I just wish to take Josh up on one point of history. No GIs died defending Australia against the Japanese. The US was fighting its own war against Japan in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Australia was a convenient base for the Americans in fighting their war but they were not defending Australia.
If Japan had attacked Sydney Harbour instead of Pearl Harbor the Americans would not have lifted a finger to help us. Pearl Harbor was in December 1941 - where were the American forces helping us before then?

It is often claimed that we owe the USA a debt for their help in saving us from the Japanese. In my opinion we owe no debt at all. This is not to deny that it was the USA which ultimately defeated Japan but it was not done with the aim of saving us.

Whether the US Alliance serves any useful purpose in our security arrangements now is something which can be debated. But please don't tie it to the "debt" we owe for saving us in WWII.

Unbelieveable. So if all those 100,000s of Japanese troops fighting in the Pacific weren't engaged in fighting the USA, that wouldn't have affected Australia.
The entry of US Forces into WW1 DIDN'T effect the course of the war.

Thanks Roscoe, ever heard of the Battle for the Coral Sea? Do you understand it's signifigance & who actually fought it? It seems not since you believe that no GI died defending Aiustralia.

Just where were the Japanese Imperial Forces heading as they lumbered Sth only to be stopped by the US Fleet in the Coral Sea, New Zealand? Antartica? .......
or prehaps Australia.

The whole problem with a debate like this is that we talk about the "US" doing things or "Australia". It is the Bush Administration that carries out initiatives - not the "US" (which is a term of convenience). By using the term "US" we often hide the fact that many people in America actually oppose the Bush Administration (really the Cheney Administration) and its foreign policy. And the "US" did not fight World War II in the Pacific. That was the US armed forces under Douglas Macarthur who, don't forget, kindly abandoned Australian soldiers to the Japanese forces in the Philippines. Members of the current US Government, such as Cheney and Bush, managed to get out of serious military service.

So, if I'm labelled "anti-American" for criticising foreign policy directed from Washington DC, then I'm actually in the same company as millions of Americans - including many non-leftist Americans.

I see several very strong personal characteristics described in this article - such as a tendency to overstate my anti-"US" sentiment despite a clear and deep belief that I'd rather have the US as the sole super-power than almost any other state in the world (possible exception of the UK).

I think one aspect of Australian character that this article alluded to but missed is the tendency to be a much harsher critic of your friends than your collegues. I feel free to criticise the US much more than China because I identify with the US more and the criticism is tempered coming from a friend. Also because I expect more of the US, and am angered more when they fail to live up to my expectations.

Sayeret, of course the Japanese could have invaded Australia except for the entry of America into the war after Pearl Harbor. My point is that the USA did NOT enter the war to save Australia but because it was fighting its own war. The reality is that Australia supported America in fighting its war, not the other way around.

We owe America no debt for saving us from Japanese invasion. We may want an alliance with America for other reasons ( although personally I don't support it) but not because of WWII.

Like many people I think both Al Quaeda and the Bush Administration are vindictive knuckleheads who claim God is on their side. However one group is loose-knit and the other represents a nation state that is supposed to have internal checks and balances. That's why the present direction of the US is more disturbing.