WAS I being an arsehole?

I literally said Army served in the Pacific too.

I'm British (I take it you're American) and I'm paying more respect to US Army personnel and soldiers who served in the Pacific Theatre than you are! I'm at least acknowledging their service (and backing it up with the actual diversionary statistics for the Pacific Theatre of War).

Fair enough OP made a generalization, I was simply saying Army also served there, and it could POSSIBLY have been someone in the Army rather than a Marine, and you were quick enough to discredit that and insult me.

At what point was I "butthurt"? Usually someone who is like that will start insulting said "butthurter", in which case I have refrained from doing, attempting to keep this debate formal and mature.

I HAVE posted numbers - the ACTUAL divisions that served in the Pacific, and have even accepted your point as to the fact that the Marines fought in many engagements. What percentages will back up my argument as to whether the soldier in said picture was a Marine or not? Other than the fact that I've literally shown you how many US Army divisions fought in the Pacific.

You want some more facts?

The 32nd ID (infantry division) an ARMY division fought in the Pacific, was one of the FIRST US Divisions to go on the offensive out of all US Armed forces in 1942, and they stayed in combat for a total of 654 days - longer than any other unit. They were even in combat AFTER the Japanese surrender.

The US 7th Division took the highest casualties in the Pacific for an Army Division, suffering 9212 casualties. The unit fought in the Aleutian Campaign, the Marshall Islands, Leyte and Okinawa.

Do you understand why I simply mentioned that OP shouldn't forget that US army served in the Pacific also, and that the soldier in the picture POSSIBLY wasn't a Marine.

Have some respect mate!