It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
US marines to set up in Darwin, Australia
page: 6share:
Look, when its all said and done, there will be more said than done, given if the issues are as complex as you make out, then god help anyone pulling
the levers, as to weigh all the prows and cons of your argument, it could be said, one would never arrive at a conclusion or any direction, in which
to proceed in, and I have been closely involved with the diplomatic core, and I know that its based on much more simplistic frame work, than you are
outlining, its like overloading the furriness with coal, before you have even lite the fire, and while you are piling on the sauce on a cold pie.
But getting back upon the original thread, I am happy to see the Marines having a presents in Darwin, as I have said, the climate is going to overhaul, any and all plans made, and the US marines would be an asset to Australia given it could be seen as a cost cutting scenario by the US, by saving the relocation cost every year to and from Shoal Water Bay exersises
Having said that, having first hand experience with the the US Marines, there expertise and resources, in times of natural disasters is a very comforting thought, given the size of the surrounding coastline and smaller countries that may need some serious help, given Earthquakes tsunamis and sea level rise.massive floods, given the size of our own resources, could be over stretched, given we also maintain a presents around the globe, in other trouble spots in support of our allies, etc.
But getting back upon the original thread, I am happy to see the Marines having a presents in Darwin, as I have said, the climate is going to overhaul, any and all plans made, and the US marines would be an asset to Australia given it could be seen as a cost cutting scenario by the US, by saving the relocation cost every year to and from Shoal Water Bay exersises
Having said that, having first hand experience with the the US Marines, there expertise and resources, in times of natural disasters is a very comforting thought, given the size of the surrounding coastline and smaller countries that may need some serious help, given Earthquakes tsunamis and sea level rise.massive floods, given the size of our own resources, could be over stretched, given we also maintain a presents around the globe, in other trouble spots in support of our allies, etc.
Originally posted by cerebralassassins
Originally posted by Maxmars
Originally posted by followingpythagoras
..... I'd feel very sorry for any country that sent ground troops in to invade. They'd have to bomb, because they'd never make it with a ground invasion. God help them, if the deadly creatures in the sea or on the beach didn't get them - and the deadly creatures and insects on land didn't finish them off - and the intense heat and vast expanse of land didn't wear them down - THEN the Aussie soldiers could come along and deal with what was left of them.
Agreed. It is just one more similarity you all share with the US.... Unlike many of the "old world" nations crammed into one continent, and whose borders represent years of friction (resolved or otherwise) we benefit from a landmass and population distribution which sort of makes us impossible to occupy, and suicidal to invade.
I know the general consensus weighs against American endeavors in almost any context; but I for one, am very comforted that we are allies.
I guess its a two way streak, since the British were unable to protect Australia during the ww2 and the U.S. sent its forces to serve and protect Au that was bombed by the Japanese, then its only natural that the U.S. and Au have respect for one-another and its respect has grown to a very tight alliance between the people and its common foreign policy.
Actualy the Japs were already on the backfoot before the U.S got its action into full swing in the region. When the Japs entered New Guinea there was a small defence of 1500 Aussies and 500 Americans as Australias forces were overseas fighting the Germans as we'd already been in the war for 2 years.
The 7th and 9th Australian divisions were recalled from Africa. The 2000 who were already there held good account of themselves and held of what was a Jap probe but still larger in numbers the the 2000 defending New Guinea/ port morseby.
When the Japs made their push they didn't come up against this small group as they expected to but rather they came up against the battle hardend unforgiving and generaly angry 7th and 9th Aus divisions who gave the Japs a punch in the face they never recoverd from.
. The Japs had to retreat and never got any further. All hopes at fixing the bad situation for the japs were dashed in the battles of coral sea and midway.
edit on 12-11-2011 by steveknows because: Typo
reply to post by steveknows
Not as industrialized does not mean not industrialized. A simple fact that is observable by looking on the build up of the naval force at the time of WW2, after WW1 the might of a nation navy equated perfectly to the level of industrialization. In fact some of the limitations imposed to Germany had its base in this rational.
You could also simply look on the exports of the nations to see a clear difference in the type of production, but a clear indication was the almost irrelevance of Australia during the war, especially in the production and creation of armament. (note the almost this time, at times it was indeed indispensable but in a very small proportion)
So please next time attempt to be more considerate in your evaluating. I have read more books than those you have forgotten about, I do however not claim to be an authority on Australian history, and I must confess that it is not a topic that tantalizes me, except for the actions of some military. expeditionary forces I'm only interested on the history before the British colonization and recently on the geo-estrategic position since the events of around Timor and its oil and its military relations with Indonesia.
WTF Was not industrialised? man what books have you been reading? We've had industry since there's been industry.
Not as industrialized does not mean not industrialized. A simple fact that is observable by looking on the build up of the naval force at the time of WW2, after WW1 the might of a nation navy equated perfectly to the level of industrialization. In fact some of the limitations imposed to Germany had its base in this rational.
You could also simply look on the exports of the nations to see a clear difference in the type of production, but a clear indication was the almost irrelevance of Australia during the war, especially in the production and creation of armament. (note the almost this time, at times it was indeed indispensable but in a very small proportion)
So please next time attempt to be more considerate in your evaluating. I have read more books than those you have forgotten about, I do however not claim to be an authority on Australian history, and I must confess that it is not a topic that tantalizes me, except for the actions of some military. expeditionary forces I'm only interested on the history before the British colonization and recently on the geo-estrategic position since the events of around Timor and its oil and its military relations with Indonesia.
edit on 12-11-2011 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by zorgon
Originally posted by cerebralassassins
www.youtube.com...
Yeah I LIKE that one... that was tested out in Palmdale... a friend of mine works out there He sent me this photo
Wasn't that nice of them? Pegasus
But they also posted this in the cafeteria at Palmdale/Edwards...
Is that you mate on the roof? Spy Epic Fail.
Re Grumman, what dose it go like, with an out board on it, and dose it have an eski big enough to hold, half dozen cartons of VB stubbies and Ice,
plus a weeks supply of snags and fishing gear and swags over that time, and is it crock friendly
Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by steveknows
WTF Was not industrialised? man what books have you been reading? We've had industry since there's been industry.
Not as industrialized does not mean not industrialized. A simple fact that is observable by looking on the build up of the naval force at the time of WW2, after WW1 the might of a nation navy equated perfectly to the level of industrialization. In fact some of the limitations imposed to Germany had its base in this rational.
You could also simply look on the exports of the nations to see a clear difference in the type of production, but a clear indication was the almost irrelevance of Australia during the war, especially in the production and creation of armament. (note the almost this time, at times it was indeed indispensable but in a very small proportion)
So please next time attempt to be more considerate in your evaluating. I have read more books than those you have forgotten about, I do however not claim to be an authority on Australian history, and I must confess that it is not a topic that tantalizes me, except for the actions of some military. expeditionary forces I'm only interested on the history before the British colonization and recently on the geo-estrategic position since the events of around Timor and its oil and its military relations with Indonesia.
edit on 12-11-2011 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)
Australias industry was reflective if its popultion size. Australia is and always has been a country of invention and inovation in fact it's statisically high and has been a cause of wonder to the academic world.
There's alot of things the world takes for granted which came out of Australia. Think of this next time you start the engine on your lawn mower or lick a stamp and post a letter. And if you post it over seas and the plane crashes you'll know what happened because we invented the black box flight recorder. Just a few of many things.
Here's an example in reponse your view of the almost irrelevance of Australia during the war.
WW1
.416,809 enlisted.
60,000 dead.
156,000 wounded, gassed, or taken prisoner.
This doesn't include the Australians who were in other commonwealth countries at the time of the outbreak of war and enlisted in those countries defence forces
WW2.
Over 993,000 Australians served in the armed forces during World War II. Of those on active service, 27,073 were killed in action or died, 23,477 were wounded, and 30,560 were taken prisoner of war. Of those taken prisoner, 8296 died in captivity
This doesn't include the Australians who were in other commonwealth countries at the outbreak of war and enlisted in those countries defence forces.
The ratio is proportionally high to other countries. And unlike other countries we didn't have consciription. They're all enlisted. Guess these figures must have been in one of those books you've forgotten eh?
Still today we have only 23 milion people. How many do you think there were back then?
Our enemy has never viewed it as almost irrelevant. The Germans approached Australians with great caution as their fathers stories were still ringing in their ears. We were the first to stop the Germans on the ground
The Japs said. " Gosh this is going to be some fight" as they'd always done the attacking and had never been the ones attacked before we did it. We were the first to stop the Japs on the ground.
Australia was so irrelevant to the middle east campaign that Tobruk fell to Rommel only after the Aus 7th and 9th divisions were pulled out to fight the japs. We had been fighting for a couple of years before the U.S and japan enterd the war.
The Australian light horse took Beersheba in WW1. Almost 1000 years of cruisades and the entire British 8th Army had failed to do so. And as result of us and only us taking Beersheba Christians had control of Jerusalem for the first time in almost 1000 years.
I think you need to read books that are reliable.
edit on 12-11-2011 by steveknows because: Add
reply to post by steveknows
No the problem is not knowledge is your lack of good argumentation and intentionally muddling the point under discussion.
I do not know if you are Australian but the way you entered the discussion and proceeded in adding irrelevant data to advance your view point of a always strong and relevant Australia seems to me the behavior of a blind nationalistic flag wavering person.
The point I initially made was that during WW2 in regards to an invasion of Australia by Japan, the diminished existence of heavy industry made it an unappealing endeavor more than other factors.
Making personal unnecessary remarks would by themselves show a lack not only of consideration to others but an inability to discuss a subject properly that can only be explained by a weakness in arguments. So the problem may indeed be knowledge but not on my part.
Conscription in Australia in World War II
I stick to the affirmations I made that are easily proven by the facts I presented. I also acknowledge validity on some of the facts you advanced, even if not relevant to the points under discussion and a bit skewed, specially in the North African campaign.
From Wikipedia Military history of Australia during World War II
Since you aren't capable of provide a good factual argumentation in a civil manner, I consider my interaction with you ended on this topic on this thread.
I think you need to read books that are reliable.
No the problem is not knowledge is your lack of good argumentation and intentionally muddling the point under discussion.
I do not know if you are Australian but the way you entered the discussion and proceeded in adding irrelevant data to advance your view point of a always strong and relevant Australia seems to me the behavior of a blind nationalistic flag wavering person.
The point I initially made was that during WW2 in regards to an invasion of Australia by Japan, the diminished existence of heavy industry made it an unappealing endeavor more than other factors.
Making personal unnecessary remarks would by themselves show a lack not only of consideration to others but an inability to discuss a subject properly that can only be explained by a weakness in arguments. So the problem may indeed be knowledge but not on my part.
Conscription in Australia in World War II
I stick to the affirmations I made that are easily proven by the facts I presented. I also acknowledge validity on some of the facts you advanced, even if not relevant to the points under discussion and a bit skewed, specially in the North African campaign.
At the time war was declared, the Australian armed forces were less prepared than at the outbreak of World War I in August 1914. The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) was the best prepared of the three services, but was small and equipped with only two heavy cruisers, four light cruisers, two sloops, five obsolete destroyers and a number of small and auxiliary warships.
Due to the emphasis placed on cooperation with Britain, relatively few Australian military units were stationed in Australia and the Asia-Pacific Region after 1940. Measures were taken to improve Australia's defences as war with Japan loomed in 1941, but these proved inadequate. In December 1941 the Australian Army in the Pacific comprised the 8th Division, most of which was stationed in Malaya, and eight partially trained and equipped divisions in Australia, including the 1st Armoured Division. The RAAF was equipped with 373 aircraft, most of which were obsolete trainers, and the RAN had three cruisers and two destroyers in Australian waters.
In 1942 the Australian military was reinforced by units recalled from the Middle East and an expansion of the CMF and RAAF. United States Military units also arrived in Australia in great numbers before being deployed to New Guinea. The Allies moved onto the offensive in late 1942, with the pace of advance accelerating in 1943. From 1944 the Australian military was mainly relegated to subsidiary roles, but continued to conduct large-scale operations until the end of the war
From Wikipedia Military history of Australia during World War II
Since you aren't capable of provide a good factual argumentation in a civil manner, I consider my interaction with you ended on this topic on this thread.
edit on 12-11-2011 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-11-2011 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason
given)
reply to post by Panic2k11
You started it fella with your unresearched claims.
You said "almost irrelevance of Australia during the war" The japs didn't eye us off for our good looks" They saw a wealthy developed western country with a whole heap of natural resource and a natural allience to the english speaking world and the natural place to start an offencive against Japan. Hardly irrelevent. And you still failed to address this "irrelevence" claim of yours in regards to the ratio of troops who fought and died compared to population.
You deliberately made Australia out to be some kind non productive backwater and you needed to be educated. You made a deliberate effort to insult and you've tried it hide it behind some kind of diplomatic sentence structure.
Wiki is lame and you know it.. In WW2 Australian conscripts couldn't fight outside Australia or it's territories and thats what I meant.
If you want to do the wiki thing here's another thing from wiki that tells the story of the japs being forced back by Australia before the U.S got there. So what's your point?
en.wikipedia.org...
All the soldiers who did fight overseas/outside of Australian protectorate were enlisted.
And my posts are only of topic in response to other posts including yours which went off topic. The others were funny yours isn't
And most countries weren't prepared at the start of WW2 including the U.S I never said we were prepared for war at the start of the war. Please Show me where I said that?
This is about you making Australia out to be some backward nation because we didn't have an industry which needs million and millions of people to consume it. We didn't have that many people but our industry was modern just not as large.
And unlike that of the U.S most of Australias forces, that being Army Navy and Airforce were in the northern hemisphere fighting. That's why we didn't have many planes or ships or even soldiers in the area at the time. See because as I've pointed out our war started in 1939 and not in 1941.
I think you're Hollywood educated in history or something.
www.skwirk.com.au...[editby ]edit on 13-11-2011 by steveknows because: Add
You started it fella with your unresearched claims.
You said "almost irrelevance of Australia during the war" The japs didn't eye us off for our good looks" They saw a wealthy developed western country with a whole heap of natural resource and a natural allience to the english speaking world and the natural place to start an offencive against Japan. Hardly irrelevent. And you still failed to address this "irrelevence" claim of yours in regards to the ratio of troops who fought and died compared to population.
You deliberately made Australia out to be some kind non productive backwater and you needed to be educated. You made a deliberate effort to insult and you've tried it hide it behind some kind of diplomatic sentence structure.
Wiki is lame and you know it.. In WW2 Australian conscripts couldn't fight outside Australia or it's territories and thats what I meant.
If you want to do the wiki thing here's another thing from wiki that tells the story of the japs being forced back by Australia before the U.S got there. So what's your point?
en.wikipedia.org...
All the soldiers who did fight overseas/outside of Australian protectorate were enlisted.
And my posts are only of topic in response to other posts including yours which went off topic. The others were funny yours isn't
And most countries weren't prepared at the start of WW2 including the U.S I never said we were prepared for war at the start of the war. Please Show me where I said that?
This is about you making Australia out to be some backward nation because we didn't have an industry which needs million and millions of people to consume it. We didn't have that many people but our industry was modern just not as large.
And unlike that of the U.S most of Australias forces, that being Army Navy and Airforce were in the northern hemisphere fighting. That's why we didn't have many planes or ships or even soldiers in the area at the time. See because as I've pointed out our war started in 1939 and not in 1941.
I think you're Hollywood educated in history or something.
www.skwirk.com.au...[editby ]edit on 13-11-2011 by steveknows because: Add
Originally posted by steveknows
reply to post by Panic2k11
You started it fella with your unresearched claims.
You said "almost irrelevance of Australia during the war" The japs didn't eye us off for our good looks" They saw a wealthy developed western country with a whole heap of natural resource and a natural allience to the english speaking world and the natural place to start an offencive against Japan. Hardly irrelevent. And you still failed to address this "irrelevence" claim of yours in regards to the ratio of troops who fought and died compared to population.
You deliberately made Australia out to be some kind non productive backwater and you needed to be educated. You made a deliberate effort to insult and you've tried it hide it behind some kind of diplomatic sentence structure.
Yes, well I am pleased to see that that has been sorted out, and its like it says, Deny ignorance and as I mentioned prior that as friendly as Australians are, they can be feisty buggers , not to be underestimated by anyone's stretch of the imagination
Wiki is a lame and you know it.. In WW2 Australian conscripts couldn't fight outside Australia or it's territories and thats what I meant.
If you wnat to do the wiki thing here's another thing from wiki that tells the story of the japs being forced back by Australia before the U.S got there. So what's your point?
en.wikipedia.org...
All the soldiers who did fight overseas/outside of Australian protectorate were enlisted.
And my posts are only of topic in response to other posts including yours which went off topic. The others were funny yours isn't
And most countries weren't prepared including the U.S I never said we were prepared for war at the start of the war. Please Show me where I said that?
This is about you making Australia out to be some backward nation because we didn't have an industry which needs million and millions of people to consume it. We didn't have that many people but our industry was modern just not as large.
I think you're Hollywood educated in history or something.
www.skwirk.com.au...[editby ]edit on 12-11-2011 by steveknows because: Add
reply to post by bulla
Yes we I am pleased to that sorted its self out under the mandate Deny Ignorance, and like I said as friendly as Australians can be they can be very feisty buggers, and it could be worse, like the Japanese who have had history white washed out of the history books
Yes we I am pleased to that sorted its self out under the mandate Deny Ignorance, and like I said as friendly as Australians can be they can be very feisty buggers, and it could be worse, like the Japanese who have had history white washed out of the history books
Originally posted by Essan
Premature speculation or deliberate disinfo? The original news story has completely changed and now reads:
Defence Minister Stephen Smith today dismissed talk Mr Obama would announce an increased rotation of US marine forces through Darwin, a gateway to Asia, as part of a planned permanent new military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
"There are no United States bases in Australia and no proposal for such bases," Mr Smith said in a statement.
Federal Govt rules out establishment of marine corp base in Australia
Australia got afraid China's missiles would be aimed at them. Hence the story change. But the cat's out of the bag. China will aim some of their missiles at Australia, have a battery of Stealth cruise missiles to go that way, and have a few submarines in the area. Those 3 strike packages would take Australia out of WWIII on day 1.
reply to post by BLV12
So I obviously can't comprehend what I read.
Umm did I say rotation? Did I say ADF base ? YES I did.
So basically the story is marines will be coming on a rotation base, using the ADF base as their base of op's.
So in ending, there will be marines in Australia right ?
Please comprehend this for me.
Thanks.
So I obviously can't comprehend what I read.
Umm did I say rotation? Did I say ADF base ? YES I did.
So basically the story is marines will be coming on a rotation base, using the ADF base as their base of op's.
So in ending, there will be marines in Australia right ?
Please comprehend this for me.
Thanks.
Originally posted by crackerjack
reply to post by BLV12
So I obviously can't comprehend what I read.
Umm did I say rotation? Did I say ADF base ? YES I did.
So basically the story is marines will be coming on a rotation base, using the ADF base as their base of op's.
So in ending, there will be marines in Australia right ?
Please comprehend this for me.
Thanks.
Well that is not new, as US Marines are all ready rotated through ADF bases in Australia, and to further add Australia is far to busy combating the ravages of Climate change, and the devastation it has, and is causing,
To even contemplate such a propitious suggestion, that our largest trading partner who are heavyweight investor in Australia would want, or conceive to raining down missile upon Australia and its people, deferentially belongs in HOLLYWOOD, and your perception that we get frightened, well we don't get frightened, we get even
Originally posted by Pervius
Originally posted by Essan
Premature speculation or deliberate disinfo? The original news story has completely changed and now reads:
Defence Minister Stephen Smith today dismissed talk Mr Obama would announce an increased rotation of US marine forces through Darwin, a gateway to Asia, as part of a planned permanent new military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
"There are no United States bases in Australia and no proposal for such bases," Mr Smith said in a statement.
Federal Govt rules out establishment of marine corp base in Australia
Australia got afraid China's missiles would be aimed at them. Hence the story change. But the cat's out of the bag. China will aim some of their missiles at Australia, have a battery of Stealth cruise missiles to go that way, and have a few submarines in the area. Those 3 strike packages would take Australia out of WWIII on day 1.
And I suppose we'll fight back with rubber bands? No wait. Well just use the most sophisticated radar system in the world to warn us. You know, The Aussie radar that picked out the stealth fighter just as easy as a normal radar would pick out a 1klm long iron wall. Or perhaps we'll use the most quiet subs in the world to get theirs. They're ours as well by the way.
And since when has aiming something been a strike package? Your numbers fella.
I tell you what. If you were an intelligence officer in the department of defence any of your enemies would have an edge
Originally posted by steveknows
Originally posted by cerebralassassins
Originally posted by Maxmars
Originally posted by followingpythagoras
..... I'd feel very sorry for any country that sent ground troops in to invade. They'd have to bomb, because they'd never make it with a ground invasion. God help them, if the deadly creatures in the sea or on the beach didn't get them - and the deadly creatures and insects on land didn't finish them off - and the intense heat and vast expanse of land didn't wear them down - THEN the Aussie soldiers could come along and deal with what was left of them.
Agreed. It is just one more similarity you all share with the US.... Unlike many of the "old world" nations crammed into one continent, and whose borders represent years of friction (resolved or otherwise) we benefit from a landmass and population distribution which sort of makes us impossible to occupy, and suicidal to invade.
I know the general consensus weighs against American endeavors in almost any context; but I for one, am very comforted that we are allies.
I guess its a two way streak, since the British were unable to protect Australia during the ww2 and the U.S. sent its forces to serve and protect Au that was bombed by the Japanese, then its only natural that the U.S. and Au have respect for one-another and its respect has grown to a very tight alliance between the people and its common foreign policy.
Actualy the Japs were already on the backfoot before the U.S got its action into full swing in the region. When the Japs entered New Guinea there was a small defence of 1500 Aussies and 500 Americans as Australias forces were overseas fighting the Germans as we'd already been in the war for 2 years.
The 7th and 9th Australian divisions were recalled from Africa. The 2000 who were already there held good account of themselves and held of what was a Jap probe but still larger in numbers the the 2000 defending New Guinea/ port morseby.
When the Japs made their push they didn't come up against this small group as they expected to but rather they came up against the battle hardend unforgiving and generaly angry 7th and 9th Aus divisions who gave the Japs a punch in the face they never recoverd from.
. The Japs had to retreat and never got any further. All hopes at fixing the bad situation for the japs were dashed in the battles of coral sea and midway.edit on 12-11-2011 by steveknows because: Typo
Until this day and as the decades that have been written the U.S. has established itself as a true Allie to Australians and Australia as a whole, sadly the British have and has another agenda that eventually allowed the U.S. to take own its policy to the people and obviously won the people over and over .Myself, i would rather see the AU. independent as a nation and not associated with any colony. Eventually the monarch system will loose its propaganda self sustainable ideology and its citizens will realize that the Commonwealth is anything but a tax paying system rather than supplying the much needed Allie interaction that the U.S. has so openly shown and addressed towards Australia and its citizens.
Originally posted by cerebralassassins
Originally posted by steveknows
Originally posted by cerebralassassins
Originally posted by Maxmars
Originally posted by followingpythagoras
..... I'd feel very sorry for any country that sent ground troops in to invade. They'd have to bomb, because they'd never make it with a ground invasion. God help them, if the deadly creatures in the sea or on the beach didn't get them - and the deadly creatures and insects on land didn't finish them off - and the intense heat and vast expanse of land didn't wear them down - THEN the Aussie soldiers could come along and deal with what was left of them.
Agreed. It is just one more similarity you all share with the US.... Unlike many of the "old world" nations crammed into one continent, and whose borders represent years of friction (resolved or otherwise) we benefit from a landmass and population distribution which sort of makes us impossible to occupy, and suicidal to invade.
I know the general consensus weighs against American endeavors in almost any context; but I for one, am very comforted that we are allies.
I guess its a two way streak, since the British were unable to protect Australia during the ww2 and the U.S. sent its forces to serve and protect Au that was bombed by the Japanese, then its only natural that the U.S. and Au have respect for one-another and its respect has grown to a very tight alliance between the people and its common foreign policy.
Actualy the Japs were already on the backfoot before the U.S got its action into full swing in the region. When the Japs entered New Guinea there was a small defence of 1500 Aussies and 500 Americans as Australias forces were overseas fighting the Germans as we'd already been in the war for 2 years.
The 7th and 9th Australian divisions were recalled from Africa. The 2000 who were already there held good account of themselves and held of what was a Jap probe but still larger in numbers the the 2000 defending New Guinea/ port morseby.
When the Japs made their push they didn't come up against this small group as they expected to but rather they came up against the battle hardend unforgiving and generaly angry 7th and 9th Aus divisions who gave the Japs a punch in the face they never recoverd from.
. The Japs had to retreat and never got any further. All hopes at fixing the bad situation for the japs were dashed in the battles of coral sea and midway.edit on 12-11-2011 by steveknows because: Typo
Until this day and as the decades that have been written the U.S. has established itself as a true Allie to Australians and Australia as a whole, sadly the British have and has another agenda that eventually allowed the U.S. to take own its policy to the people and obviously won the people over and over .Myself, i would rather see the AU. independent as a nation and not associated with any colony. Eventually the monarch system will loose its propaganda self sustainable ideology and its citizens will realize that the Commonwealth is anything but a tax paying system rather than supplying the much needed Allie interaction that the U.S. has so openly shown and addressed towards Australia and its citizens.
Australia welcomes all who do not have the intention of waging war, as history has proven over and over it is a no brainier
Originally posted by cerebralassassins
Originally posted by steveknows
Originally posted by cerebralassassins
Originally posted by Maxmars
Originally posted by followingpythagoras
..... I'd feel very sorry for any country that sent ground troops in to invade. They'd have to bomb, because they'd never make it with a ground invasion. God help them, if the deadly creatures in the sea or on the beach didn't get them - and the deadly creatures and insects on land didn't finish them off - and the intense heat and vast expanse of land didn't wear them down - THEN the Aussie soldiers could come along and deal with what was left of them.
Agreed. It is just one more similarity you all share with the US.... Unlike many of the "old world" nations crammed into one continent, and whose borders represent years of friction (resolved or otherwise) we benefit from a landmass and population distribution which sort of makes us impossible to occupy, and suicidal to invade.
I know the general consensus weighs against American endeavors in almost any context; but I for one, am very comforted that we are allies.
I guess its a two way streak, since the British were unable to protect Australia during the ww2 and the U.S. sent its forces to serve and protect Au that was bombed by the Japanese, then its only natural that the U.S. and Au have respect for one-another and its respect has grown to a very tight alliance between the people and its common foreign policy.
Actualy the Japs were already on the backfoot before the U.S got its action into full swing in the region. When the Japs entered New Guinea there was a small defence of 1500 Aussies and 500 Americans as Australias forces were overseas fighting the Germans as we'd already been in the war for 2 years.
The 7th and 9th Australian divisions were recalled from Africa. The 2000 who were already there held good account of themselves and held of what was a Jap probe but still larger in numbers the the 2000 defending New Guinea/ port morseby.
When the Japs made their push they didn't come up against this small group as they expected to but rather they came up against the battle hardend unforgiving and generaly angry 7th and 9th Aus divisions who gave the Japs a punch in the face they never recoverd from.
. The Japs had to retreat and never got any further. All hopes at fixing the bad situation for the japs were dashed in the battles of coral sea and midway.edit on 12-11-2011 by steveknows because: Typo
.Myself, i would rather see the AU. independent as a nation and not associated with any colony. Eventually the monarch system will loose its propaganda self sustainable ideology and its citizens will realize that the Commonwealth is anything but a tax paying system
Australia is an independant country within the commonwealth. We do not pay tax to England. We are self governed and do not answer to England in any way. This is law. Australia is a sovereign nation not a colony. It has six states ( Really big ones) and two territories which formed a union through federation. It is a continent country seperate to England.
Australia wants to be a republic.
The last time Australia had a referendum on being a republic it was sabotaged by the then PM John Howard who didn't want Australia to leave the commonwealth.
He managed it like this. Through political maneuvering his party was able to arrange it so that should Australia become a republic that when it come to voting for a leader we could only vote for a party and then that party would vote for a leader. In regards to Australian mentality thats to much power for a party to have so we rejected not a republic but rather John Howards version of a republic and all the people from other countries who negatively commented on the outcome claiming we were scared to let go really only showed their uneducated view of the political climate at the time and they know what they can go do with themselves right now.
A party can't be seen to have so much power in Australia so a republic where we don't get to vote for the individual will always be rejected.
This is for the very reason why when in the U.S, UK and Europe politicians are seen to give national speeches from high platform, drive around in black cars and generally be seen to be out of reach, in Australia politicians must be seen to give national speeches from eye level, they drive around in white cars and are seen to be within reach.
Make no mistake, Australia is a very wealthy country and could easily afford for a PM to fly around in a decked out 747 just like the U.S. But the first PM to commission such an aircraft for personal use would not last the next election. It would be seen as to much power.
It's just not how we think.
edit on 15-11-2011 by steveknows because: Add
A majority of Australians believe that an alliance between the USA and Australia is important, and slightly over half of Australians are in favour of
allowing the USA to base some of its military forces here. There are reasons for this and honestly, it's good for both countries and it's what the
population wants. I don't see why this is so controversial on ATS.
source: www.lowyinstitute.org...
source: www.lowyinstitute.org...
edit on 18/11/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)