India, US join hands to make futuristic soldier

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:28 AM
link   

You said the Americans gave aid to China. They did, but during the war and a while after that in 1946 when the KMT was in power. When the CCP took over, there was no aid whatsoever coming from America. Militarily, the Americans only helped China with fighting the Japanese during WWII, after that, the Americans eventually began supplying the KMT which took control in Taiwan. Simply put, Americans never aided the CCP with anything after the war since it didn't want to aid a communist country.


It doesn't matter which side we supported. In the end we saved the entire nation of China, not just the KMT.


Yes, in the Korean war, the Americans were pushed all the way back to the coast. The Americans eventually pushed back, but, the Chinese goal from the start was just to push the Americans away from the Chinese-NK border. With the 38th parallel being the point where the border is between NK and SK, the Chinese could be said as winning their part of the war, and preventing the US from moving in closer.


And I could say America's goal was to simply protect South Korea from being overrun.


You mentioned the CCP attacking US forces unprovoked. Well, for a start, US forces attacked NK forces, which can be said to be an "unprovoked" attack too, since NK never attacked any US target, military or civillian


America has a presence in South Korea. they were our allies. We attacked under the UN. Our war was legal.

And China and Russia both sponsored North Korea. They approved of their invasion of the South.


Chinese military deaths can be put at 500,000 dead. American losses on the other hand, could be put at around 70,000 dead. South Korean losses on the other hand were over a million. However, more than 70% of those losses were civillian losses. Technically, there was a ceasefire, with a demilitarized zone at the 38th parallel, but no peace treaty has been signed yet.


Where exactly are you getting these stats? Only 50,000 Americans died. And if you talk about South Korean losses, you'd better talk about North Korean losses, which were even higher. China wasn't fighting alone.


Towards the end of the war, yes, the Russians were dirt poor. The money and supplies given by the Allies did help them a lot. However, without the money and supplies, Russian soldiers would still just push through on foot, maybe less tanks and aircraft, but they would still eventually win the war. The Soviets were starting to gain ground at least a year before the D-day invasion. The British and American bombing campaigns only helped a little bit, after all, they were bombing the civillian population for the most of the time instead of the military or strategic targets.


A few less planes and tanks would have meant a Russian loss instead of victory at many battles. Kursk was a battle that was in the balance for a long time, and only won because the Russians could wear the Germans down.

Without the material we provided them, Russia wouldn't have the logistical ability to defeat the Germans.


My point is, the Germans were not fighting the Allies (as in Britain, America and remaining French) at full strength. They were too tied down with the Soviets, and it would be more like the Americans and British would have lost the war if not for the Soviets.


And my only point is that this goes both ways.

Chinawhite seriously downplays America's efforts. We did pretty much win the war in the Pacific on our own. To give the credit to the Russians is a smack in the face to all the Americans who died over there, and it's completely based on his bias 60 years after the fact.




posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It doesn't matter which side we supported. In the end we saved the entire nation of China, not just the KMT.


Agreed. Its just that almost no aid came after the CCP took power. During and just after WWII, America's aid effort saved many starving people.


America has a presence in South Korea. they were our allies. We attacked under the UN. Our war was legal.

And China and Russia both sponsored North Korea. They approved of their invasion of the South.


Yes, their war in Korea was legal. But, in Gulf War II, no such UN approval was there, yet Bush insists the war was legal.

Russia never did support NK. The NK government asked Stalin, Stalin wanted the war but told NK that he could not approve it. NK then asked Mao, Mao also said the same thing, but NK said that Mao approved of it and therefore got the support of the Russians, and with the support of the Russians, NK used it to get China to help too.


Where exactly are you getting these stats? Only 50,000 Americans died. And if you talk about South Korean losses, you'd better talk about North Korean losses, which were even higher. China wasn't fighting alone.


CCP post war body counts put it at 150,000 dead. I hardly believe that, so I thought 70,000 would be a good estimate. NK losses were about 1.2 million, but most of it from American and SK attacking NK back. NK hardly did any damage to the Americans and SK, and were barely making progress when they first started attacking.




A few less planes and tanks would have meant a Russian loss instead of victory at many battles. Kursk was a battle that was in the balance for a long time, and only won because the Russians could wear the Germans down.

Without the material we provided them, Russia wouldn't have the logistical ability to defeat the Germans.


By logistics, if you meant simple items such as ammunition, food, fuel etc, there were plenty of these provided to the Russian troops fighting in the front line, arriving relatively quickly. Simple supplies such as these were still flowing steadily.

In Kursk, the Russians won that battle very narrowly. However, most of the battles were easily won by the Russians when they started to counter attack, but they had a lot of casualties, usually a lot more than the Germans even when they had easily won the battle. The Russians still had a steady supply of T-34s and other tanks, partly from Allied help. If they didn't have that help, they would lose more battles, but sooner or later, they would win the war.

Without American involvement, there would probably be a very long stalemate, maybe even 2-5 years. However, the Russians were slowly progressing, and aid from the Allies helped the Russian war effort by quite a bit.



And my only point is that this goes both ways.

Chinawhite seriously downplays America's efforts. We did pretty much win the war in the Pacific on our own. To give the credit to the Russians is a smack in the face to all the Americans who died over there, and it's completely based on his bias 60 years after the fact.


Agreed, the allied victory in WWII goes both ways.

And, the war in the Pacific was won by America almost singlehandedly, with the help of the British navy. The Russians didn't do jack against the Japanese, the Nazis were gone, they were safe, and that was the end of their worries. However, the main reason why there were only this amount of American casulties were because of the Atomic bombs.

When the American and British navies finished off the Japanese navy, they had to land on Japan and end the war. They had 2 options:

1. Do a full scale invasion of Japan
Estimated American losses : 200,000 dead.
Estimated Japanese losses : 1 million dead, along with a big number of civillain casulties from suicides and other things.

2. Use the atomic bomb
Estimated Japanese losses : 150,000 dead, with more affected by aftereffects

They chose the second one, and it worked. If the Americans actually attacked the Japanese on foot, it would bring a lot of casulties. It was the easy way out, few American losses compared to what the Russians suffered trying to get the Nazis.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Ignore this post.

[edit on 12/6/05 by W4rl0rD]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It doesn't matter which side we supported. In the end we saved the entire nation of China, not just the KMT.

The war between China and Japan happened quite independent of the war between the US and Japan. Japan had been invading nearby nations long before Pearl Harbour which was the actual reason why the Americans wanted to fight the Japanese.
Nobody "saved" anyone in WWII. All Allied nations won it together.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer



It doesn't matter which side we supported. In the end we saved the entire nation of China, not just the KMT.


japan could have never won a war of attrition in china. thats why they attack america to gain resources in south-east asia.




And I could say America's goal was to simply protect South Korea from being overrun.


there goals were changed after china entered the war. they were going to unite korea into one country.



America has a presence in South Korea. they were our allies. We attacked under the UN. Our war was legal.

And China and Russia both sponsored North Korea. They approved of their invasion of the South.



in 1951 how many countries were in the UN?

you said china and russia approved north koreas attack? i dont seem to have read anything about that.




Where exactly are you getting these stats? Only 50,000 Americans died. And if you talk about South Korean losses, you'd better talk about North Korean losses, which were even higher. China wasn't fighting alone.


talking about north korean civillians getting kiled. how does america count enemy killed. air reconicnce. how accurate could that be




A few less planes and tanks would have meant a Russian loss instead of victory at many battles. Kursk was a battle that was in the balance for a long time, and only won because the Russians could wear the Germans down.

Without the material we provided them, Russia wouldn't have the logistical ability to defeat the Germans.


Can you name the battles. i remember reading somewhere thatallied equipment accounted for less than 7% of russian force equipment




And my only point is that this goes both ways.

Chinawhite seriously downplays America's efforts. We did pretty much win the war in the Pacific on our own. To give the credit to the Russians is a smack in the face to all the Americans who died over there, and it's completely based on his bias 60 years after the fact.


Your talking about the pacific im talking about the chinese theatre. im talking about how much killed and wounded. american forces were never in china on a large scale...

i know the americans won the pacific almost single handedly but they didn't help the chinese in the chinese theatre



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Chinawhite with all you crappy ignorance ridden posts are you trying to convey that China can defeat the US in war ??



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Chinawhite with all you crappy ignorance ridden posts are you trying to convey that China can defeat the US in war ??


your so ignorant. your post about indias shiet weaponary. what are you trying to prove??? whats the big achiement breakthrough in indias weaponary that you are trying to convince everyone to believe



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Chinawhite with all you crappy ignorance ridden posts are you trying to convey that China can defeat the US in war ??


do you have any edvidence to prove otherwise



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
your so ignorant. your post about indias shiet weaponary. what are you trying to prove??? whats the big achiement breakthrough in indias weaponary that you are trying to convince everyone to believe


what a cheap way to say "i quit" (like JBL)

like i said if you cant continue the discussion wihout using foul language,

You call indian weaponry as sh**, then there are words in the dictionary to describe chinese weaponry.

If the Su-30 MKI is sh**, then what shall i call the hundreds of Mig-19's that China still operates ??

What shall i call all the copies ??

God you've placed upon me the task of inventing new words


Can you name one piece of weaponry that India uses that is more outdated than any weaponry China uses ?? Go ahead, give it a try



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Chinawhite with all you crappy ignorance ridden posts are you trying to convey that China can defeat the US in war ??


do you have any edvidence to prove otherwise


COMMON SENSE...it tells me that China will not defeat the USA in war anytime soon.

I find that you lack the same...i pity you



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by chinawhite
your so ignorant. your post about indias shiet weaponary. what are you trying to prove??? whats the big achiement breakthrough in indias weaponary that you are trying to convince everyone to believe


what a cheap way to say "i quit" (like JBL)

like i said if you cant continue the discussion wihout using foul language,

You call indian weaponry as sh**, then there are words in the dictionary to describe chinese weaponry.

If the Su-30 MKI is sh**, then what shall i call the hundreds of Mig-19's that China still operates ??

What shall i call all the copies ??

God you've placed upon me the task of inventing new words


Can you name one piece of weaponry that India uses that is more outdated than any weaponry China uses ?? Go ahead, give it a try


mig-19s are not our front line fighters.

our mig-21s and j-8s are mostly upgraded.

and notice i said indian weaponary not russian weaponary.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Chinawhite with all you crappy ignorance ridden posts are you trying to convey that China can defeat the US in war ??


What is your point exactly? That India can win a war with China? If you have nothing to provide, just keep quiet. Besides, they were talking about AMERICAN HELP IN CHINA DURING WWII , nothing about how China can defeat the US in war. In fact, I believe you are posting more ignorance ridden posts to let you believe that India will actually win a war with China.

Bottom line, we don't give a crap about what you think or how great you think India's military is. If you have nothing to talk about on the topic, just keep quiet.

Note : Sorry if I sounded offensive, but that is the way I feel.

[edit on 14/6/05 by W4rl0rD]



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Yes, their war in Korea was legal. But, in Gulf War II, no such UN approval was there, yet Bush insists the war was legal.


Under the U.S. Constitution the Presided of the United States and Congress have the right to declare war on whoever they like. Going to the U.N. was to gain support and more help not to ask for permission.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
It is a bit overboard. Under UN rules, the US would be the aggressor in Gulf War 2, and there was no provoked attack, unlike in Gulf War 1, where Iraq attacked Kuwait. The US cannot just go to war with someone just because Mr Bush wants to. If this is true, say China wants Taiwan back, Hu Jintao says go to war, the rest of the Chinese government agrees, can they just take Taiwan by force, and ask UN only because it is courteous to do so? The war on terrorism is a pathetic excuse to go to war with Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with Bin Laden, or any terrorist organisation associated with 9/11.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Man, this thread is THE most off topic thread ever, it went from Indian/US soldiers to China vs. India to Vietnam War to Sino-Vietnam war to Korean war to war performance to casualty count and now to Iraq



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Well...yeah...and we got bored of discussing about the original topic anyway. Blah, nothing much to talk about anyway.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Chinawhite is stronger in giving evidence,
Stealth Spy is stronger in barely ba^king,

One is talking about China from overseas,
One is talking about India in India,

Sorry far away from the topic.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

The US cannot just go to war with someone just because Mr Bush wants to.


Yes we can, the Executive branch of the government(the President) if it has a valid reason can declare war on any nation, next the Legislative branch of the government (Congress) has to approve his declaration, if they do that then the rest is history.


If this is true, say China wants Taiwan back, Hu Jintao says go to war, the rest of the Chinese government agrees, can they just take Taiwan by force, and ask UN only because it is courteous to do so?


Yes china could do that if it wonted to, it a sovern nation, I doubt anyone form the UN would do anything about it except for the U.S.
The UN only gets involved when weak counties attack other weak counties they don't have the Gonads to get involved when the Big Players get involved in wars.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Looks like this topic has run it's course. So instead of continuing the flaming post lets just call it quits for this thread.

Thread closed.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join