Poll: what is your nationality and race/ethnicity?

[wym]

7000 Americans died at Guadalcanal so the Japanese would not invade Australia at some point in time which was my point.

Yes they died.

And it was US national security interests that was the motive. No nation sacrifices its citizens for altruistic goals.

The US wants "peace" in the world in order to allow global world trade is a vital national security interest.

Just like western capital's ability to get to global oil production.

When those interests aren't threatened we stay away and let them kill each other.

Or make a token effort for PR purposes, usually too late to actually help the thousands of citizens that have already been wiped out.

And that's the way it should be in the real-politik world of foreign relations.

And tiny outposts like Australia should of course be eternally under our thumb in gratitude, bowing and scraping and saying thank you in their prayers every night.

[cashpower]

Two air raids and a midget sub is hardly what one might call an attack during WWII.

what would you call it then? brunch?

[thailiketoo]

Two air raids and a midget sub is hardly what one might call an attack during WWII.

what would you call it then? brunch?

A very small loss of life compared to countries that were invaded by Japan. Millions of dead in China and the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines. It could have been Australia.

[thailiketoo]

7000 Americans died at Guadalcanal so the Japanese would not invade Australia at some point in time which was my point.

Yes they died.

And it was US national security interests that was the motive. No nation sacrifices its citizens for altruistic goals.

The US wants "peace" in the world in order to allow global world trade is a vital national security interest.

Just like western capital's ability to get to global oil production.

When those interests aren't threatened we stay away and let them kill each other.

Or make a token effort for PR purposes, usually too late to actually help the thousands of citizens that have already been wiped out.

And that's the way it should be in the real-politik world of foreign relations.

And tiny outposts like Australia should of course be eternally under our thumb in gratitude, bowing and scraping and saying thank you in their prayers every night.

In hindsight and considering many opinions like yours and the Aussies I would have let them invade. Holed up on an island till the Abomb was ready and then nuked Japan till the island was a wasteland. Who cares about the rest. British colonies anyway, let the Brits take care of them like they did Burma and Singapore.

[simple1]

USA entered WW2 a day after and because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. 8 months later and before any significant US presence in Australia, America launched its first major battle at Guadalcanal to save Australia from invasion by the Japanese. You can spin it any way you want but most Aussies just said Thanks at the time. 7000 Americans died there.

Thanks, but I do know of the attack on Pearl Harbour and the US loss of life on Guadalcanal. We will just have to disagree on the strategic reasoning for the attack on Guadalcanal.

I can give you ten links that all confirm the objective of denying their use by the Japanese as bases to threaten supply routes between the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand. Strategically, possession of a Guadalcanal air base was important to control of the sea lines of communication between the United States and Australia. If the Americans controlled the island, they would be better able to protect Australia from Japanese invasion and they could also protect the Allied build-up in Australia that would act as a springboard for a major assault on the Japanese. Hence the importance of the island.

Australia was alone. The Brits lost Singapore and Burma and would have done the same thing with Australia. America only stood in the way. Boggles my mind that you would not say a prayer every night for the Americans who died to keep Australia free. Why? Does that really make any difference? Japan might have attacked but didn't. There may have been a major loss of Australian civilian lives but there wasn't. And you are trying to denigrate Americas contribution to the freedom and safety enjoyed by Australia in the past and today as a result of the American military. Amazing, just amazing.

So you have confirmed what I orginally stated that the US attack on Guadacanal was in the strategic interest for the US Pacific Campaign. At no point have I denigrated US efforts and sacrifice and articulating that view is plainly dishonest.

I get the distinct impression, on this & other topics, you enjoy arguing for no real purpose other than playing word games.

[cashpower]

A very small loss of life compared to countries that were invaded by Japan. Millions of dead in China and the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines. It could have been Australia.

The Japanese abandoned their plans to invade Australia and decided to isolate it instead by capturing Port Moresby. It was primarily Australian troops that fought them off. See: Kokoda

[thailiketoo]

USA entered WW2 a day after and because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. 8 months later and before any significant US presence in Australia, America launched its first major battle at Guadalcanal to save Australia from invasion by the Japanese. You can spin it any way you want but most Aussies just said Thanks at the time. 7000 Americans died there.

Thanks, but I do know of the attack on Pearl Harbour and the US loss of life on Guadalcanal. We will just have to disagree on the strategic reasoning for the attack on Guadalcanal.

I can give you ten links that all confirm the objective of denying their use by the Japanese as bases to threaten supply routes between the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand. Strategically, possession of a Guadalcanal air base was important to control of the sea lines of communication between the United States and Australia. If the Americans controlled the island, they would be better able to protect Australia from Japanese invasion and they could also protect the Allied build-up in Australia that would act as a springboard for a major assault on the Japanese. Hence the importance of the island.

Australia was alone. The Brits lost Singapore and Burma and would have done the same thing with Australia. America only stood in the way. Boggles my mind that you would not say a prayer every night for the Americans who died to keep Australia free. Why? Does that really make any difference? Japan might have attacked but didn't. There may have been a major loss of Australian civilian lives but there wasn't. And you are trying to denigrate Americas contribution to the freedom and safety enjoyed by Australia in the past and today as a result of the American military. Amazing, just amazing.

So you have confirmed what I orginally stated that the US attack on Guadacanal was in the strategic interest for the US Pacific Campaign. At no point have I denigrated US efforts and sacrifice and articulating that view is plainly dishonest.

I get the distinct impression, on this & other topics, you enjoy arguing for no real purpose other than playing word games.

I get the distinct impression that you enjoy denigrating the US efforts to help the Allies especially

Australia during the war in the Pacific during WWII and someone should take you to task for it.

You wrote before I posted anything about WWII "Rubbish. Although the US tipped the scales, the primary reason the USA entered WW1 & 11 was for national security/self interest reasons, not to fight other countries wars. On the reverse side don't forget the thousands who have died assisting the US to fight their wars, a fact this is unfortunately overlooked by some US citizens. BTW one of the most higly decorated military persons in the Vietnam War was a British national.

The above statement is not true and I pointed out the areas where you misrepresented the truth.

So, fella, look in the mirror. You started it, even implying that the contribution of one British man was somehow important in a war where 50,000 Americans were killed.

So tell me or quote a word game I have ever played? I think history has shown and it is documented that the American effort in the Pacific was the main reason Japan did not invade Australia. You disagree. Fine. No text at any college in Australia agrees with you but OK maybe you have a better source.

And remember, I didn't start our conversation. You posted the misinformation about why the US entered WWII. I merely corrected you.

Edited February 7, 2014 by thailiketoo

[thailiketoo]

A very small loss of life compared to countries that were invaded by Japan. Millions of dead in China and the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines. It could have been Australia.

The Japanese abandoned their plans to invade Australia and decided to isolate it instead by capturing Port Moresby. It was primarily Australian troops that fought them off. See: Kokoda

The Battle of Port Moresby was an aerial battle fought between aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), United States Army Air Force (USAAF) and aircraft of the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy between 3 February 1942 and 17 August 1943 over Port Moresby, Papua.

The severe losses in carriers at Midway prevented the Japanese from reattempting to invade Port Moresby from the ocean. Two months later, the Allies took advantage of Japan's resulting strategic vulnerability in the South Pacific and launched the Guadalcanal Campaign that, along with the New Guinea Campaign, eventually broke Japanese defenses in the South Pacific and was a significant contributing factor to Japan's ultimate defeat in World War II.

If you want to find out what saved Port Moresby read, The Battle of the Coral Sea,

Edited February 7, 2014 by thailiketoo

[cashpower]

The Battle of Port Moresby was an aerial battle fought between aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), United States Army Air Force (USAAF) and aircraft of the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy between 3 February 1942 and 17 August 1943 over Port Moresby, Papua.

You're referring to one battle out of multiple land, sea and air campaigns

[thailiketoo]

The Battle of Port Moresby was an aerial battle fought between aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), United States Army Air Force (USAAF) and aircraft of the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy between 3 February 1942 and 17 August 1943 over Port Moresby, Papua.

You're referring to one battle out of multiple land, sea and air campaigns

Yes I am. If you want to correct me feel free. The end reason the Japanese did not mount a successful invasion of Port Morsby was the American Navy.

And remember it's just a matter of time before someone points out to you that this thread is not about the second world war, I didn't start it. I would have said nothing about it and only responded to the misinformation that others posted.

Edited February 7, 2014 by thailiketoo

[wym]

In hindsight and considering many opinions like yours and the Aussies I would have let them invade. Holed up on an island till the Abomb was ready and then nuked Japan till the island was a wasteland.

Recently released and unedited footage from those fun-loving do-gooders at Los Alamos

The explosion itself - from the window of an observation plane - is a few seconds after 8:40.

[MW72]

The Battle of Port Moresby was an aerial battle fought between aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), United States Army Air Force (USAAF) and aircraft of the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy between 3 February 1942 and 17 August 1943 over Port Moresby, Papua.

You're referring to one battle out of multiple land, sea and air campaigns

Yes I am. If you want to correct me feel free. The end reason the Japanese did not mount a successful invasion of Port Morsby was the American Navy.

And remember it's just a matter of time before someone points out to you that this thread is not about the second world war, I didn't start it. I would have said nothing about it and only responded to the misinformation that others posted.

I am pretty amazed at how off topic this has all become and I'm not just singling out the guys quoted above. I think it's fair to say that all nations enter war because of some form of national interest. The one thing I think we can all agree on is that during WW2 we (UK, USA, ANZACs and many others) fought against a common enemy and today we are still allies (even allies with our then enemies). Over the years many young men have given up their lives so that we can have the freedom to bitch and argue on the Internet about the great sacrifice they made for our future. We do them all a great disservice in doing this.

It is no surprise that the other nationalities on TV seem to be avoiding this topic. I dread to think what they think of us.

Sent from my KFTT using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[simple1]

@thailiketoo. You are an articulate guy. However you are using your capabilities to misrepresent/twist the meanings of my post/s. Why you do this I do not know.

I concur with the sentiments of Whytey 13, so last post on this matter.

Edited February 8, 2014 by simple1

[cashpower]

. Over the years many young men have given up their lives so that we can have the freedom to bitch and argue on the Internet about the great sacrifice they made for our future. We do them all a great disservice in doing this.

We also do them disservice by trivialising the sacrifices of one sector over another

[thailiketoo]

. Over the years many young men have given up their lives so that we can have the freedom to bitch and argue on the Internet about the great sacrifice they made for our future. We do them all a great disservice in doing this.

We also do them disservice by trivialising the sacrifices of one sector over another

I would agree. Joseph John Curtain wrote in December of 1941 in the Melbourne Herald, "Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom."

The whole speech, http://john.curtin.edu.au/pmportal/text/00468.html

Or, http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/homefront/overview.html

[aveabeeror2]

The "silly queens" children and grandchildren go off to war. One of your presidents was a draft dodger,hid in Canada, another joined the National Guard to get out of going to war, another enrolled in college to avoid consciption, I could go on forever if necessary .All draft dodgers.

You might want to google most decorated units in Vietnam. One of the most highly decorated units was a National Guard unit. So, yes National guard units saw service and fought and died in Vietnam. Of course Bush was a jet fighter pilot and that's not a dangerous job is it? You must not have known that National guardsmen served in Vietnam. Well now you do.

Dont think Bush saw much action in the USA,and, I travel in jets a lot, not all that dangerous.

[aveabeeror2]

thailiketoo, maybe you should read this from the U.S. Army Center of Military History.

If you do, you will see that whilst protecting Australia and New Zealand from Japanese invasion was one of the reasons for this campaign, it was not the only, or even main, one.

As the enemy closed on those two island democracies, the Allies scrambled to shore up defenses, first by fortifying the Malay Barrier, and then, after Japanese smashed through that line, by reinforcing an Australian drive north across New Guinea. To make this first Allied offensive in the Pacific more effective, the Americans mounted a separate attack from a different direction to form a giant pincers in the Southwest Pacific. This decision brought American forces into the Solomon Islands and U.S. Army troops onto the island of Guadalcanal

Read on and you will see that another major aim was to protect American sea routes.

Give up trying to educate thailike. Typical United States of America Citizen.

[aveabeeror2]

Japan might have attacked but didn't.

The bombing of Darwin:

http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs195.aspx

Japanese midget submarine attacks on Sydney, 1942:

http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs192.aspx

Two air raids and a midget sub is hardly what one might call an attack during WWII. 2 British motorists died and 39 Australian civilians died as a result of the air raids. 7000 Americans died at Guadalcanal so the Japanese would not invade Australia at some point in time which was my point.

How many Australians died in Vietnam helping the USA, and why?

[thailiketoo]

thailiketoo, maybe you should read this from the U.S. Army Center of Military History.

If you do, you will see that whilst protecting Australia and New Zealand from Japanese invasion was one of the reasons for this campaign, it was not the only, or even main, one.

As the enemy closed on those two island democracies, the Allies scrambled to shore up defenses, first by fortifying the Malay Barrier, and then, after Japanese smashed through that line, by reinforcing an Australian drive north across New Guinea. To make this first Allied offensive in the Pacific more effective, the Americans mounted a separate attack from a different direction to form a giant pincers in the Southwest Pacific. This decision brought American forces into the Solomon Islands and U.S. Army troops onto the island of Guadalcanal

Read on and you will see that another major aim was to protect American sea routes.

Give up trying to educate thailike. Typical United States of America Citizen.

In the Battle of the Coral Sea of 4 to 8 May 1942, a Japanese fleet was intercepted by a force of United States, Australian and New Zealand vessels. The battle was a defeat in that the Allies suffered greater losses. But the battle helped to prevent the landing of Japanese troops on the south coast of New Guinea, where they could have put Australian troops under a great threat, and it weakened the Japanese Navy for the Battle of Midway one month later, when they were defeated in the decisive naval battle of the Pacific. http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/homefront/overview.html

What I was trying to get across to you was that during WW II Australia looked to America and not Great Britain for survival. America needed Australia as a supply and staging post for its Pacific War efforts; Australia needed the USA to be active and aggressive in the Pacific to prevent invasion by land and destruction by air and sea.

[thailiketoo]

The "silly queens" children and grandchildren go off to war. One of your presidents was a draft dodger,hid in Canada, another joined the National Guard to get out of going to war, another enrolled in college to avoid consciption, I could go on forever if necessary .All draft dodgers.

You might want to google most decorated units in Vietnam. One of the most highly decorated units was a National Guard unit. So, yes National guard units saw service and fought and died in Vietnam. Of course Bush was a jet fighter pilot and that's not a dangerous job is it? You must not have known that National guardsmen served in Vietnam. Well now you do.

Dont think Bush saw much action in the USA,and, I travel in jets a lot, not all that dangerous.

Dangerous jobs? Jet fighter pilot? You can check it out but it's at least in the top 3.

[thailiketoo]

How many Australians died in Vietnam helping the USA, and why?

Check out SEATO treaty. That should answer your questions.

[thailiketoo]

In hindsight and considering many opinions like yours and the Aussies I would have let them invade. Holed up on an island till the Abomb was ready and then nuked Japan till the island was a wasteland.

Recently released and unedited footage from those fun-loving do-gooders at Los Alamos

The explosion itself - from the window of an observation plane - is a few seconds after 8:40.

I don't know why you would refer to the developers of the A Bomb as, "fun loving do gooders." They were trying to develop the most powerful bomb and destroyer of human life in history. Japan killed millions in Asia during WW II and the A bomb killed many people in Japan and was one of the reasons Japan surrendered along with the Russian threats.

Does your post have a point. I would respond further but I don't really know what you are trying to say.

[wym]

Recently released and unedited footage from those fun-loving do-gooders at Los Alamos

The explosion itself - from the window of an observation plane - is a few seconds after 8:40.

I don't know why you would refer to the developers of the A Bomb as, "fun loving do gooders." They were trying to develop the most powerful bomb and destroyer of human life in history. Japan killed millions in Asia during WW II and the A bomb killed many people in Japan and was one of the reasons Japan surrendered along with the Russian threats.

Does your post have a point. I would respond further but I don't really know what you are trying to say.

You REALLY don't have a sarcasm detector do you?

My POV: war is hell, its mongers are evil.

[thailiketoo]

Recently released and unedited footage from those fun-loving do-gooders at Los Alamos

The explosion itself - from the window of an observation plane - is a few seconds after 8:40.

I don't know why you would refer to the developers of the A Bomb as, "fun loving do gooders." They were trying to develop the most powerful bomb and destroyer of human life in history. Japan killed millions in Asia during WW II and the A bomb killed many people in Japan and was one of the reasons Japan surrendered along with the Russian threats.

Does your post have a point. I would respond further but I don't really know what you are trying to say.

You REALLY don't have a sarcasm detector do you?

My POV: war is hell, its mongers are evil.

No. I don't see anyone on the allied side during WWII as a war monger.

[David48]

I think this sums it up best.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/a_fine_whine/2013/08/america_the_continent_vs_america_the_country.html

A very good article. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the use of the word "Americans", the vast majority of folks the world over call people from the USA Americans. It doesn't harm anyone so just accept it and move on.

Accept the things you can't change, spend your energy trying to change the things you can.

Though written by someone from the USA., I agree ... a good article, balanced ... though I disagree with his viewpoint.

I can understand the passion and logic of his argument ... nothing wrong with having these qualities, as many of the USA members here have also.

[David48]

I'm a bloody American ...

Dude, if you have sustained an injury, please seek medical help quickly, otherwise your condition may worsen.

Unless you are using 'bloody' as an expletive ... and that's really not appropriate.

[coobah666]

convict

[David48]

convict

That's not a nice ting to say about the OP ... and I believe not accurate ... either as an inferred metaphor or literally.

[umbanda]

"Caucasian?...Argentinean - Brazilian - American In that order and with the 3 Passports, father French and mother Italian, grandfathers Russian - Polish and grandmothers Turkish - Hungarian.

My first wife, Brazilian, half black African and half Spaniel-Portuguese, one child. My second wife American, half Italian and half Irish, one child.

Sorry...do not time enough in this country to become a Thai....but...if I have a baby with my Thai wife, its will have a big trouble to tell about its self and its family members ancestors.

It is a "Global" citizenship?..I will like to apply...

[wym]

half black African and half Spaniel-Portuguese

Cocker, Springer or King Charles?

A real mutt then. . .

Sorry couldn't resist