|
>> I was questioning whether Australia's war involvement -prior to its
>> confrontation of the Japanese following the direct attacks on Australia in WW2
>> - could be seen as a fight for freedom. Then I thought of this question, any
>> answers to which would be appreciated... Yes, it was a fight for freedom. Just like the later cold war, and the current
war on Islamofacism. My relationship with Australian society is a coalition of
force - which (for all its faults and attempts to control my life and property)
will unite with me against the forces of evil. Australia's relationship with
the civilized world is pretty much the same. The coalition of the willing is a
statement that we will unite to defeat those forces. The place to fight tyranny is at its source - not at your front door. >> Would the US have defended the South Pacific (and Australia as a result) as
>> fiercely as it did if Australia had not been in the war prior to the direct
>> attack on it? Perhaps not, but the more important question is whether they would do so again.
Australia is one of the largest countries in the world, and when its 'sphere of
influence' is taken into account may be the largest. It is not in the interest
of the US to lose nearly half of the southern hemisphere to a hostile force. Being nice to the Americans occasionally is a small price to pay for the
perception in the hearts of the American public. Likewise the free trade
agreement is a highly powerful symbol of unity. >> (I'm presuming that there would have been a direct attack even if we were
>> not in the war - given the promise of looting Australian resources.) Quite right - curling up into a little ball and hoping they will go away doesn't
work. Freedom comes out the barrel of a gun.
| 
