India, US join hands to make futuristic soldier

i agree whole heartly with white here, check your facts before you make quick assumptions about china, it may be communist but im still proud to be half chinese

China was never communist, no country has achieved Communism, only socialism, which is the "transition government" to Communism. Right now China is using more like a socialist-capitalist hybrid system. What most people are complaining about regarding the CCP is actually the fact that it's a politically authoritarian oligarchy, not that it's Communist, for it is not (but they often mistake it to be and put all the blame on the nonexistant Communist ideology which they believe it goes by). Besides, if it were communist, the CCP government people wouldn't be greedy, power hungry, and abusive of the poor, like most regard them to be, since everybody in a real Communist state should be equal. Some say there probably wouldn't even be a government in a real Communist state!

[edit on 6-6-2005 by Taishyou]

hmm....isnt it still possible china is just proud and is buildin up such a milltary, because they never want to be atacked again? it just seems everyone is so damn paranoid here

Originally posted by Char2c35t
China is even more unproven in war than the russians are let alone the US which has been engaging in fighting, oh if you didnt know that a veteran military always kicks the crap out of a green army ask the french.

Yes, we've so far learned:
A) American can give us false information.
B) They can invade a small nation with a limited army and still not hold it successfully.
C) They can invade another Nation and turn it into the largest exporter of heroin on the planet.
...list can go on.

They're amazingly good at winning wars as long as they're not fighting a strong nation once they do well...look at Vietnam and Korea.

Edit:

By your logic, going by the fact the longer a Nation exists the better they are at War, America can't beat China. China as a nation has existed for over 6000 years. :| Logic boy.

[edit on 6-6-2005 by Odium]

By your logic, going by the fact the longer a Nation exists the better they are at War, America can't beat China. China as a nation has existed for over 6000 years. :| Logic boy.

At most one could say they've existed as a people, but not as a nation.

They're amazingly good at winning wars as long as they're not fighting a strong nation once they do well...look at Vietnam and Korea.

We never invaded during Vietnam, and if one looks at the casualties inflicted, America had about over a 20:1 kill ratio. That's pretty damn good.

In Korea, we beat the hell out of North Korea, and we were simply blind sided by the Chinese. Once again, against the Chinese forces alone we had well over a 10:1 kill ratio (I'm comparing all Chinese casualties to all American casualties, so this number is really probably far more in favor of America).

We still pushed China all the way back to the original borders, and could have gone farther had the American public cared to keep fighting.

B) They can invade a small nation with a limited army and still not hold it successfully.

We are holding it successfully. Anyone who has actually looked a military history wouldn't be surprised at the current situation. Insurgencies can last years after any invasion, and usually do. It's almost impossible to stop this with brute strength.

And the only reason Iraq had a "limited" army is because America destroyed it all in the Gulf War in a matter of hours. Back then, Iraq had one of the largest militaries in the world, including the third highest number of tanks.

id like to see you get away with that numbnuts, ever heard of two things, geneva convention and the media, way to ho showing american ignorance, despite how big your country is, youd never get away with war crimes to that scale, id like to see you try and kill civilians though, scumbag, you disgust me

We wouldn't get away with it? Honestly, who would stop us?

china does follow the geneva convention. in the korean war the americans treated the chinese soldiers like shiet while the chinese treated them very well.

Where do you get this?

Is anyone supposed to believe a nation that doesn't even treat its own people well is going to treat POW's well?

wow the japanese war machine. america out-classed japan in inovation and production. and the western front in ww2 againest germany . the russians took over 70% of the german army by itself for over 3 years

No they didn't. There was never over 70% of the German army facing the Russians. And by the time the Western front started, they were only facing about half.

And none of what Russia did would have even been possible without the massive amounts of supplies we gave them.

great, so now we have a chinese egotist, a indian egotist, an a big american egotist, id hate to break it to you yet again about how america isnt oh so as powerful and great as you think, you phrase your comments on about how china hasnt won any wars like YOU won them, despite the fact that korea wasnt won by anyone, and lets not even go there about vietnam, you can claim to of won those if you want, but for the sake of the argument, dont use them, youll only make yourself look ignorant

China lost a war to Vietnam in the late 70's. It was rather bloody. The real sad thing is, though, the Chinese were fighting open battles. America never lost an open battle against Vietnam.

the russians on the other hand had almost unlimited resources with over 6million men under arms on the eastern front

Not true. By the end of the war, the Russians were almost completely depleted of men.

ww2- china won
korea- draw(fighting the worlds most powerful #ries by itself)
vietnam- china had 200,000 soldiers stationed for air defence and contruction work
1962- china won by a mile

WW2 - I think you mean America won that for you
Vietnam - You were forced to withdraw your forces after taking heavy casualties, and Vietnam had been able to launch a counter-attack against you. Not much to be proud of.

Kill ratio doesn't determine who wins wars. It's objectives achieved that counts. The US just happens to not have as many troops as some armies (too many couch potatoes) so it has to rely on higher kill ratios. Even then, its political structure prevents it from winning certain wars. In the Vietnam war, for example, the US withdrawal was inevitable, because the public would not support a 10+ year long war. Had the US troops stayed any longer, the public would've gone out of control and the country would've become unstable, and the troops would have to be withdrawn anyway. The NVA could've kept it up longer. They're more determined and do not have to keep on ferrying expensive equipment all the way over the Pacific Ocean. It was probably Ho Chi Mihn's strategy in the first place to drag the war on and on and slowly bleed the US economy and public support away until it leaves, which it did.

As for the Sino-Vietnam war that followed, if I remember correctly the objective of the Chinese was not to occupy the country, but to provoke the USSR and prove that the USSR does not have the willpower to support Vietnam (at that time China was against the USSR-Vietnam relationship). Several Vietnamese cities were captured and the Soviets never came, so the Chinese declared victory and went home.

[edit on 6-6-2005 by Taishyou]

Kill ratio doesn't determine who wins wars. It's objectives achieved that counts. The US just happens to not have as many troops as some armies (too many couch potatoes) so it has to rely on higher kill ratios.

No one can knock the American war machine. It's shown its capability time and time again. It's easily the most efficient in the world today, and if used more, would easily be comparable to the Roman legions in that respect.. And a war with China is an all out war. People who try and compare our actions in Iraq to China aren't being logical.

Even then, its political structure prevents it from winning certain wars. In the Vietnam war, for example, the US withdrawal was inevitable, because the public would not support a 10+ year long war. Had the US troops stayed any longer, the public would've gone out of control and the country would've become unstable, and the troops would have to be withdrawn anyway. The NVA could've kept it up longer. They're more determined and do not have to keep on ferrying expensive equipment all the way over the Pacific Ocean. It was probably Ho Chi Mihn's strategy in the first place to drag the war on and on and slowly bleed the US economy and public support away until it leaves, which it did.

Well, first, when one looks at it from a purely economical and military stance, America could have kept going on with Vietnam for eternity at the rate we were going.

We weren't running out of cash or manpower anytime soon.

But the war was always winnable. Politicians were conducted that war. It would have been over in less than a year had we been able to invade the North.

You can not win a war by playing purely defense. Politicians need to realize that.

As for the Sino-Vietnam war that followed, if I remember correctly the objective of the Chinese was not to occupy the country, but to provoke the USSR and prove that the USSR does not have the willpower to support Vietnam (at that time China was against the USSR-Vietnam relationship). Several Vietnamese cities were captured and the Soviets never came, so the Chinese declared victory and went home.

Purpose according to who? The Chinese never said this was their goal. They said they were invading to avenge mistreatment of ethnic Chinese in Vietnam, and the fact that Vietnam was occupying lands they claimed.

And the Chinese were forced out by the Vietnamese. There was no orderly withdrawl.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Well, first, when one looks at it from a purely economical and military stance,

You can't. Since the US is a democratic country, it also has to take public support into account, otherwise the party in power gets kicked out by force if not in an election. That's the weakness of democracy when it comes to wars, public support is often the first to run out in case of war.

They said they were invading to avenge mistreatment of ethnic Chinese in Vietnam

That's more like the official excuse they used to start the war. There were more reasons than that, including Vietnamese invasion of Chinese backed Cambodia and, the breakup of PRC with USSR, and the Vietnam-USSR relationship. Basically, the PRC was just mad with the USSR and Vietnam and decided to "slap them." Their goals in this war was not very clear but obviously it's not to take over Vietnam, so they have to withdraw one time or another. It was a pretty wierd war.

try attacking a country in pure deffense then, id like to see you try and tell the media how your gonna get away with attacking a country that sells high end exports to most of your country

Stealth Gandhi was not the worst leader in history..plz don't preach your hindu fanatic sermons here..

chinawhite your signature is void.. THe J-7 may be licnesed but it CANNOT BE MARKETED TO OTHER COUNTRIES W/O PERMISSION OF THE RUSSIANS..

thats what the chinese did...

As for china impenetrable.. not at all..
as chinawhite and I have been arguing.. China is VERY weak in the west...
China will not be able to hold a pincer war with the US and India.. for that matter no country would..

[edit on 7-6-2005 by Daedalus3]

We never invaded during Vietnam, and if one looks at the casualties inflicted, America had about over a 20:1 kill ratio. That's pretty damn good.

In Korea, we beat the hell out of North Korea, and we were simply blind sided by the Chinese. Once again, against the Chinese forces alone we had well over a 10:1 kill ratio (I'm comparing all Chinese casualties to all American casualties, so this number is really probably far more in favor of America).

We still pushed China all the way back to the original borders, and could have gone farther had the American public cared to keep fighting.

prety damn good killing civillians.

how much casulties do you think the chinese suffered and the americans suffered then ill answer your question

and china still wanted to continue but the americans threatned if the korean war didn't end then they would nuke us. the americans asked for peace.

Where do you get this?

Is anyone supposed to believe a nation that doesn't even treat its own people well is going to treat POW's well?

www.icrc.org...

No they didn't. There was never over 70% of the German army facing the Russians. And by the time the Western front started, they were only facing about half.

And none of what Russia did would have even been possible without the massive amounts of supplies we gave them.

Operation Barbarossa germany had 75% of her armed forces on the russian front .

208 german divisions in all 153 were station in eastern front

not including the other 50 axis divisions+bridges from german satillites

go do some research on german military deployment.

China lost a war to Vietnam in the late 70's. It was rather bloody. The real sad thing is, though, the Chinese were fighting open battles. America never lost an open battle against Vietnam.

are you that stupid. china never lost to vietnam. china done a limited invasion of vietnam to teach them a lesson for invading cambodia and to show that the soviet union is not a trusted friend.

It was politally sucessful but was not very sucessful military wise.

we even gave them 2 days to prepare to be invaded.

www.answers.com...

it was limited war 85,000-120,000 chinese troops vs 100,000 vietnese milita
airforce was involed.

china didn't lose a open battle in vietnam either.

Not true. By the end of the war, the Russians were almost completely depleted of men.

RUssia lost 20million men women and children in ww2.

ww2- china won

WW2 - I think you mean America won that for you
Vietnam - You were forced to withdraw your forces after taking heavy casualties, and Vietnam had been able to launch a counter-attack against you. Not much to be proud of.

China was on the winning side. wasnt it?

sino-vietnam war 1979. very limited war. china withdrew on her own

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Purpose according to who? The Chinese never said this was their goal. They said they were invading to avenge mistreatment of ethnic Chinese in Vietnam, and the fact that Vietnam was occupying lands they claimed.

And the Chinese were forced out by the Vietnamese. There was no orderly withdrawl.

read any articles on the matter i think you will find out that you have no proof of that claim.

i think your refering to the 1962 sino-indian war.

in the later stages of the war vietnese forces were using gureilla tactics.

hmm lets think about it this way.....whats better, a country that hasnt started any wars yet and is just building up a army? or a country known and proven to start many wars wide spread and everywhere?

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
In Korea, we beat the hell out of North Korea, and we were simply blind sided by the Chinese. Once again, against the Chinese forces alone we had well over a 10:1 kill ratio (I'm comparing all Chinese casualties to all American casualties, so this number is really probably far more in favor of America).

We still pushed China all the way back to the original borders, and could have gone farther had the American public cared to keep fighting.

China didn't get invovled till the South Korean Army (with help from the American Army) reached the Yula River, which is in North Korea. Last time I checked when China got involved the South Korean military and the the American Military actually got pushed back.

Also how do you get blind sided when the Chinese gave over 10 warnings to the America/South Korean troops that if they attempted to cross the Yula river China would get involved? Even warning them about moving the troops any further forward, which they did.

Simple fact is, America/South Korea lost land, China lost nothing. Which is amusing since the whole of the United Nations forces were backing South Korea (15 different member states gave forces to the conflict). Even attacking China on several different flanks at once, all of which China managed to regain and control holding them at the 38th parallel.

See R. E. Appleman, South to the Nakong, North to the Yalu (1961); D. Rees, Korea (1964); B. I. Kaufman, The Korean War (1986); I. F. Stone, The Hidden History of the Korean War (1988); C. Blair, The Forgotten War (1989); S. Weintraub, MacArthur's War: Korea and the Undoing of an American Hero (2000).

Originally posted by blue cell
Its good that the US is joining India to develop systems for our infantry, and also high alttitude sickness, and vaccines against biological and chemical weapons. I think we should look at every countries speciality and join with them to make our and their military's more advanced and efficent.

I agree to that to a certain extent. The only thing i see wrong with joining other counties, is that they know what your going to use in the military. But their are more pros to joining, than their are cons. So i'm happy with the idea of working with other countries.

to me though, perhaps whoever is american biased shouldnt comment, theyre sounding like the agressor, as usual

prety damn good killing civillians.

We killed over a million North Vietnamese soldiers, and those are by the numbers released by Vietnam itself.

how much casulties do you think the chinese suffered and the americans suffered then ill answer your question

I never asked a question...

Either way, the Chinese took over half a million casualties, and America took 50,000 throughout the entire war.

and china still wanted to continue but the americans threatned if the korean war didn't end then they would nuke us. the americans asked for peace.

Bull. We in fact got rid of MacArthur because he brought up using nukes.

Operation Barbarossa germany had 75% of her armed forces on the russian front .

And they declined every year after that point, and were finally down to about 50% around D-Day.

it was limited war 85,000-120,000 chinese troops vs 100,000 vietnese milita
airforce was involed.

china didn't lose a open battle in vietnam either.

You may not have "lost" a battle, but you took some 60,000 casualties facing Vietnam's militia (there best troops didn't even participate in the war) while holding numerical superioity.

Vietnam was also able to bring the war into China.

There's a reason the war is forgotten in China...

China was on the winning side. wasnt it?

Only because of America, who you then stabbed in the back following the end of the war.

sino-vietnam war 1979. very limited war. china withdrew on her own

It's widely debated whether the Chinese withdrew on their own. Considering that they achieved nothing in the end, and took 60,000 casualties against Vietnam's worst forces, it seems more likely they were forced out.

in the later stages of the war vietnese forces were using gureilla tactics.

The war only lasted a few weeks...

hmm lets think about it this way.....whats better, a country that hasnt started any wars yet and is just building up a army? or a country known and proven to start many wars wide spread and everywhere?

Meaningless. This isn't a topic about politics, but war. It's not about who is the nicer or more morale country.

[quote]http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList571/CC22D13FF9E0EDC6C1256B66005F9D71

Right. Because China talks nice that means they follow through when they actually fight, right?

North Korean and Chinese troops tortured and executed prisoners on a number of occasions, including shooting wounded soldiers lying at their feet

en.wikipedia.org...

Also how do you get blind sided when the Chinese gave over 10 warnings to the America/South Korean troops that if they attempted to cross the Yula river China would get involved? Even warning them about moving the troops any further forward, which they did.

I never said America didn't make mistakes. Our leadership screwed up and missed the Chinese buildup of troops. That does not state anything about the militaries of both nations. There is little doubt as to which side performed better in that war. You only have to look at the lopsided kill ratio.

And this was a war on pretty much even terms. Most American equipment at the beginning didn't work because we tore down our military after WW2. The Chinese troops had superior numbers by far. The communist forces held air superiority for about half the war.

China didn't get invovled till the South Korean Army (with help from the American Army) reached the Yula River, which is in North Korea. Last time I checked when China got involved the South Korean military and the the American Military actually got pushed back.

Our forces were spread out across the North and unprepared for an attack. It's not much of an accomplishment to drive us back under such a circumstance. And America ended up pushing China back to the original borders of the whole conflict.

Simple fact is, America/South Korea lost land, China lost nothing. Which is amusing since the whole of the United Nations forces were backing South Korea (15 different member states gave forces to the conflict). Even attacking China on several different flanks at once, all of which China managed to regain and control holding them at the 38th parallel.

Of course China didn't loose land. The war wasn't fought in China. And South Korea didn't loose land, as the war ended at just about the same spot it started.

And how, exactly, did American forces attack China on multiple flanks, considering the fact that it was fought on only one front?

And the fact that you'd add up the numbers of nations and use that to show China performed well only shows how illogical you are. Most of the forces were American, and China held massive numerical superiority.

to me though, perhaps whoever is american biased shouldnt comment, theyre sounding like the agressor, as usual

Who cares if we're the aggressors? We act first because we can. Other nations don't because they're too weak.

prety damn good killing civillians.

We killed over a million North Vietnamese soldiers, and those are by the numbers released by Vietnam itself.

So how many civilians?

Either way, the Chinese took over half a million casualties, and America took 50,000 throughout the entire war.

You may not have "lost" a battle, but you took some 60,000 casualties facing Vietnam's militia (there best troops didn't even participate in the war) while holding numerical superioity.

Casualties has nothing to do with winning wars. It's objectives achieved that matters. Say you went to some country, kill a fell million ppl, right, lose no troops, and go home accompolishing nothing. Can you say you won a war?

China was on the winning side. wasnt it?

Only because of America, who you then stabbed in the back following the end of the war.

It was the KMT that the US supported. The CCP didn't like the US the whole time.

It's widely debated whether the Chinese withdrew on their own. Considering that they achieved nothing in the end, and took 60,000 casualties against Vietnam's worst forces, it seems more likely they were forced out.

There were no clear goals in the first place. Basically they just wanted to attack Vietnam for the hell of it because Vietnam pissed them off. They went to Vietnam with the reason of "let's teach them a lesson." Later they probably figured out it was a silly idea.

North Korean and Chinese troops tortured and executed prisoners on a number of occasions, including shooting wounded soldiers lying at their feet

I wouldn't be surprised if they have. Many countries do stuff like this, like US POW abusers at Abu Gharib.

And how, exactly, did American forces attack China on multiple flanks, considering the fact that it was fought on only one front?

One front doesn't necessarily mean you cannot be outflanked. The battlefield isn't a straight line, but jagged.

[edit on 7-6-2005 by Taishyou]

So how many civilians?

How does that make any bit of difference when it comes to this topic? It doesn't. It would only serve to try and make America look bad.

This is a topic purely about military technology and capabilities.

Casualties has nothing to do with winning wars. It's objectives achieved that matters. Say you went to some country, kill a fell million ppl, right, lose no troops, and go home accompolishing nothing. Can you say you won a war?

Once again, the point wasn't to show that we won the war, but how the American military performed.

It was the KMT that the US supported. The CCP didn't like the US the whole time.

It doesn't even make a difference whether whether they were communists or not. Their nation would have been at the mercy of Japan if it weren't for us. They could only repay our favor by attacking us.

There were no clear goals in the first place. Basically they just wanted to attack Vietnam for the hell of it because Vietnam pissed them off. They went to Vietnam with the reason of "let's teach them a lesson." Later they probably figured out it was a silly idea.

Yea, they realized it was "silly" after they suffered far more casualties then they expected against the militia of Vietnam...

What do you think would have happened once China ran into Vietnam's veterans?

I wouldn't be surprised if they have. Many countries do stuff like this, like US POW abusers at Abu Gharib

You know, you could at least point out real atrocities commited by our military (could even have found real examples from Korea) insteadd of what amounts of a little humiliation of mostly scumbags. What happened at Abu Ghraib is hardly torture, or comparable to what happened to American POW's in the hands of the Chinese.

And my point wasn't to demonize the Chinese. I was merely showing that the statement that the abuse was one sided, and purely by America was false.

One front doesn't necessarily mean you cannot be outflanked. The battlefield isn't a straight line, but jagged.

And when did America ever get to launch an attack on China's flanks? We fought was basically amounted to a war of attrition with the Chinese.

The sad thing is, even with superior numbers, the Chinese were still loosing.

We killed over a million North Vietnamese soldiers, and those are by the numbers released by Vietnam itself.

yeah did they ever check to see if they killed civillans. can you quote your source?

I never asked a question...

Either way, the Chinese took over half a million casualties, and America took 50,000 throughout the entire war.

the americans took 157000+ casualties.

Bull. We in fact got rid of MacArthur because he brought up using nukes.

in the early years of the war.

you got rid of him in 1951. then the war became more calm

And they declined every year after that point, and were finally down to about 50% around D-Day.

quote some sources.

You may not have "lost" a battle, but you took some 60,000 casualties facing Vietnam's militia (there best troops didn't even participate in the war) while holding numerical superioity.

Vietnam was also able to bring the war into China.

There's a reason the war is forgotten in China...

chinas best troops didn't even parictipate in the war. vietnamse milita + soldiers. vietnam is not stupid leaving their most threatened areas protected by milta.

Vietnam never crossed in or near chinese terrioty.

that war has never been forgotten. not until the late 1980's the border had been demiliterisled

Only because of America, who you then stabbed in the back following the end of the war.

america didn't help china in the chinese threate. they were to busy in the pacific.

china never stabbed US in the back. america were supporting KMT which only controled very small area of china. the US never helped the CCCP.

the americans didn't want to reconize china as a country

how can china stab US in the back when the US didn't want to be friends.

It's widely debated whether the Chinese withdrew on their own. Considering that they achieved nothing in the end, and took 60,000 casualties against Vietnam's worst forces, it seems more likely they were forced out.

if they inflicted 60,000 causulties then china wouldn't have got 80% of their forces back.

Do you know the back ground of the war??? you dont even know why china went to war commenting on it like you know what objectives they had

Vietnams milita was as well armed as their regular forces.

china caputered 7 vietnamese cities and 6 of their provinces.

The war only lasted a few weeks...

yeah lasted a few weeks.. first few days the vietnamese threw their forces to try stop the chinese. they suffered very heavy casulties.

Right. Because China talks nice that means they follow through when they actually fight, right?

North Korean and Chinese troops tortured and executed prisoners on a number of occasions, including shooting wounded soldiers lying at their feet

english.people.com.cn...

www.centurychina.com...

I never said America didn't make mistakes. Our leadership screwed up and missed the Chinese buildup of troops. That does not state anything about the militaries of both nations. There is little doubt as to which side performed better in that war. You only have to look at the lopsided kill ratio.

And this was a war on pretty much even terms. Most American equipment at the beginning didn't work because we tore down our military after WW2. The Chinese troops had superior numbers by far. The communist forces held air superiority for about half the war.

chinese equipment were left over japanese ww2 equipment. running out of ammo. american equipment

19. What was the PVA and UN numerical strength at various stages of the Korean war?

Both sides had about the same numerical strength.

The first batch of PVA consisted of the 13th and 9th Army Group plus 3 artillery divisions, about 270,000 men.

At the peak time, total PVA and NKPA strength reached 1.2 million during the Korean war.

In June 1951, right after the 5th campaign, UN total strength was 695,110, with 520,850 ground force (US 253100, ROK 229600, other 38150), 80340 navy (US 66700, ROK 6000, other 7640) and 94520 air force (US 90000, ROK 4000, other 520). At the same time, PVA strength was about 240,000, much lower than total UN strength.

At the end of war, from PVA statistics, UN total strength was 1,111,340 (1.11134 million), ground force 904,550 (US 373,500, ROK 491,000, other 40050), navy 101,180 (US 73000, ROK 20000, other 8180), air force 105,610 (US 95000, ROK 10000, other 610). From western source (Korean Almanac), UN ground forces strength was slightly higher with a total of 932,539 (US 302483, ROK 590911, other 39145). PVA counted 70000 more US troops, this was probably because many ROKs (KATUSAs) were serving in US forces and counted as US strength by PVA.

In the war, PVA rotated about 2 million troops, US used 86% of its infantry and 14% of its Marine Corps, rotated over 1.319 million troops .

numerial superioty...hardly. western sources quote large numbers because they are so ill'informed by their own militaries

the communists forces never held air superioty.
communist fighters and bombers were stuck fighting the american forces in MIG alley



the americans enjoyed air superioty ever since they entered the war.

Our forces were spread out across the North and unprepared for an attack. It's not much of an accomplishment to drive us back under such a circumstance. And America ended up pushing China back to the original borders of the whole conflict.

how long did the americans take to regroup. the legendary american army.
the chinese overstreched their supply lines. they just sent a small portion of their forces to fellow the americans pass soul



[edit on 8-6-2005 by chinawhite]