 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Country Specific / Australian Group / July 2007I hate the French
I mean they are just so self-indulgent w.nkers.. w.nking around in an increasingly irrelevant country, spouting their 'Mon Dieus' at every opportunity. When was the last time that the French ever did anything for the world? >I mean they are just so self-indulgent w.nkers.. > > w.nking around in an increasingly irrelevant country, spouting their 'Mon > Dieus' at every opportunity. > > When was the last time that the French ever did anything for the world? It could be worse, they could be American. Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in tune with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest of the world as their oyster - something to be exploited for the benefit of the US and f.ck the rest of the world. Jon >I mean they are just so self-indulgent w.nkers.. > > w.nking around in an increasingly irrelevant country, spouting their 'Mon > Dieus' at every opportunity. > > When was the last time that the French ever did anything for the world? > Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in tune > with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest of the > world as their oyster - something to be exploited for the benefit of > the US and f.ck the rest of the world. If it wasnt for the yanks, you'd have slitty eyes, child. >> I mean they are just so self-indulgent w.nkers.. >> w.nking around in an increasingly irrelevant country, spouting their 'Mon Dieus' at every >> opportunity. >> When was the last time that the French ever did anything for the world? >> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in tune >> with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest of the >> world as their oyster - something to be exploited for the benefit of >> the US and f.ck the rest of the world. > > If it wasnt for the yanks, you'd have slitty eyes, child. And if it wasn't for the Russians... > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in tune >>> with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest of the >>> world as their oyster - something to be exploited for the benefit >>> of the US and f.ck the rest of the world. >> If it wasnt for the yanks, you'd have slitty eyes, child. > And if it wasn't for the Russians... They're completely irrelevant to us and the japs. >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > They're completely irrelevant to us and the japs. So is Iraq, but there you go... > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in tune >>>>> with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest of the >>>>> world as their oyster - something to be exploited for the benefit >>>>> of the US and f.ck the rest of the world. >>>> If it wasnt for the yanks, you'd have slitty eyes, child. >>> And if it wasn't for the Russians... >> They're completely irrelevant to us and the japs. > So is Iraq, Nope, its one of the things that ensures that the yanks will assist us if we need that. > but there you go... I aint going anywhere... >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Nope, its one of the things that ensures that the yanks will assist us if > we need that. The word of a yank is worth nothing, history has taught us that. >> but there you go... > > I aint going anywhere... You got that right, keep acting like a Liberal party apologist to keep it that way. > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message >> Nope, its one of the things that ensures that the yanks will assist >> us if we need that. > > The word of a yank is worth nothing, history has taught us that. Winston Churchill said: "you can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing. After they've tried everything else". Pretty apt. They would help us IF it was seen to be in their interests to do so. No other reasons. ant  SignatureDon't try to reply to my email addy: I'm borrowing that of the latest scammer/spammer >> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Pretty apt. They would help us IF it was seen to be in their > interests to do so. No other reasons. Have fun explaining WW2, child. >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Have fun explaining WW2, child. Hatred of the yellow peril, rather than a love for Oz SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Clockmeister wrote >>>>> Nope, its one of the things that ensures that the yanks will assist us if we need that. >>>> The word of a yank is worth nothing, history has taught us that. >>> Winston Churchill said: "you can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing. After >>> they've tried everything else". >>> Pretty apt. They would help us IF it was seen to be in their interests to do so. No other >>> reasons. >> Have fun explaining WW2, child. > Hatred of the yellow peril, rather than a love for Oz Have fun explaining their europe first strategy. Have fun explaining their involvement with Japan and China and the Philipines pre WW2. >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Have fun explaining WW2, child. The Ruskies got involved, stupid. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Clockmeister wrote >>>>> Nope, its one of the things that ensures that the yanks will assist us if we need that. >>>> The word of a yank is worth nothing, history has taught us that. >>> Winston Churchill said: "you can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing. After >>> they've tried everything else". >>> Pretty apt. They would help us IF it was seen to be in their interests to do so. No other >>> reasons. >> Have fun explaining WW2, child. > The Ruskies got involved, stupid. Pity their 'interests' didnt involve war until after Pearl Harbor, cretin. >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Clockmeister wrote [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Pity their 'interests' didnt involve war until after Pearl Harbor, cretin. Pity USA didn;t either until a few navy ships hit the bottom of pearl hbr SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in >>>>>>> tune with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest >>>>>>> of the world as their oyster - something to be exploited for >>>>>>> the benefit of the US and f.ck the rest of the world. >>>>>> If it wasnt for the yanks, you'd have slitty eyes, child. >>>>> And if it wasn't for the Russians... >>>> They're completely irrelevant to us and the japs. >>> So is Iraq, >> Nope, its one of the things that ensures that the yanks will assist us if we need that. > The word of a yank is worth nothing, No one said anything about the word of any yank. > history has taught us that. You have never ever had a f.cking clue about what history has taught us, or anything else at all either. The only thing you can ever manage is to crash cars. >>> but there you go... >> I aint going anywhere... > You got that right, keep acting like a Liberal party apologist to keep it that way. Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. > >> Clockmeister <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote > >>>> Jon <internetexplore...@hotmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Nope, its one of the things that ensures that the yanks will assist us if we need that. Oh please, Speedo! Tell me that you are joking,,, Check out the racial basis of the American sailors the next time a ship comes into port! > > but there you go... > > I aint going anywhere... >> Nope, its one of the things that ensures that the yanks will assist us if we need that. > > Oh please, Speedo! Tell me that you are joking,,, Check out the > racial basis of the American sailors the next time a ship comes into > port! Gutless fuckwit you are. You'd be the first to run away if conscription came into force, and it will, if we ever need to defend ourselves, and the US arn't allies. > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in >>>>>>> tune with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest >>>>>>> of the world as their oyster - something to be exploited for >>>>>>> the benefit of the US and f.ck the rest of the world. >>>>>> If it wasnt for the yanks, you'd have slitty eyes, child. >>>>> And if it wasn't for the Russians... >>>> They're completely irrelevant to us and the japs. >>> So is Iraq, >> Nope, its one of the things that ensures that >> the yanks will assist us if we need that. > Oh please, Speedo! Tell me that you are joking,,, Nope. > Check out the racial basis of the American > sailors the next time a ship comes into port! Irrelevant to that country's military policy. >>> but there you go... >> >> I aint going anywhere... >> >>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in tune >> >>>>> with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest of the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Oh please, Speedo! Tell me that you are joking,,, He is not joking, and is 100% correct. If we had an open defence budget and a population of 300M then we wouldnt have to bow to the yanks. Check out the > racial basis of the American sailors the next time a ship comes into > port! Irrelivant! >> > but there you go... >> >> I aint going anywhere... >>> >>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in tune >>> >>>>> with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest of the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > He is not joking, and is 100% correct. If we had an open defence budget > and a population of 300M then we wouldnt have to bow to the yanks. If we didn't meddle in other peoples business and we sorted out our own sh.t we wouldn't need the yanks. Make no mistake, the yanks don't give a f.ck about Australia anyway. >>>>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in >>>>>>>>> tune with an ethical world than is the US who look at the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > If we didn't meddle in other peoples business and we sorted out our > own sh.t we wouldn't need the yanks. Not a f.cking clue, as always. >>>>>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in >>>>>>>>>> tune with an ethical world than is the US who look at the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Not a f.cking clue, as always. Whatever Alan... >>>> Nope, its one of the things that ensures that the yanks will assist us >>>> if we need that. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Make no mistake, the yanks don't give a f.ck about Australia anyway. Yes they do, they have to find genuine friends somewhere. >>>>> Nope, its one of the things that ensures that the yanks will assist us >>>>> if we need that. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Yes they do, they have to find genuine friends somewhere. lol, most couldn't find aus on a map. >>>>>> Nope, its one of the things that ensures that the yanks will assist >>>>>> us if we need that. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > lol, most couldn't find aus on a map. There is a clip on utube, a bloke showing a map of the world with Aust labelled as Iraq. When ppl were asked where Iraq was, they pointed to Australia. >>>>>>> Nope, its one of the things that ensures that the yanks will assist >>>>>>> us if we need that. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > labelled as Iraq. When ppl were asked where Iraq was, they pointed to > Australia. Yeah, I know. Australia may as well be Iraq for all they care, ignorant fools that they are. >> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in tune >> with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest of the >> world as their oyster - something to be exploited for the benefit of >> the US and f.ck the rest of the world. > > If it wasnt for the yanks, you'd have slitty eyes, child. Bullshit. Get yourself a decent history book. SignatureKwyj. > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message >> If it wasnt for the yanks, you'd have slitty eyes, child. > > Bullshit. > Get yourself a decent history book. The yanks all think they saved The World when they eventually joined the 2nd world war. That's what they're taught, and they know no different. SignatureDon't try to reply to my email addy: I'm borrowing that of the latest scammer/spammer > Kwyjibo wrote >>> If it wasnt for the yanks, you'd have slitty eyes, child. >> Bullshit. >> Get yourself a decent history book. > The yanks all think they saved The World when they eventually joined the 2nd world war. They were involved in saving the poms for a long time before that, child. Without the yanks, the poms would be wearing jackboots and shouting Seig Heil now. > That's what they're taught, It is quite accurate as far as the allies are concerned in WW2. > and they know no different. You can't even spell. >>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in tune >>> with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Bullshit. > Get yourself a decent history book. yep, we all know the poms came rushing down to save our bacon yet again rule Britannia >>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in tune >>>> with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest of the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > rule Britannia Most of us know that the Japanese had no intention of invading the Australian mainland......... SignatureKwyj. >>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in tune >>>>> with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest of the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Most of us know that the Japanese had no intention of invading the > Australian mainland......... roflmao >>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in tune >>>>> with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Most of us know that the Japanese had no intention of invading the Australian mainland......... Easy to claim. You have absolutely no idea of what they would have done if the yanks had said after Pearl Harbour 'ok if you want SE Asia that bad, you can have it' Its unlikely that we would have done nothing if the yanks had chosen to ignore the japs and that would have ensured that the japs would have had to do something about us whatever their initial intentions with regard to australia might or might not have been. >>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in tune >>>>>> with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest of the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Easy to claim. It sure is - Especially when there is absolutely no documentary evidence to suggest that Japan planned any invasion of mainland Australia and the senior Japanese said there were no such plans at the end of the war. Try proving otherwise. You made the claim that we'd all have slitty eyes if it wasn't for the yanks - how about putting your money where your mouth is. > You have absolutely no idea of what they would have done if "IF"??? > the yanks > had said after Pearl Harbour 'ok if you want SE Asia that bad, you can > have it' Pity that never happened, fuckwit. Your hypotheticals are irrelevant. The reality is that Japan had no plans to invade Australia. > Its unlikely that we would have done nothing if the yanks had chosen to > ignore the japs > and that would have ensured that the japs would have had to do something > about us > whatever their initial intentions with regard to australia might or might > not have been. If, if, if........ All irrelevant to what actually happened. SignatureKwyj. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> will_s <willsjunkremove@optusnet.com.au> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in >>>>>>> tune with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest >>>>>>> of the world as their oyster - something to be exploited for >>>>>>> the benefit of the US and f.ck the rest of the world. >>>>>> If it wasnt for the yanks, you'd have slitty eyes, child. >>>>> Bullshit. >>>>> Get yourself a decent history book. >>>> yep, we all know the poms came rushing down to save our bacon yet again rule Britannia >>> Most of us know that the Japanese had no intention of invading the Australian mainland......... >> Easy to claim. > It sure is - Especially when there is absolutely no documentary > evidence to suggest that Japan planned any invasion of mainland > Australia and the senior Japanese said there were no such plans at > the end of the war. Irrelevant to what they would have done about Australia if the yanks had decided after Pearl Harbor that they didnt give a damn about that attack and that they didnt care enough about the Philipinnes etc to try to get it back after they had been booted out of there by the japs. > Try proving otherwise. You made the claim that we'd all have slitty eyes if it wasn't for the > yanks No I didnt. > - how about putting your money where your mouth is. You cant do that on that claim that they would have done nothing more than bomb Aust etc. >> You have absolutely no idea of what they would have done if > "IF"??? Thats what was being discussed, what would have happened if the yanks had decided to not do anything about the Japs and Europe. >> the yanks had said after Pearl Harbour 'ok if you want SE Asia that bad, you can have it' > Pity that never happened, fuckwit. Thats what the word IF is there for, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist. > Your hypotheticals are irrelevant. The reality is that Japan had no plans to invade Australia. Irrelevant to what they would have done if the yanks had said after Pearl Harbour 'ok if you want SE Asia that bad, you can have it' >> Its unlikely that we would have done nothing if the yanks had chosen >> to ignore the japs and that would have ensured that the japs would have had to do something about >> us whatever their initial intentions with regard to australia might or might not have been. > If, if, if........ > All irrelevant to what actually happened. What was being discussed was what would have happened IF the yanks had chosen to not f.ck over the Japs and the krauts. >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> will_s <willsjunkremove@optusnet.com.au> wrote [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > that attack and that they didnt care enough about the Philipinnes etc > to try to get it back after they had been booted out of there by the japs. Irrelevant to your claim about *Jon* having slitty eyes if it wasn't for the yanks. Hypotheticals cut no mustard, child. >> Try proving otherwise. You made the claim that we'd all have slitty eyes >> if it wasn't for the yanks > > No I didnt. Technically correct (for once). You claimed that *Jon* would have slitty eyes if it wasn't for the yanks. A statement which you have so far failed to back up with anything other than mindless 'if's. >> - how about putting your money where your mouth is. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Thats what was being discussed, what would have happened if the > yanks had decided to not do anything about the Japs and Europe. Irrelevant to your claim about *Jon* having slitty eyes if it wasn't for the yanks. Hypotheticals cut no mustard, child. >>> the yanks had said after Pearl Harbour 'ok if you want SE Asia that bad, >>> you can have it' [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thats what the word IF is there for, you pathetic excuse for a lying > bullshit artist. Irrelevant to your claim about *Jon* having slitty eyes if it wasn't for the yanks. Hypotheticals cut no mustard, child. >> Your hypotheticals are irrelevant. The reality is that Japan had no plans >> to invade Australia. > > Irrelevant to what they would have done if the yanks had said after > Pearl Harbour 'ok if you want SE Asia that bad, you can have it' Irrelevant to your claim about *Jon* having slitty eyes if it wasn't for the yanks. Hypotheticals cut no mustard, child. >>> Its unlikely that we would have done nothing if the yanks had chosen >>> to ignore the japs and that would have ensured that the japs would have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What was being discussed was what would have happened IF > the yanks had chosen to not f.ck over the Japs and the krauts. Irrelevant to your claim about *Jon* having slitty eyes if it wasn't for the yanks. Hypotheticals cut no mustard, child. SignatureKwyj. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> will_s <willsjunkremove@optusnet.com.au> wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in >>>>>>>>> tune with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest >>>>>>>>> of the world as their oyster - something to be exploited for >>>>>>>>> the benefit of the US and f.ck the rest of the world. >>>>>>>> If it wasnt for the yanks, you'd have slitty eyes, child. >>>>>>> Bullshit. >>>>>>> Get yourself a decent history book. >>>>>> yep, we all know the poms came rushing down to save our bacon yet again rule Britannia >>>>> Most of us know that the Japanese had no intention of invading the >>>>> Australian mainland......... >>>> Easy to claim. >>> It sure is - Especially when there is absolutely no documentary >>> evidence to suggest that Japan planned any invasion of mainland >>> Australia and the senior Japanese said there were no such plans at >>> the end of the war. >> Irrelevant to what they would have done about Australia if the yanks >> had decided after Pearl Harbor that they didnt give a damn about >> that attack and that they didnt care enough about the Philipinnes etc >> to try to get it back after they had been booted out of there by the japs. > Irrelevant to your claim about *Jon* having slitty eyes if it wasn't for the yanks. Nope. Absolutely relevant. > Hypotheticals cut no mustard, child. Pity my original which you made such a spectacular fool of yourself commenting on was always that, fuckwit child. >>> Try proving otherwise. You made the claim that we'd all have slitty eyes if it wasn't for the >>> yanks >> No I didnt. > Technically correct (for once). You claimed that *Jon* would have slitty eyes if it wasn't for the > yanks. Must be one of those rocket scientist fuckwit children. > A statement which you have so far failed to back up with anything other than mindless 'if's. Pity your sh.t is completely irrelevant to what would have happened IF the yanks hadnt got involved, fuckwit child. a lot of "IF-qualified" nonsensical and irrelevant statements. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@removeozdebate.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > yanks. > Australia would have been invaded by the Japs if they hadn't been stopped. Live with it! And FYI it was the Aussie militia of the day who played a big part in that. Signaturergds, Pete ===== http://pw352.blogspot.com/ 'My wife ran away with my best friend.. I sure miss him!' >>>>>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in >>>>>>>>>> tune with an ethical world than is the US who look at the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > stopped. Live with it! And FYI it was the Aussie militia of the day > who played a big part in that. They wouldnt have been able to do that without the yanks tho. On Fri, 6 Tamuz 5767 09:44 Rod Speed translated the ancient runes thusly: <lots snipped> >> Australia would have been invaded by the Japs if they hadn't been >> stopped. Live with it! And FYI it was the Aussie militia of the day >> who played a big part in that. > > They wouldnt have been able to do that without the yanks tho. Not quite Roddles, true that the Seppos cleaned up the Jap Navy at Midway, and forced the Japs to try an overland attack in PNG, to try and take Port Moresby. The Aussie Army stopped them. They had a wee bit of help from the Seppos with air drops for food and ammo, but the actual fighting was Aussie. Mostly by troops Chifley had called home in spite of Brit efforts to divert them to India. That action on the Kokoda Track showed the Seppos that the Japs could be defeated on land, which no-one else had done, and led the way for the US to learn from the Aussies and manage to use overwhelming numbers to attack the Japs on the various islands. Wiki has a good article here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoda_Track_Campaign Kate Signature"One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them." http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html > Rod Speed wrote > <lots snipped> >>> Australia would have been invaded by the Japs if they >>> hadn't been stopped. Live with it! And FYI it was the >>> Aussie militia of the day who played a big part in that. >> They wouldnt have been able to do that without the yanks tho. > Not quite Roddles, Fraid so. > true that the Seppos cleaned up the Jap Navy at Midway, and forced > the Japs to try an overland attack in PNG, to try and take Port Moresby. So without the yanks getting involved in WW2, we wouldnt have had a hope in hell of stopping them. > The Aussie Army stopped them. Yes, but only because the yanks had f.cked the Jap navy over so comprehensively. > They had a wee bit of help from the Seppos with air drops > for food and ammo, but the actual fighting was Aussie. Yes, but if the yanks had not got involved in WW2, the Japs could have taken PNG with ease and there wouldnt have been a damned thing we could have done to stop them doing that. It would have been an even bigger fiasco than Malaya/Singapore was. > Mostly by troops Chifley had called home in spite of Brit efforts to divert them to India. Wrong again, it was mostly the militia that stopped the japs. > That action on the Kokoda Track showed the Seppos that the > Japs could be defeated on land, which no-one else had done, And that would not have happened if the yanks had stayed out of WW2. > and led the way for the US to learn from the Aussies and manage to > use overwhelming numbers to attack the Japs on the various islands. The island campaigns had NOTHING to do with what worked at Kokoda. Nothing what so ever. They were all massive amphibious landings with immense resources involved that only the yanks ever had anything like the capability to mount. > Wiki has a good article here:- > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoda_Track_Campaign None of that is any news and it gets right the opposite of what you claimed on the troops of ours involved in the initial stopping of the Japs. > Rod Speed wrote > <lots snipped> >>> Australia would have been invaded by the Japs if they >>> hadn't been stopped. Live with it! And FYI it was the >>> Aussie militia of the day who played a big part in that. >> They wouldnt have been able to do that without the yanks tho. > Not quite Roddles, Fraid so. > true that the Seppos cleaned up the Jap Navy at Midway, and forced > the Japs to try an overland attack in PNG, to try and take Port Moresby. So without the yanks getting involved in WW2, we wouldnt have had a hope in hell of stopping them. > The Aussie Army stopped them. Yes, but only because the yanks had f.cked the Jap navy over so comprehensively. > They had a wee bit of help from the Seppos with air drops > for food and ammo, but the actual fighting was Aussie. Yes, but if the yanks had not got involved in WW2, the Japs could have taken PNG with ease and there wouldnt have been a damned thing we could have done to stop them doing that. It would have been an even bigger fiasco than Malaya/Singapore was. > Mostly by troops Chifley had called home in spite of Brit efforts to divert them to India. Wrong again, it was mostly the militia that stopped the japs. > That action on the Kokoda Track showed the Seppos that the > Japs could be defeated on land, which no-one else had done, And that would not have happened if the yanks had stayed out of WW2. > and led the way for the US to learn from the Aussies and manage to > use overwhelming numbers to attack the Japs on the various islands. The island campaigns had NOTHING to do with what worked at Kokoda. Nothing what so ever. They were all massive amphibious landings with immense resources involved that only the yanks ever had anything like the capability to mount. > Wiki has a good article here:- > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoda_Track_Campaign None of that is any news and it gets right the opposite of what you claimed on the troops of ours involved in the initial stopping of the Japs. > >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Yes, I know. Signaturergds, Pete ===== http://pw352.blogspot.com/ 'Access denied ... nah nah na nah nah!' >>>>>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in >>>>>>>>>> tune with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Australia would have been invaded by the Japs if they hadn't been stopped. > Live with it! Funny how every historian on the face of the planet disagrees with you. SignatureKwyj. >>>>>>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in >>>>>>>>>>> tune with an ethical world than is the US who look at the [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Funny how every historian on the face of the planet disagrees with you. Bare faced lie. > >> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > I suspect you're just trolling with a statement like that. http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforAustralia/index2.html Signaturergds, Pete ===== http://pw352.blogspot.com/ 'Access denied ... nah nah na nah nah!' >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more in >>>>>>>>>>>> tune with an ethical world than is the US who look at the rest [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > I suspect you're just trolling with a statement like that. Nope. But I am waiting for someone to prove that Australia WAS under threat of invasion, which is what some of you fuckwits are claiming.... > http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforAustralia/index2.html ROFL. Let me make this very clear. 1. Pointing me to some personal web page of a bigpond user is not something I would consider proof that an invasion was planned 2. The web site you pointed me to doesn't even make such a claim 3. The closest it gets to making such a claim is where it states that Curtin *thought* an invasion was imminent. (Hint: They THOUGHT lots of things at the time, a lot of which proved to be incorrect) Now how about you run along like a good little fuckwit until you can come up with something concrete (other than your head). SignatureKwyj. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more >>>>>>>>>>>>> in tune with an ethical world than is the US who look at [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > something I would consider proof that an invasion was planned > 2. The web site you pointed me to doesn't even make such a claim Another bare faced lie http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/battaust/JapdebAustinvade.html > 3. The closest it gets to making such a claim is where it states that Curtin *thought* an invasion > was imminent. Another bare faced lie http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/battaust/JapdebAustinvade.html > (Hint: They THOUGHT lots of things at the time, a lot of which proved to be incorrect) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in tune with an ethical world than is the US who look at [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Another bare faced lie > http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/battaust/JapdebAustinvade.html "pressuring Australia into surrender to Japan were more important objectives than the limited invasion of Australia's northern coast that the Navy had earlier proposed. " >> 3. The closest it gets to making such a claim is where it states that >> Curtin *thought* an invasion was imminent. > > Another bare faced lie > http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/battaust/JapdebAustinvade.html "pressuring Australia into surrender to Japan were more important objectives than the limited invasion of Australia's northern coast that the Navy had earlier proposed. " "the Navy General Staff and Navy Ministry agreed to their limited invasion proposal being deferred in favour of the Army plan to sever Australia's lifeline to the United States " Keep trying fuckwit. SignatureKwyj. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more in tune with an ethical world than is the US who [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > objectives than the limited invasion of Australia's northern coast > that the Navy had earlier proposed. " Even you admit that the Navy was in favor of an invasion. So much for your stupid pig ignorant claim that they never ever wanted to invade. And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that while the Jap Army didnt support Pearl Harbor, it happened anyway. And that cite above blows a f.cking great hole in your bare faced lie about EVERY HISTORIAN anyway. >>> 3. The closest it gets to making such a claim is where it states that Curtin *thought* an >>> invasion was imminent. >> Another bare faced lie >> http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/battaust/JapdebAustinvade.html > "pressuring Australia into surrender to Japan were more important objectives than the limited > invasion of Australia's northern coast that the Navy had earlier proposed. " Even you admit that the Navy was in favor of an invasion. So much for your stupid pig ignorant claim that they never ever wanted to invade. And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that while the Jap Army didnt support Pearl Harbor, it happened anyway. And that cite above blows a f.cking great hole in your bare faced lie about EVERY HISTORIAN anyway. > "the Navy General Staff and Navy Ministry agreed to their limited invasion proposal being deferred And deferred is nothing like your original pig ignorant lie that there was never any proposal to invade Aust. There clearly way by the Jap Navy and the Japs had even worked out what would have been involved troops wise. > in favour of the Army plan to sever Australia's lifeline to the United States " Not even possible. On Sat, 7 Tamuz 5767 04:51 Rod Speed translated the ancient runes thusly: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more in tune with an ethical world than is the US who [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >>> >>> Another bare faced lie http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/battaust/JapdebAustinvade.html >> "pressuring Australia into surrender to Japan were more important >> objectives than the limited invasion of Australia's northern coast [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >>> Another bare faced lie http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/battaust/JapdebAustinvade.html >> "pressuring Australia into surrender to Japan were more important >> objectives than the limited invasion of Australia's northern coast [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Not even possible. Ah. Finally worked out why Roddles is so abrasive and why he supports the Yanks so much. Note his spelling above, all American. It's all because he IS a seppo!! So now we can all ignore him and get back on topic! :-)) Roddles is a Seppo!! Kate Signature"One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them." http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>>>>>>>>>> will_s <willsjunkremove@optusnet.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more in tune with an ethical world than is the US who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look at the rest of the world as their oyster - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to be exploited for the benefit of the US >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and f.ck the rest of the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it wasnt for the yanks, you'd have slitty eyes, child. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get yourself a decent history book. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> yep, we all know the poms came rushing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> down to save our bacon yet again >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule Britannia >>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of us know that the Japanese had no >>>>>>>>>>>>> intention of invading the Australian mainland......... >>>>>>>>>>>> Easy to claim. >>>>>>>>>>> It sure is - Especially when there is absolutely no documentary >>>>>>>>>>> evidence to suggest that Japan planned any invasion of mainland Australia Pig ignorant lie with the Jap Navy most obviously that wanted just that. >>>>>>>>>>> and the senior Japanese said there were no such plans at the end of the war. Pig ignorant lie with the Jap Navy most obviously that wanted just that. >>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to what they would have done about Australia if >>>>>>>>>> the yanks had decided after Pearl Harbor that they didnt >>>>>>>>>> give a damn about that attack and that they didnt care >>>>>>>>>> enough about the Philipinnes etc to try to get it back after >>>>>>>>>> they had been booted out of there by the japs. >>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to your claim about *Jon* having slitty eyes if it >>>>>>>>> wasn't for the yanks. >>>>>>>> Australia would have been invaded by the Japs if they hadn't >>>>>>>> been stopped. Live with it! >>>>>>> Funny how every historian on the face of the planet disagrees with you. >>>>>> I suspect you're just trolling with a statement like that. Corse he was. >>>>> Nope. But I am waiting for someone to prove that Australia WAS under >>>>> threat of invasion, which is what some of you fuckwits are claiming.... >>>>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforAustralia/index2.html >>>>> ROFL. >>>>> Let me make this very clear. >>>>> 1. Pointing me to some personal web page of a bigpond user is not >>>>> something I would consider proof that an invasion was planned >>>>> 2. The web site you pointed me to doesn't even make such a claim >>>> Another bare faced lie >>>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/battaust/JapdebAustinvade.html >>> "pressuring Australia into surrender to Japan were more important >>> objectives than the limited invasion of Australia's northern coast >>> that the Navy had earlier proposed. " >> Even you admit that the Navy was in favor of an invasion. >> So much for your stupid pig ignorant claim that they never ever wanted to invade. >> And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that while >> the Jap Army didnt support Pearl Harbor, it happened anyway. >> And that cite above blows a f.cking great hole in your >> bare faced lie about EVERY HISTORIAN anyway. >>>>> 3. The closest it gets to making such a claim is where it states >>>>> that Curtin *thought* an invasion was imminent. >>>> Another bare faced lie >>>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/battaust/JapdebAustinvade.html >>> "pressuring Australia into surrender to Japan were more important >>> objectives than the limited invasion of Australia's northern coast >>> that the Navy had earlier proposed. " >> Even you admit that the Navy was in favor of an invasion. >> So much for your stupid pig ignorant claim that they never ever >> wanted to invade. >> And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that while >> the Jap Army didnt support Pearl Harbor, it happened anyway. >> And that cite above blows a f.cking great hole in your >> bare faced lie about EVERY HISTORIAN anyway. >>> "the Navy General Staff and Navy Ministry agreed >>> to their limited invasion proposal being deferred >> And deferred is nothing like your original pig ignorant >> lie that there was never any proposal to invade Aust. >> There clearly way by the Jap Navy and the Japs had even >> worked out what would have been involved troops wise. >>> in favour of the Army plan to sever Australia's lifeline to the United States " >> Not even possible. > Ah. Finally worked out why Roddles is so abrasive and why he supports the Yanks so much. Nope. > Note his spelling above, all American. Wrong again. They dont use ys instead of ies like I do. > It's all because he IS a seppo!! So now we can > all ignore him and get back on topic! :-)) > Roddles is a Seppo!! Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys. And I dont 'supports the Yanks so much' either. I just have enough of a clue to have noticed that the stupid poms werent any use to us when we had a problem, and have noticed that the yank political system is about as f.cked as you can get and that their legal system has been completely off the rails for centurys, and that their mobile system is completely f.cked too. No get back into that kitchen, you stupid pig ignorant cow. On Sat, 7 Tamuz 5767 08:35 Rod Speed translated the ancient runes thusly and dribbled irrelevant sh.t because he's a seppo: > Ah. Finally worked out why Roddles is so abrasive and why he supports > the Yanks so much. Note his spelling above, all American. It's all > because he IS a seppo!! So now we can all ignore him and get back on > topic! :-)) > > Roddles is a Seppo!! What seppo spelling? "Pearl Harbor" - that is the name of it. Would you like foreigners to spell it "Port Headland" ? On Sat, 7 Tamuz 5767 15:51 Alan Parkington translated the ancient runes thusly: >> Ah. Finally worked out why Roddles is so abrasive and why he >> supports the Yanks so much. Note his spelling above, all American. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What seppo spelling? This for one example -"Even you admit that the Navy was in favor of an invasion." ^^^^^ There is more, but I couldn't be arsed wading through endless reams of dribble to find it. > "Pearl Harbor" - that is the name of it. Would you like foreigners > to spell it "Port Headland" ? Yup, sounds better! :-) Kate Signature"One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them." http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more in tune with an ethical world than is the US who [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Even you admit that the Navy was in favor of an invasion. And?? Since when did the Navy determine government policy? > So much for your stupid pig ignorant claim that they never ever wanted to > invade. The *Japanes* didn't. Their Navy might have, but were over-ruled, The Japanese government (and military as a whole) had no plans to invade Australia. Got that yet, stupid? > And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that while > the Jap Army didnt support Pearl Harbor, it happened anyway. Pearl Harbour was *invaded*?? f.ck. When did that happen? An *attack* is not an *invasion* you f.cking imbecile. > And that cite above blows a f.cking great hole in your > bare faced lie about EVERY HISTORIAN anyway. ROFL. That web site is provided by the "Battle for Australia Historical (hysterical) Society". Let's see what their rules for member ship are...... http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/about_this_site.html "The only qualifications for membership are access to the internet and a strong interest in the Pacific War and its historical setting." Hmmm. You don't appear to require any official recognition as, or even experience as a historian to gain membership. Now let's see what the main author (James Bowen) has done in the past..... http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforAustralia/AboutAuthor/PublishedWorks.html Hmmm. Lots of stuff on crimal justice and the legal system. f.ck all on anything to do with Pacific War history though. If you want to know what a REAL historian thinks of his bullshit, try here: http://www.awm.gov.au/events/talks/oration2006.asp SignatureKwyj. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>>>>>>>>>> will_s <willsjunkremove@optusnet.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more in tune with an ethical world than is the US who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look at the rest of the world as their oyster - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to be exploited for the benefit of the US >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and f.ck the rest of the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it wasnt for the yanks, you'd have slitty eyes, child. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get yourself a decent history book. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> yep, we all know the poms came rushing down to save our >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bacon yet again rule Britannia >>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of us know that the Japanese had no intention of >>>>>>>>>>>>> invading the Australian mainland......... >>>>>>>>>>>> Easy to claim. >>>>>>>>>>> It sure is - Especially when there is absolutely no >>>>>>>>>>> documentary evidence to suggest that Japan planned any >>>>>>>>>>> invasion of mainland Australia and the senior Japanese said >>>>>>>>>>> there were no such plans at the end of the war. >>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to what they would have done about Australia if >>>>>>>>>> the yanks had decided after Pearl Harbor that they didnt >>>>>>>>>> give a damn about that attack and that they didnt care >>>>>>>>>> enough about the Philipinnes etc to try to get it back after >>>>>>>>>> they had been booted out of there by the japs. >>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to your claim about *Jon* having slitty eyes if it >>>>>>>>> wasn't for the yanks. >>>>>>>> Australia would have been invaded by the Japs if they hadn't >>>>>>>> been stopped. Live with it! >>>>>>> Funny how every historian on the face of the planet disagrees >>>>>>> with you. >>>>>> I suspect you're just trolling with a statement like that. >>>>> Nope. But I am waiting for someone to prove that Australia WAS >>>>> under threat of invasion, which is what some of you fuckwits are claiming.... >>>>>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforAustralia/index2.html >>>>> ROFL. >>>>> Let me make this very clear. >>>>> 1. Pointing me to some personal web page of a bigpond user is not >>>>> something I would consider proof that an invasion was planned >>>>> 2. The web site you pointed me to doesn't even make such a claim >>>> Another bare faced lie >>>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/battaust/JapdebAustinvade.html >>> "pressuring Australia into surrender to Japan were more important >>> objectives than the limited invasion of Australia's northern coast >>> that the Navy had earlier proposed. " >> Even you admit that the Navy was in favor of an invasion. > And?? So your original 'no intention' was a complete pack of lies, > Since when did the Navy determine government policy? Since Pearl Harbor, fuckwit. >> So much for your stupid pig ignorant claim that they never ever wanted to invade. > The *Japanes* didn't. Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed whose Navy it was, fuckwit. > Their Navy might have, but were over-ruled, You dont know that they would have been if the yanks had chosen to do nothing about Pearl Harbor. > The Japanese government (and military as a whole) had no plans to invade Australia. Pig ignorant lie. The Navy clearly did have just that. >> And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that while >> the Jap Army didnt support Pearl Harbor, it happened anyway. > Pearl Harbour was *invaded*?? f.ck. When did that happen? Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. >> And that cite above blows a f.cking great hole in your >> bare faced lie about EVERY HISTORIAN anyway. > ROFL. > That web site is provided by the "Battle for Australia Historical > (hysterical) Society". Let's see what their rules for member ship are...... > http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/about_this_site.html > "The only qualifications for membership are access to the internet > and a strong interest in the Pacific War and its historical setting." Irrelevant to who actually wrote that particular bit, fuckwit. > Hmmm. You don't appear to require any official recognition as, or even experience as a historian > to gain membership. Irrelevant to who actually wrote that particular bit, fuckwit. > Now let's see what the main author (James Bowen) has done in the past..... > http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforAustralia/AboutAuthor/PublishedWorks.html > Hmmm. Lots of stuff on crimal justice and the legal system. f.ck all on anything to do with > Pacific War history though. Irrelevant to where he got that from, fuckwit. > If you want to know what a REAL historian thinks of his bullshit, try here: > http://www.awm.gov.au/events/talks/oration2006.asp Doesnt qualify as EVERY HISTORIAN any time soon, fuckwit. >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > So your original 'no intention' was a complete pack of lies, Not at all. >> Since when did the Navy determine government policy? > > Since Pearl Harbor, fuckwit. So now you are saying that Pearl Harbour was done by the Navy with no orders from their government or Emperor? You've lost the plot. >>> So much for your stupid pig ignorant claim that they never ever wanted >>> to invade. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed whose Navy it was, > fuckwit. The navy were a tool of the Japanese nation. They are not 'the japanese'. >> Their Navy might have, but were over-ruled, > > You dont know that they would have been if the > yanks had chosen to do nothing about Pearl Harbor. Who gives a flying f.ck about what MIGHT have happened IF something else had happned. Try dealing with the facts of what actually DID happen, fuckwit. >> The Japanese government (and military as a whole) had no plans to invade >> Australia. > > Pig ignorant lie. The Navy clearly did have just that. Try reading it again - slowly this time fuckwit. The Japanese government *WHICH IS NOT THE NAVY* (and military as a whole *WHICH IS ONLY PARTLY COMPRISED OF THE NAVY*) had no plans to invade Australia. >>> And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that while >>> the Jap Army didnt support Pearl Harbor, it happened anyway. > >> Pearl Harbour was *invaded*?? f.ck. When did that happen? > > Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. You made the pig ignorant claim. How about backing it up. And I'll repeat the bit you snipped. (I can only assume you snipped it because it makes you look pretty f.cking stupid - again) AN *ATTACK* IS NOT AN *INVASION* YOU f.cking IMBECILE >>> And that cite above blows a f.cking great hole in your >>> bare faced lie about EVERY HISTORIAN anyway. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Irrelevant to who actually wrote that particular bit, fuckwit. It's very relevant when you are using that particular site in a pathetic attempt to prove we were under threat of invasion. >> Hmmm. You don't appear to require any official recognition as, or even >> experience as a historian to gain membership. > > Irrelevant to who actually wrote that particular bit, fuckwit. It's very relevant when you are using that particular site in a pathetic attempt to prove we were under threat of invasion. >> Now let's see what the main author (James Bowen) has done in the >> past..... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Irrelevant to where he got that from, fuckwit. It's very relevant when you are using that particular site in a pathetic attempt to prove we were under threat of invasion. >> If you want to know what a REAL historian thinks of his bullshit, try >> here: http://www.awm.gov.au/events/talks/oration2006.asp > > Doesnt qualify as EVERY HISTORIAN any time soon, fuckwit. And so far you haven't found a SINGLE historian that claims we were under any real threat of invasion by the Japanese. Funny about that..... SignatureKwyj. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will_s <willsjunkremove@optusnet.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey lay off the French - they are beautiful people - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more in tune with an ethical world than is the US >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who look at the rest of the world as their oyster - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to be exploited for the benefit of the US >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and f.ck the rest of the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it wasnt for the yanks, you'd have slitty eyes, child. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get yourself a decent history book. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yep, we all know the poms came rushing down to save our bacon yet again rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Britannia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of us know that the Japanese had no intention of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invading the Australian mainland......... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Easy to claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is - Especially when there is absolutely no >>>>>>>>>>>>> documentary evidence to suggest that Japan planned any >>>>>>>>>>>>> invasion of mainland Australia and the senior Japanese >>>>>>>>>>>>> said there were no such plans at the end of the war. >>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to what they would have done about Australia if >>>>>>>>>>>> the yanks had decided after Pearl Harbor that they didnt >>>>>>>>>>>> give a damn about that attack and that they didnt care >>>>>>>>>>>> enough about the Philipinnes etc to try to get it back >>>>>>>>>>>> after they had been booted out of there by the japs. >>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to your claim about *Jon* having slitty eyes if >>>>>>>>>>> it wasn't for the yanks. >>>>>>>>>> Australia would have been invaded by the Japs if they hadn't >>>>>>>>>> been stopped. Live with it! >>>>>>>>> Funny how every historian on the face of the planet disagrees with you. >>>>>>>> I suspect you're just trolling with a statement like that. >>>>>>> Nope. But I am waiting for someone to prove that Australia WAS >>>>>>> under threat of invasion, which is what some of you fuckwits are >>>>>>> claiming.... >>>>>>>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforAustralia/index2.html >>>>>>> ROFL. >>>>>>> Let me make this very clear. >>>>>>> 1. Pointing me to some personal web page of a bigpond user is >>>>>>> not something I would consider proof that an invasion was planned 2. The web site you >>>>>>> pointed me to doesn't even make such a claim >>>>>> Another bare faced lie >>>>>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/battaust/JapdebAustinvade.html >>>>> "pressuring Australia into surrender to Japan were more important >>>>> objectives than the limited invasion of Australia's northern coast >>>>> that the Navy had earlier proposed. " >>>> Even you admit that the Navy was in favor of an invasion. >>> And?? >> So your original 'no intention' was a complete pack of lies, > Not at all. Corse it was. The Jap Navy plan to invade Aust blows your stupid pig ignorant claim completely out of the f.cking water. >>> Since when did the Navy determine government policy? >> Since Pearl Harbor, fuckwit. > So now you are saying that Pearl Harbour was done by the Navy with no orders from their government > or Emperor? Nope, that the Jap Navy decided that that was the way to go and the opposition by the Jap Army was completely irrelevant and it happened anyway. >>>> So much for your stupid pig ignorant claim that they never ever wanted to invade. >>> The *Japanes* didn't. >> Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed whose Navy it was, fuckwit. > The navy were a tool of the Japanese nation. Have fun explaining Pearl Harbor. > They are not 'the japanese'. Corse they are. >>> Their Navy might have, but were over-ruled, >> You dont know that they would have been if the >> yanks had chosen to do nothing about Pearl Harbor. > Who gives a flying f.ck about what MIGHT have happened IF something else had happned. Anyone who reads my original which had that IF in it that you made such a spectacular fool of yourself commenting on, fuckwit child. >>> The Japanese government (and military as a whole) had no plans to invade Australia. >> Pig ignorant lie. The Navy clearly did have just that. > Try reading it again - slowly this time fuckwit. > The Japanese government You never said anything about the Jap govt until your nose was rubbed in your pig ignorant stupidity, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist. Your original said 'the Japanese' and that includes the Jap Navy, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist. > *WHICH IS NOT THE NAVY* (and military as a whole *WHICH IS ONLY PARTLY COMPRISED OF THE NAVY*) had > no plans to invade Australia. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message