70th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea

[Gob]

The United States has used the 70th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea to flag even stronger security and travel ties with Australia.



US Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano will sign new agreements on security, information sharing and access to trusted passenger programs with Australia while she is in Canberra this week.
Ms Napolitano led the presidential delegation - which included the Commander of the US 7th Fleet, Vice-Admiral Scott Swift - that took part in a commemorative service at the Australian-American Memorial at Russell yesterday.

''Part of the reason for my visit is to sign new agreements that will express our intent to improve information sharing between the US and Australia; continue to work together to secure the global supply chain; further co-operate to fight terrorism, transnational crime and violent extremism and facilitate travel for our citizens,'' she said.

Under United States law, airlines flying in from abroad have to provide basic passenger information including name, date of birth, nationality and their passport number. Australia has a similar requirement.

Ms Napolitano said during 2008 and 2009 passenger name record data - or PNR - had helped American authorities identify up to 3000 individuals with potential ties to terrorism.

''In fiscal year 2010 approximately one-quarter of those individuals denied entry to the US for having ties to terrorism were initially identified through PNR data analysis,'' she said.

The secretary read a personal message from President Barack Obama at yesterday's service.

''This battle [the Battle of the Coral Sea] laid the groundwork for an alliance between the United States and Australia that was later formalised through the signing of the ANZUS Treaty in 1951,'' the President said.

''After seven decades we remain united in our purpose to preserve freedom, maintain stability and promote lasting peace.''


Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-new ... z1trAsu1nY

They ain't going to tax us for it then?

[dales]

What ever happened to the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere"?

[Lord Jim]

Gee whiz, when I saw the thread title, and the fact that an Aussie (well naturalized Aussie anyway) had started it, I natually expected to see a post containing the sentiment:

"Thank you Americans, for saving our fannies from invasion by the Nips at the battle of the Battle Of The Coral Sea. Without you, we would have been left to the tender mercies of Jap occupation. Again, thank you, thank you, a thousand times, thank you."

Imagine my surprise when instead I found a snarky comment about Australians having to pay their fair share for our alliance arrangements....

Next time I guess we'll just let you learn to enjoy kimonos and straw flip flops....

Hope you're keen on rice....

[Scooter]

I think he was actually taking a piss at Andrew's line, that the rest of the world should be paying protection money to the US so it wouldn't shoot their ships out of the water.

[dales]

Next time I guess we'll just let you learn to enjoy kimonos mao jackets and straw flip flops wooden shoes....

fixed that for ya, Jim

[Gob]

I think he was actually taking a piss at Andrew's line, that the rest of the world should be paying protection money to the US so it wouldn't shoot their ships out of the water.

Nailed it!

[MajGenl.Meade]

What ever happened to the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere"?

I think I see two of them in the photo......










Oh I'm going to wish I'd never submitted this one

[Jarlaxle]

What ever happened to the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere"?

Mostly, the US Navy & the US Marine Corps!

[dales]

My grandfather was in the US Navy (Battle of Leyete Gulf) and awarded the Bronze Star.

Never knew him, died before I was born.

[Jarlaxle]

Leyte...any idea where he was?

[dales]

Near the Philippines, Jarl.


From Wiki:

The Battle of Leyte Gulf, also called the "Battles for Leyte Gulf", and formerly known as the "Second Battle of the Philippine Sea", is generally considered to be the largest naval battle of World War II and, by some criteria, possibly the largest naval battle in history.[2]

It was fought in waters near the Philippine islands of Leyte, Samar from 23–26 October 1944, between combined US and Australian forces and the Imperial Japanese Navy. On 20 October, United States troops invaded the island of Leyte as part of a strategy aimed at isolating Japan from the countries it had occupied in South East Asia, and in particular depriving its forces and industry of vital oil supplies. The Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) mobilized nearly all of its remaining major naval vessels in an attempt to defeat the Allied invasion, but was repulsed by the U.S. Navy's 3rd and 7th Fleets. The IJN failed to achieve its objective, suffered very heavy losses, and never afterwards sailed to battle in comparable force. The majority of its surviving heavy ships, deprived of fuel, remained in their bases for the rest of the Pacific War.[3][4]

The Battle of Leyte Gulf consisted of four separate engagements between the opposing forces: the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea, the Battle of Surigao Strait, the Battle of Cape Engaño and the Battle off Samar, as well as other actions.

The Battle of Leyte Gulf is also notable as the first battle in which Japanese aircraft carried out organized kamikaze attacks.[3][4] Also worth noting is the fact that Japan at this battle had fewer aircraft than the Allied Forces had sea vessels, a clear demonstration of the difference in power of the two sides at this point of the war.[5]
<snip>

[Gob]

It was fought in waters near the Philippine islands of Leyte, Samar from 23–26 October 1944, between combined US and Australian forces and the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Do we owe you any tax from that?

[Jarlaxle]

Near the Philippines, Jarl.


From Wiki:

The Battle of Leyte Gulf, also called the "Battles for Leyte Gulf", and formerly known as the "Second Battle of the Philippine Sea", is generally considered to be the largest naval battle of World War II and, by some criteria, possibly the largest naval battle in history.[2]

It was fought in waters near the Philippine islands of Leyte, Samar from 23–26 October 1944, between combined US and Australian forces and the Imperial Japanese Navy. On 20 October, United States troops invaded the island of Leyte as part of a strategy aimed at isolating Japan from the countries it had occupied in South East Asia, and in particular depriving its forces and industry of vital oil supplies. The Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) mobilized nearly all of its remaining major naval vessels in an attempt to defeat the Allied invasion, but was repulsed by the U.S. Navy's 3rd and 7th Fleets. The IJN failed to achieve its objective, suffered very heavy losses, and never afterwards sailed to battle in comparable force. The majority of its surviving heavy ships, deprived of fuel, remained in their bases for the rest of the Pacific War.[3][4]

The Battle of Leyte Gulf consisted of four separate engagements between the opposing forces: the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea, the Battle of Surigao Strait, the Battle of Cape Engaño and the Battle off Samar, as well as other actions.

The Battle of Leyte Gulf is also notable as the first battle in which Japanese aircraft carried out organized kamikaze attacks.[3][4] Also worth noting is the fact that Japan at this battle had fewer aircraft than the Allied Forces had sea vessels, a clear demonstration of the difference in power of the two sides at this point of the war.[5]
<snip>

*facepalm*

I know that...I meant where HE was, as in: what ship was he on? There were three different USN task forces. (Halsey's carrier fleet, Ohlendorf's bombardment group, & the jeep carriers supporting the landing)

[dales]

Sorry Jarl, I only have the letter from Forstal (sp?) Sec. of the Navy with his citation.

I've misplaced the blasted thing, if I come upon it.....I'll let you know.

This I do know:

He was a Lt. Commander in the USN and was awarded the Bronze Star for piloting an LST under fire aiding the landing of men and supplies.

edited to add:

My old man was in North Africa (USN) and those d@mned French fired upon his ship. (Oran, Algeria).

[Andrew D]

They ain't going to tax us for it then?

No, lamentably, we are not.

I think he was actually taking a piss at Andrew's line, that the rest of the world should be paying protection money to the US ....

Nailed it!

A sad thing it is that "taking a piss" can be treated as a reasonable alternative to presenting reasoned argument.

No one, as far as I have seen, disputes that the U.S. provides a valuable service to other nations by protecting free shipping on the high seas. (If anyone has a reason to dispute that assertion, please bring it on.)

So why should the U.S. not charge the beneficiaries for that service? In other words, what entitles those beneficiaries to that service for free?

I have seen many irate responses to my suggestion. But I have yet to see any answer to the question.

Why is that? Hmmm ....

Could it be that freeloaders love freeloading? No! Perish the thought!

It must be something else. It must be ... well ... um ... it must be something else, dammit!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well Andrew, I think it may be something like (but not the same as) if you came over here and made sure all the robots (traffic lights) were green along Zastron Street just as I happened to drive down there - I'd appreciate the coincidence but wouldn't owe you a cent.

Or perhaps better, suppose you decided to come over here and shoot every police officer who tried to shake down motorists on speeding tickets? Aside from a very sore trigger finger you'd have a hard time collecting a reward from the motorists in the area

I assume the U.S. pursues its foreign policy from enlightened self-interest - although I admit that 'enlightened' may be a stretch.

Remember the old joke. US battleship signals British destroyer "how's the world's second biggest navy?"
Return signal: "Very well thank you. How's the world's second best?"

So long and thanks for all the fish
Meade

[Gob]

So why should the U.S. not charge the beneficiaries for that service? In other words, what entitles those beneficiaries to that service for free?

I have seen many irate responses to my suggestion. But I have yet to see any answer to the question.

Stupid childish questions do not deserve serious answers.

Why is that? Hmmm ....

Could it be that freeloaders love freeloading? No! Perish the thought!

It must be something else. It must be ... well ... um ... it must be something else, dammit!

Yes, it may be due to us being too busy laughing at you.

[Andrew D]

Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings ....

A fool's laughter is quickly gone, like thorns crackling in a fire.

[Andrew D]

Well Andrew, I think it may be something like (but not the same as) if you came over here and made sure all the robots (traffic lights) were green along Zastron Street just as I happened to drive down there - I'd appreciate the coincidence but wouldn't owe you a cent.

Well, General, suppose that I have been making those lights green for you for some time without charging you for that service. Then I stopped making those lights green for you, and you found yourself having to stop at red lights far more often than before. Then I told you that I would resume making those lights green for you, but you would have to pay me for that service. Setting aside the amounts of any such payments (they would be negotiable), would it be unreasonable for me to decline to resume providing that service for free?

Remember the old joke. US battleship signals British destroyer "how's the world's second biggest navy?"
Return signal: "Very well thank you. How's the world's second best?"

When was the last time that the US navy and the British navy fought each other?

Oh, yeah. The War of 1812. The war in which the US navy won -- the US navy beat the British navy more often than the British navy beat the US navy -- in high-seas battles. No other nation had ever done that, and during the life of the British Empire, no other nation ever did it.

And modernly, the "joke" would read: "US battleship signals British destroyer 'how's world's fifth (maybe) biggest navy?' Return signal: 'Very well, thank you. How's the the navy that is more powerful than all the world's other navies combined?' Reply signal: 'The only big dog is doing fine, thanks. How are the pups?'"

I assume the U.S. pursues its foreign policy from enlightened self-interest - although I admit that 'enlightened' may be a stretch.

I agree about the stretch. For example, I find it hard to see how protecting Australia's shipping trade with its biggest trade partner -- the People's Republic of China -- for free serves the US's enlightened self-interest.

The fact remains that for all its faults, the US is the most benign superpower the world has ever known. Sure, we've done some nasty things, but since our ascension to superpower status, we have been relative saints compared to the British Empire (whom we defeated twice), the Roman Empire, or any other superpower.

And that is a good thing. When it comes to superpowers, I am all in favor of benignity.

But it hardly behooves nations which, by virtue of the US's benignity, now enjoy standards of living higher than those enjoyed by people in the US to whinge at the idea that they should compensate the US for what the US provides. That is the behavior of petulant children.

[MajGenl.Meade]

"Well, General, suppose that I have been making those lights green for you for some time without charging you for that service. Then I stopped making those lights green for you, and you found yourself having to stop at red lights far more often than before. Then I told you that I would resume making those lights green for you, but you would have to pay me for that service. Setting aside the amounts of any such payments (they would be negotiable), would it be unreasonable for me to decline to resume providing that service for free?"

Is it? Nie koop, shame bru! You can stand at the first red robot with the guys selling mobile phone chargers, sunglasses and with "David - lapa, electric, plummer" written on cardboard. I just take the N1 to Eufees, past Noordhoek to Milner, hang a left at the roundie and go on Wilcox to Rudolf Greyling (that's pronounced "Hryling") and then on the N8 to the airport road. Not even one traffic light for over 25km.

When considering the War of 1812, many Americans focus on the U.S. Navy's stirring victories over the Royal Navy in frigate duels. The British, however, emerged from the conflict with total command of the oceans and broad experience in blockade and amphibious operations

http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhist ... l-war-1812

Defeated twice? The first time it was the French without whom etc etc etc. The second time didya burn London, huh? Didja? Nie man, we kicked ass until both sides got tired and signed a peace treaty. Then then that New Orleans thing happened after it was all done.

And oddly enough, the first time was all down to the Americans not wanting to pay their fair share of the cost of protecting them from marauders on sea and on land. Cheap bastards

Yours
Burgoyne