送交者: 借红灯 于 2007-02-24, 14:41:40:

回答: this could very well be inaccurate. You believed this not because 由 steven 于 2007-02-24, 14:38:15:

• that is what you appear to be. - steven (389 bytes) 2007-02-24, 14:48:43 (127256)
  • 换个方向来看 - 借红灯 (261 bytes) 2007-02-24, 15:28:37 (127264)
  • 带着有色眼镜看问题就没劲了 - 借红灯 (373 bytes) 2007-02-24, 15:22:09 (127262)
    • It is not the American's more accurate about Chinese casualties, - steven (65 bytes) 2007-02-24, 16:08:53 (127277)
      • 而且参战部队番号总不至于搞错 - 借红灯 (106 bytes) 2007-02-24, 17:05:36 (127286)
      • 中国做不到那样的精细 - 借红灯 (575 bytes) 2007-02-24, 17:01:30 (127285)
      • Americans takes very seriously about their soldiers, people don't - steven (378 bytes) 2007-02-24, 16:47:29 (127283)
      • 而且中国军队战史总不至于连哪些部队参战都搞不清楚吧 - 借红灯 (58 bytes) 2007-02-24, 16:14:30 (127279)
      • 那美军的伤亡统计又如何验证？ - 借红灯 (52 bytes) 2007-02-24, 16:11:15 (127278)

加跟贴