BF2S Forums Japan, our need for them, war etc.

Bubbalo wrote:

O rly?

Ya rly..
Do you even read your own links?

Wikipedia.org wrote:

Much of what Iraq received from the US, however, were not arms per se, but so-called dual-use technology— mainframe computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications

Bubbalo wrote:

They never sent troops to Iraq.

I think theres about 600 Jap's that disagree with you.. shouldn't you at least check before making statements of ignorance?

Bubbalo wrote:

Yes, we'll just ignore the Australians and New Zealanders who practically fought the war on their own before America arrived..........

Thanks for that.. I got a good laugh then I learned a few things. Namely that while Japan was taking the Pacific Islands 2/3rds of Australia's forces were in Africa and Europe. The ONLY significant conflict Australia participated in was trying to secure Singapore for the Brits which ended in an embarassing failure and defeat and a surrender of an entire batallion of Aussie's. At the same time the bombing of Darwinia caused the Aussies to retreat and abandon denfense that America was forced to take up. And every single historian I read up on confirmed my suspicion that had America not defended Australia as quickly as she did Austrailia would have fallen quickly.

Australia's role was extremely minor other than an example of how not to fight the Japs.
Heres some quick rundown of the horrible inadequacy and failure of Australias forray in the Pacific.

Although ABDACOM was only in existence for a few weeks, and it presided over one defeat after another, it did provide some useful lessons for combined Allied commands later in the war.

China's significant contribution to the war was that they had a certain amount of Jap's over there raping and pilaging there country. China was decimated by the Jap's and had absolutely no success. The Jap surrender had absolutely nothing to do with the Chinese or the Russians ceremonial entrance and especially nothing to do with Australia. It was solely due to the America and her taking of every Pacific Island firebombing Tokyo and dozens of other Japanese cities and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Trying to overstate the mostly insignifcant contributions of other countries is just a gaping example of your bias.

Bubbalo wrote:

Where have I made any conspiracy theories?  Further, I use logic and reason.

A couple examples come to mind. Your jumping to conclusions before any evidence in Haditha and Lebanon. Also our previous discussion about Depleted Uranium where you present things as fact without any scientific evidence regardless of your complete lack of knowledge on the subject. If something is anti-American you will present it as fact whether its proven or not. ie. conspiracy babble.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ :  I could point out that USSR was the major contributor, not the only contributor, to Iraqi arms.  I could point out that calling non-combat personnel troops is something of a mis-nomer.  I could point out that the Chinese Communist bravely resisted the Japanese despite the fact that the Nationalists refused to ally with them.  I could also point out that you have yet to tell me the basis for your claim that the USSR had no effect on Japan's choice to surrender when they joind shortly before hand.  I could point out that I never claimed that it had nothing to do with Australia.  Or that I never discussed depleted uranium.  Or that saying that US soldiers shot civilians, or that the Israelis killed civilians is hardly a conspiracy theory.  But none of that matters, really.

Kokoda Track.  2,000 Australians fight so fiercely that the Japanese force mistakes them for more than 6,000.  And you tell me that we had 2/3rds of our forces fighting for Europe like it's some kind of a slur?  Like we should be ashamed that, even as we face and enemy with superior numbers and equipment, we fight to defend our allies?  And you praise the Americans for coming to our aid?  They had no choice.  Roosevelt himself said that it was due to our strategic value that he protected us.  You make me sick.  You go on about not insulting troops, about how they fought to defend my freedom, and then turn around and insult people who fought on despite a hopeless situation.  Because that's the difference between American soldiers and Australian soldiers: when you fight, you're the most powerful force on the field.  When we fight, we have to hope that someone else has a vested interest, because otherwise we end up outnumbered and outgunned.  Fuck you you piece of shit.  For all I care you can stick it where the sun don't shine.  You said that America was the only power with the authority to allow Japan to have a military, and you were wrong.  Yet you won't admit it.  And you insult me?

Sorry Bubsy, I couldn't help myself. I just had to jump on the Pwnage Wagon.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Thanks for that.. I got a good laugh then I learned a few things. Namely that while Japan was taking the Pacific Islands 2/3rds of Australia's forces were in Africa and Europe. The ONLY significant conflict Australia participated in was trying to secure Singapore for the Brits which ended in an embarassing failure and defeat and a surrender of an entire batallion of Aussie's. At the same time the bombing of Darwinia caused the Aussies to retreat and abandon denfense that America was forced to take up. And every single historian I read up on confirmed my suspicion that had America not defended Australia as quickly as she did Austrailia would have fallen quickly.

Australia's role was extremely minor other than an example of how not to fight the Japs.
Heres some quick rundown of the horrible inadequacy and failure of Australias forray in the Pacific.

Gee, what about Pearl Harbor? It was a cowardly suprise attack, sure. But you'd think the defenders would have fought better considering how painfully obvious it was coming.

First Battle of the Philippines? People tend to ignore this "little" doozy. After winning this colony from the Spanish, you'd think the Americans would have at least be able to prevent a numerically smaller Japanese force from sporting a 2:1 kill ratio and taking the whole colony... along with a hundred thousand prisoners.

Sure, I'm not critisizing the American forces who evidently sacrificed a great lot in those battles and others (*cough*Kasserinepass*cough*). We've all had our disasterous battles in the first stages of the war, no reason to rag on Australia while simultaneously ignoring your own country's military shortcomings.

Last edited by Vietbong (2006-09-01 04:20:27)

Bubbalo wrote:

I could point out that USSR was the major contributor, not the only contributor, to Iraqi arms.

I could point out you pretended as if the war was fought with American arms which is a lie.

Bubbalo wrote:

I could point out that calling non-combat personnel troops is something of a mis-nomer.

All soldiers there are under a similiar doctrine fire when fired upon. They are SOLDIERS not non-combat dumbfuck just defense soldiers not offenseive.

Bubbalo wrote:

Like we should be ashamed that, even as we face and enemy with superior numbers and equipment, we fight to defend our allies?

Cowardice and an inibilty to defend your country ? Following England wherever she directs you regardless of your situation at home? Yeah I'd be embarassed..

Bubbalo wrote:

I could also point out that you have yet to tell me the basis for your claim that the USSR had no effect on Japan's choice to surrender when they joind shortly before hand.

Thats because youre too dense to conprehend basic facts when theyre presented to you. Russians entrance was merely complaince with the agreement they had made to enter the Pacific theatre. They did it on the deadline of 90 days just to grab some land before they surrendered. They did it for show and Japan was going to surrender without any Russian involvement.

Kokoda track is a minor event in the Pacific. Also you didnt win it you simply kept the Japs back long enough till we showed up to win. Your population and GDP were enough to support a much more substantial contribution but I guess Australia cant be bothered to defend thier country. Only the direction and beckon call of England seems to get Canada and Australia to act much at all.

Invaderzim wrote:

Where is the evidence that the bombing of "DARWIN" (Learn how to spell the names of the places you are discussing before making youre self look like a dumb ass.) caused Australia to retreat

I guess if you dont have shit to say you resort to talking about typo's
Bombing Darwin
Quite the stalwart defense the populace decided this was a good opportunity to loot. The army deserted thier posts and people evacuated the supposed point where they thought Japan was invading.

In the hours following the air raids on 19 February, believing that an invasion was imminent, Darwin's population began to stream southwards, heading for Adelaide River and the train south. Approximately half Darwin's civilian population ultimately fled. The panic in the town was repeated at the RAAF base, where servicemen deserted their stations in great numbers. Three days after the attack 278 servicemen were still missing. The exodus south (which later became known as 'The Adelaide River stakes'), and the looting and disorder which subsequently occurred, led the government to hurriedly appoint a Commission of Inquiry led by Mr Justice Lowe which issued two reports, one on 27 March and the other on 9 April 1942.

.

Last edited by ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ (2006-09-01 05:49:39)

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

I could point out you pretended as if the war was fought with American arms which is a lie.

It was assisted by American equipment.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

All soldiers there are under a similiar doctrine fire when fired upon. They are SOLDIERS not non-combat dumbfuck just defense soldiers not offenseive.

Oh, are they?  Because, according to you link:

CNN wrote:

Japan's 600 military troops based in the southern Muthana province are all non-combat personnel helping to rebuild the infrastructure.

Which makes sense, since combat personnel would be a breach of the Japanese constitution.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Cowardice and an inibilty to defend your country ? Following England wherever she directs you regardless of your situation at home? Yeah I'd be embarassed..

Second paragraph dipshit.  You're calling us cowardly for fighting someone else's war?  And we should be ashamed that despite the fact that we were taking on a major Imperial power we were still putting up a damn good fight?

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Thats because youre too dense to conprehend basic facts when theyre presented to you. Russians entrance was merely complaince with the agreement they had made to enter the Pacific theatre. They did it on the deadline of 90 days just to grab some land before they surrendered. They did it for show and Japan was going to surrender without any Russian involvement.

Prove it.  You state that the USSR made no difference, yet are unable to provide evidence to back it up.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Kokoda track is a minor event in the Pacific.

It was the first time that the Japanese advance southward had faced determined, organised resistance.  We denied them Port Moresby.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Also you didnt win it you simply kept the Japs back long enough till we showed up to win.

Despite being outnumbered 5:1, undersupplied, and fighting on a track so narrow they had to walk single file, they held Port Moresby and you're criticising their abilities?

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Your population and GDP were enough to support a much more substantial contribution but I guess Australia cant be bothered to defend thier country.

The stats say otherwise.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Only the direction and beckon call of England seems to get Canada and Australia to act much at all.

As Britain was withdrawing from Asia, we were continuing our military assistance to a number of nations.  We have fought in Vietnam, Korea, and continued the Pacific War whilst Britain did none of these.  To suggest that we run to fight for Britain is foolish.  Yes, there was a time when we did.  That would be when we were part of the British Empire, and when Britain's wars were our wars, and an attack on us was the same as an attack on Britain.  Those days are over.  I suggest that you need to read up on the current geo-political situation before you make an ass of yourself again.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Only the direction and beckon call of England seems to get Canada and Australia to act much at all.

It's "beck and call". I hate it when people don't know the expressions they use.

by using the word jap he already has shown enough of his stance towards this country... but oh i forgot! dont feed the trolls! *closes cage* ahhh better

Again, we fight 5:1 odds in favour of the enemy and we're cowardly?  When was the last time the American mainland was under threat of invasion?

Further, you used present tense, and referred to Canada, which removed you from the historical context.  And if you read the link I provided you would know that Curtin and his successors did, in fact, take actions opposed by Churchill.  But then, reading might be a little hard for you.  I note that you seem to have ignored the rest of my post.

And no, people don't say "beckon call".  Beckon means to summon, or call to.  So basically you just said that we follow the "call to call" of Britain.

Oh, and am I supposed to be insulted that you called me gay?  Do you honestly think I'm that insecure?

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-09-01 08:21:08)

kr@cker wrote:

in the interest of political incorrectness, it seems that the word "jap" is merely a contraction of "japanese", and to think of it as an insult is to think that being japanese is an undesirable trait

while i know that is is usually not a source that is scientific in any way, this should give you an idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jap

and I never met a japanese person, considering the word 'jap' as something friendly and not disparaging

just because it's common in western countries it's not any better. violence is common everywhere as well but that doesn't make it a good thing necessarily

Jesus christ the message just doesnt get through to you ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ  does it. You have been proved wrong on every point but you still refuse to aknowledge that we played a significant role in the pacific war. You obviously know nothing about Australia at the time.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ  wrote:

Quite the stalwart defense the populace decided this was a good opportunity to loot. The army deserted thier posts and people evacuated the supposed point where they thought Japan was invading.

*cough* HURRICAN KATRINA *cough*

It seems here you had the population and GDP to at least help these people out but you failed there too. By now you could have had most of the effected areas rebuilt but instead they still lay in ruin.

Also it would be a perfectly normal reaction for a town guarded by 200 reservists to flee the affore mentioned Japanese forces. If 2000 troops could not hold them off what would 200 reservists (pretty much conscripts) do?

The word "Jap" IS offensive to the Japanese, i have hoated two Japanese exchange students and both found it offensive to be called a "Jap" or "Nip" (Nipon= Japan in Japanese).

thats not the point (at least not for me) - my point is that the general japanese public does not like the term (and yes I can tell that from my own experience). so i think it's impolite to call em that way, no matter what the intention behind it is. but then again it's a matter of personal taste as well, so if you like the word jap and continue to use it, it's your decision. just dont do it in the center of kabuki-chô or you might get some trouble

Capt. Foley wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

So, to get this back onto the original topic.....


The nation of Japan is in a VERY strategic location for the US, both in 1945 and now. They are the closest MAJOR industrialized nation to North Korea and China, and have had a very friendly relationship with the US (Tom Clancy notwithstanding).

Actualy Japan was not at war with the US, it was just the few buisness men that ran the country in his book, remeber that.

so japan didnt declare war on usa wit a surprise attack on the american fleet at pearl harbour? whoa, my perception of ww2 history is maybe shaky!