit out world wars against tyranny.
And Britain just giving Hitler the go ahead to take the lands he did wasn't
trying to just sit out the war? At some point you figure the nations that
are feuding can't act like grown ups and figure it out. We weren't in any
shape militarily or economy........Aw fuck read above. Your arguments are
the same, and they are so fucking wrong it is getting irritating.
> As noted before, I'm not anti US, I'm anti uneducated American spouting
> shit - we encounter quite a few of them and you are a classic example.
>
You are uneducated as pointed out above. You are pissed off because
everytime something happens in the world, everyone comes running to us
first!!!!!!! Did Europe take of the problem in the Balkans? Did they go to
the aid of Somalia or the war torn Africa? Who funds the vast majority of
the UN? Who took the lead with the problems in the Middle East? Who do the
Palestinians want to kill as much as the Jews and dance in the street when
we lose hundreds of lives at the WTC, and then turn around and ask for our
troops as peace keepers with Isreal? Who had to draw the line in the sand
with Saddam? I could go on, but I would hope you aren't stupid enough to
get the picture. The truth must really hurt that you would come on here and
try to change it. The truth can't be changed and neither can history, no
matter how hard you have tried here.
> You see this is based on the false assumption that we needed more help
than
> the USA, read Trumans speech.
>
Because Harry S. said Australia contributed mightily, you don't think they
needed us to help defend you? What was the stregnth of the Aussie Army at
the time period? And how many of those were fighting elsewhere prior to
12-7-41? You can't be that stupid to think the Australian Army at that time
could have defended the continent by themselves against a vastly superior
military as Japan had? No, on second thought with your stupidity, you
prolly think so.
> >
> They were based in Aust because it was more convenient to the combat zone
> than the west coast of the USA, Aust also provided large areas of Jungle
to
> train in.
Yeah it had nothing to do with defending Australia. ROFLMAO You are a real
peach. A rotten peach.
> You have yet to show that Australia could be cut off, I have already shown
> that the 1st Marine Div was NOT sent to Guadalcanal to protect Aust, when
> the plan was formed there was nothing on Guadalcanal that posed any threat
> to Aust and frankly had the airbase been built a 600 mile southern routing
> of convoys would have made it irrelavant.
Expained throroughly above. Jesus Christ you have no clue of what really
happened and why do you? Are you talking about the planet Earth?
> You have yet to show a threat, and the Aust troops were returned as a
> precaution as well as to provide experienced forces for the counter
attacks
> to come, frankly it seemed silly to be shipping supplies and men to fight
in
> Nth Africa when we had a fight much closer to home.
He showed what the threat was and you rewrote history to try and prove him
wrong, all the while looking stupid while you did it. What precaution could
there have been if Australia was never going to be attacked? You contradict
yourself HUGELY!
Seriously think about going back to school and actually reading the history
books, and then at least attempt to understand them. Information is
plentiful. I think even you could understand them, I think.
Dusty Rhodes
J. Clarke
says...
> Have you ever heard of the MASSIVE Lend Lease program? Much of that debt
> completely forgotten. It was in effect well prior to 7 December, so don't
> go hollering that we just sat on the sidelines the whole time. There were
> Americans fighting the Battle of Britain, in fighter planes.
Also in China.
> There were
> many American merchant sailors who lost their lives to the Wolf Packs of the
> Nazi's. No, we were deeply involved in WWII well before 7 Dec, 1941.
>
> Dusty Rhodes
>
> "Twist" <cantdoj...@home.maybesometime> wrote in message
> news:5LRC9.146201$MGm1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > Ok PD I understand where ya coming from but entertain this thought. When
> did
> > the US enter the conflict in WW-2?
> > Churchill cried out to the USA many, many, months before they would do
> > anything..thus the greatest war statement ever made....."VERY WELL,
> ALONE"!
> > Yes, they did enter, and thank God..but it took the US a while to wake
> > up....oh, and speaking of waking up....Pearl Harbor.......the statement "I
> > fear we have woken the giant" was spoken by a Japanese Admiral.
> > If the US hadn't been "woken" up at PH, who knows what Australia might
> have
> > had to go through??(read: the almost leveling of one of the world's
> greatest
> > cities, London)
> > I love my brothers to the South(I was born in England moved to Canada when
> I
> > was 10. Joined the Canadian Armed forces and served in W\Germany during
> the
> > height of the Cold-War)
> >
> > If you find any safety in the World today a large portion of the thanks
> > should go to the US..........
> > But, history does tell the story of a sleeping giant needing to get bonked
> > on it's own head before it wakes up...
> > Thank God again that it does wake up.
> >
> > "PAPADOC" <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in message
> > news:iebntuoker3uk0qda...@4ax.com...
> > > Err...maybe you forgot but US troops were instrumental in not allowing
> > > a Certain Axis Power to invade Australia.
> > >
> > > PAPA DOC
> > >
> > > >
> > > > PS: How many troops would America send
> > > >to avenge an attack on an Australian landmark,
> > > >do you think?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
> > > Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001
> > > www.papadoc.net
> > > Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the
> > > 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in
> > > more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke
pleg...@earthlink.net says...
It must be borne in mind that the Japanese never let little details like
lack of capability or possible dire consequences interfere with their
activities. Yamamoto, arguably the most capable naval commander of the
20th Century, _told_ them that they would have 6 months of free naval
operations before the US kicked their butts. He called it exactly
right--check the dates on Pearl Harbor and Midway.
PAPADOC
Japanese during WW2 is that they werent rational...course its sort of
silly to be talking rational about a bunch of thugs like the Japanese
in WW2.
PAPA DOC
>It must be borne in mind that the Japanese never let little details like
>lack of capability or possible dire consequences interfere with their
>activities. Yamamoto, arguably the most capable naval commander of the
>20th Century, _told_ them that they would have 6 months of free naval
>operations before the US kicked their butts. He called it exactly
>right--check the dates on Pearl Harbor and Midway.
>
>--
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
PAPADOC
>You might want to have a look at when Australia joined WW2, idiot.
I did what the fuck were you chickenshits doing till 41....
http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/ww2.htm
The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) participated in operations against
Italy after its entry into the war in June 1940. A few Australians
flew in the Battle of Britain in August and September of the same
year, but the Australian Army was not engaged in combat until 1941,
when the 6th, 7th and 9th Divisions joined Allied operations in the
Mediterranean and North Africa.
So you assholes watched for 2 years....and you talk about us..??? Hold
that gun steady when you shoot yourself to prevent the spread of your
genes.
PAPA DOC
david
Regards,
David
"john" <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ddb...@news.starhub.net.sg...
> NEWS STORY
> Australia to withdraw its 150 special forces from Afghanistan
>
>
>
>
http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp?id=%7B90EA2D4F-6B68-4A13-8C98-8BE598AD5
> E9F%7D
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 20/11/2002
Mace
The f*ckhead who started this thread is probably laughing because he's got
what he wanted, a good flame war.
But I digress. You can call an Aussie whatever you want, I don't give a
sh*t.
But lay off calling the Anzacs chickenshits. We're quite proud of our
military tradition as much as you are yours (and I think we equally should
be proud)
Mace
"PAPADOC" <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in message
news:ve9utu0m0lf3hcv2r...@4ax.com...
No.T...@here.com
<not@for_email.invalid> wrote:
}You sound just like that Mayer moron. Wishing death upon people you
}don't even know is pretty low - even in my books.
Now you know why you'll never be President! (of a particular club we all
hold dear to our hearts) ;)
Avatar
PAPADOC
country that could mean death for me and mine but its not ok for me to
be explicit that those very same people remove themselves from being a
problem.
>You sound just like that Mayer moron. Wishing death upon people you
>don't even know is pretty low - even in my books.
PAPA DOC
HR
one thread I learned some history:) Not being a history student.
I've only played a lot of wargames but I tend to agree with Dusty. I know
the Solomons was not in the US strategy except as a reaction to the Japs and
the Canal indeed was strategic to the Japs. It was their jumping off point
to control Australia and it did control the shipping and air.
That last long post by Dusty was quite informative.<S>
Let the flames continue:)
-HR
PAPADOC
middle...it was only to make a point. Neither of us have anything to
be ashamed of...we got there when we could get there and we both
fought our hearts out. I know a Marine who fought at Gaudalcanal...and
you can see the war in that mans eyes. Terrific man....to have little
shits like Lacrobat diminsh that mans services is too much.
My first post on this thread was an attack on the dimwit who would say
such a thing of the Australians...especially because it was the
Australian Spec Ops who saved us in Tora Bora.
This Lacrobat is engaged in a revisionist rewrite of history because
he cannot stand to give the US any credit and I wont stand for my
country to be slandered or the sacrifice of those people I know who
fought to be dishonored. This revisionist shit is going on all thru
the world and its disgusting.
PAPA DOC
HR
You need to separate the whole (in this case country) and wishing death on
an individual on a *personal* basis which you would think an educated
man..wait..who said you were educated..........
-HR
"PAPADOC" <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in message
news:15avtu85mvb6uf160...@4ax.com...
Dusty Rhodes
whatever. The whole culture down under is awesome and fantastic people. Of
any other country in the world, I think the US identifies with the
Australian country more then any other due to our culture, our history, and
how we got started. You are correct and it should be pointed out by several
people.
Dusty Rhodes
"Mace" <rkni...@bigpond.net.nospam.au> wrote in message
news:_xHD9.3491$hg1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Dusty Rhodes
what the jerkwad says happened and I needed to include his ridiculous
statements. My apologies for the long post.
Dusty Rhodes
"HR" <H...@horizon.net> wrote in message
news:uQND9.119824$nB.8773@sccrnsc03...
Dusty Rhodes
the Soviets would have fallen. We COULD NOT have actively participated
militarily BECAUSE WE WEREN'T READY. We didn't have to send troops to help
the cause. You have no idea how massive Lend Lease was or you wouldn't make
these ridiculous statements and insinuations that we did nothing. You have
much reading and learning to do to realize just what the contribution was.
Dusty Rhodes
"Dastardly Dan" <not@for_email.invalid> wrote in message
news:v9nutugomtvt4ojgs...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:01:39 -0800, "Dusty Rhodes"
> <james...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >Trying to characterize Americans by an example of 7 people who flew
fighters
> >during the BOB, is selective arguing and you know it. I countered you
with
> >other examples of Americans who got involved or were involved due to
foriegn
> >policy. You then lied and came back here saying I didn't mention them
when
> >I most certainly did in my argument back at you. IF you can't keep up,
then
> >quit the game and STFU.
> >
> >Dusty Rhodes
>
> I said *I* wasn't referring to them. And you're telling me those
> merchant seamen joined the merchant navy so they could fight nazis?
> The fact remains the US stayed out of it and didn't come rushing to
> Europes aid at the outbreak of war. Are you denying that?
Dusty Rhodes
brainless so I will leave you alone.
Dusty Rhodes
"Dastardly Dan" <not@for_email.invalid> wrote in message
news:bmnutus7ho6v7p458...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:01:39 -0800, "Dusty Rhodes"
> <james...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >Trying to characterize Americans by an example of 7 people who flew
fighters
> >during the BOB, is selective arguing and you know it.
>
> P.S. Here is exactly what you said.
>
> >There were
> > Americans fighting the Battle of Britain, in fighter planes.
>
> You try to make it look like there were lots of americans flying in
> fighter planes in The BoB when the fact is there were only seven.
> Don't like the facts? TFB.
HR
I hate reading (always have) but I forced myself to read that post:)
Too informative not too:)
And even tho I don't read much (we all learn in different ways) it made
total sense to me regarding the real reason for the fight at Guadalcanal.
Look at a map and the strategic importance to the Japanese is obvious, and
you're right..they had no problems supplying it...tho they would eventually
have a tough time holding that far south as the US got stronger.
Was there another spot (not looking at a map now) like New Herbides or
something that the Japs wanted further south to really sew up the South
Pacific?
-HR
"Dusty Rhodes" <james...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:utvfnu2...@corp.supernews.com...
Dusty Rhodes
speculation. BUT, it would fit into their strategic plan, as the farther
south the expand, the more they cut off the southern shipping routes, making
it impossible to supply Australia from the East.
Dusty Rhodes
"HR" <H...@horizon.net> wrote in message
news:UwPD9.120698$nB.9999@sccrnsc03...
Dusty Rhodes
Canada because of their politics and immigration stance. Not saying it is
right or wrong, but Canada is not seen by many in the US in a friendly light
as much as in the past.
Dusty Rhodes
"Dastardly Dan" <not@for_email.invalid> wrote in message
news:f3hvtu4tic9q3qloh...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 09:43:39 -0800, "Dusty Rhodes"
> <james...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >It shouldn't get lost that Aussies are far from chickenshits, cowards, or
> >whatever. The whole culture down under is awesome and fantastic people.
Of
> >any other country in the world, I think the US identifies with the
> >Australian country more then any other due to our culture, our history,
and
> >how we got started. You are correct and it should be pointed out by
several
> >people.
>
> Not Canada? You know? That country just north of you that looks
> pretty much the same as the US on the surface. Australia is still a
> commonwealth country (with independence) and didn't have a rebellion.
> Australia is more like Canada and not the U.S. The only thing common
> to the US and Australia is that they are both places that England
> liked to send the bottom feeders. Hehe.
>
Gonzo
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:41:45 GMT, "Gonzo" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> >No, you are the idiot for either your lack of reading comprehension and
your
> >arrogance and ignorance towards our war involvment. You trivialized the
> >deaths of hundreds just so you could try and make yourself look better on
> >the usenet and that is pretty damn low.
>
> only seven US pilots fought in The BoB. And I said thanks to those
> brave seven. Go fuck yourself asshole.
Are you blind or just fucking stupid?