Flare Sci-Fi Forums: The China Fiasco

This is topic The China Fiasco in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/649.html

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

It would appear that there are a multitude of myths going on about this whole event. I think that there needs to be some clarity here, especially since the Chinese are blatantly lying.

Myth 1: The US plane is a spy plane.

False. It was a survelliance airplane. Spying means it was conducting survelliance with an intentional attempt at not being seen. It's a very large plane with no abilities at being stealthy at all. If the US didn't want to be seen, they wouldn't have used that plane. It was following a routine survelliance path before it forced down.

Myth 2: The US plane "rammed" the F8 Chinese fighter.

False. The EP3 is 3 times the size of an F8 MIG. Its huge, lumbering and slow. It is a propellor plane. The F8 is a jet engine aircraft. It's small, and very manueverable. How does a tank "ram" a Ferrari? Also, it is often done, something called "rubbing paint" where a fighter will fly near another plane to show that they are being watched. This is most likely what happened.

Myth 3: The US government should issue an apology.

False. It is clear that the US is not at fault here. We were in international waters, conducting survelliance that is perfectly legal under international law. It is also clear that the Chinese are testing the new president, seeing how easily he will crack. Bush should be strong and stand up against what is blatant lying on the part of the Chinese.

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." J. Richmond

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :

Unfortunately, what with Bush being a general idiot first class (IMVHO), this "presidential testing" might have far greater repercussions than was originally intended: another Cold War. These kind of... incidents rarely bode well.

------------------
"Cry havoc and let's slip the dogs of Evil"

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Well, you don't get to be president by being an idiot you know. Most idiots don't get that far :P.

Anyways, congrats. Yours was the 10000th post in the flameboard.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

You know, maybe we need two flameboards. One for people who like legitimate discussions, like me, Rob, JR, etc. The other for people who just like insulting people for no reason, in manners that have nothing to do with the topic, ala TEL.

Anyway, Zamin needs to get a grip on reality. They may have a few nukes that MIGHT hit LA (and wouldn't we all be better off without Rosie O'Donnel?), but we could, and probably would, burn their entire country down to the bedrock in retaliation. They may have land armies bigger than the entire population of Japan, but they don't even have the naval capability to take Taiwan. If they don't give our people and plane back, they will become an international pariah, on top of their economy being destroyed. Heck, is it possible for them to loose their seat on the UN security council for violation of treaty? 'Cause they'd lose that, too.

[Added information: As far as I can tell, the UN charter makes no provision for the removal of a permanant member of the security council. Further, Article 109, section 2 says that for any change to the charter to take effect, ALL the permanant members of the security council must ratify it. Thus, it seems unlikely that China could be removed from the security council, unless the UN decided to recognize Taiwan as the legitimate China or something. The actual text says that the "Republic of China" holds the seat, which IS Taiwan, as opposed to the PRC. However, they decided that sometime during the seventies. They could always reverse it, though.

Anyway, there's Article 6, which makes provisions for expulsion from the UN. It requires that the SC recommend to the General Assembly (by a vote of 9 of fifteen) that a certain member be expelled, presumably upon a majority vote (not to clear) by said GA. This is to be for persistant violation of the principals of the charter. THAT might do it. But again, there's no provision made for the removal of a security council member. This isn't a very well laid out document. This tangent ends now.]

They have no choice. They WILL return our personel and equipment. Unless, of course, they value an apology over their continued existance as a moderately powerful nation.

All other options failing, what I'D do is recall our ambasadors, expel theirs, and send in some of those nifty stealth bombers to turn our plane into a smoking hole in the ground before they can reverse-engineer it. The people might be a little trickier. Are they still on the island where the plane landed? 'Cause a single carrier group could blockade the place, and I'm sure they don't have that many land forces stationed there. We could flat out take the place, if we had to.

We have a world of options. They have none.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited April 07, 2001).]

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

You also have a world of arrogance.

"They have no choice. They WILL return our personel and equipment."

It's good to know that you can still talk like the worst movie villian. All you needed was to end that sentence with "or they will face my wrath!"

------------------
You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston."
-Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park

[This message has been edited by PsyLiam (edited April 07, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Thank you for that, Liam. It added so much to the discussion.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :

Puh-lease, try getting a grip on reality.
First of all, its rather obvious to an impartial observer that neither side is really at fault.

Apparantly, planes playing chicken with each other in that general area, has been going on for quite some time.
Ex: American plane flies over sea claimed by China, Chinese send planes to buzz close by, American plane flies back, repeat ad nausem. Its about as mature as drunk teenagers playing chicken on a highway.

The US is hardly going to war over this if the crew members are treated well, as they have been so far (from even American sources) and I see no difficulty in this stand-off stretching on for days, or even weeks with nothing happening.

Neither side has anything to gain by a war... most of the racket is just either side's military deciding to make noise out of pride.

But in the end, the US has too much business in the area to randomly go to war, and China has nothing to gain...if you want to get your kicks blowing stuff up, just go lob a few Tomahawk missiles at a few Afghanistan terrorists or something....

------------------
"The Guide says that there is an art to flying...or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." - Life, the Universe and Everything

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I wondered how long this would avoid the Flameboard.

quote:
since the Chinese are blatantly lying

You can back this up, I suppose? Or is this just another example of, "they're Chinese, so they're OBVIOUSLY lying because the US would NEVER lie!"

quote:
False. It was a survelliance airplane. Spying means it was conducting survelliance with an intentional attempt at not being seen. It's a very large plane with no abilities at being stealthy at all. If the US didn't want to be seen, they wouldn't have used that plane. It was following a routine survelliance path before it forced down.

spy (sp)
n., pl. spies (spz.)

An agent employed by a state to obtain secret information, especially of a military nature, concerning its potential or actual enemies.

One employed by a company to obtain confidential information about its competitors.

One who secretly keeps watch on another or others.
An act of spying.

Well, gee, our plane was "employed by a state to obtain secret information, especially of a military nature, concerning its potential or actual enemies."

Isn't that what the plane was doing? It's crew was employed by the US military, and it wasn't gathering info on the Hong Kong traffic jam, now was it?

Couldn't an intelligence gathering plane be considered a spy plane? I mean, c'mon, we can call it "intel gathering over China" all we want, but it's pretty much still a spy plane, right? Call it what you want, we're spying on 'em

quote:
False. The EP3 is 3 times the size of an F8 MIG. Its huge, lumbering and slow. It is a propellor plane. The F8 is a jet engine aircraft. It's small, and very manueverable. How does a tank "ram" a Ferrari? Also, it is often done, something called "rubbing paint" where a fighter will fly near another plane to show that they are being watched. This is most likely what happened.

So ... what? The pilot couldn't have turned the plane suddenly? 18-wheelers crash into Ferraris all the time, dude. Well, and Jeeps, Volkswagons ... you get the point. Don't discount American pilot error without clear proof that it wasn't.

I think the real issue here is, was our plane in international air-space or not? If it was in Chinese air space, then, yes, we do owe them an apology, regardless of whether we hit them or they hit us.

If it wasn't in Chinese air space, consider: what would the US do if a Chinese (or Russian, or whomever) "intel gathering" plane decided to fly down the east or west coast of the US just outside of our air-space? We'd send up some fighters and scare it away, right? If one our fighters hit their plane, wouldn't WE demand an apology?*

An apology for having their plane so close to our air-space, regardless of whomever hit whom

One other question: is NOT apologizing really worth it?

quote:
False. It is clear that the US is not at fault here. We were in international waters, conducting survelliance that is perfectly legal under international law. It is also clear that the Chinese are testing the new president, seeing how easily he will crack. Bush should be strong and stand up against what is blatant lying on the part of the Chinese.

It is NOT clear that US is not at fault here. If the Chinese have been constantly sending up planes to buzz ours, then it's pretty damn clear that we've been provoking them, and that an incident like this was unavoidable.

Oh -- I see. The Chinese ordered one of their pilots to fly into our plane. Yeah. Sure. Whatever.

Now, come on: the Chinese are ruthlessly paranoid about protecting their homeland. How many times have they been invaded? They're going to be a lot more sensative when they feel someone is making a possibly hostile or unfriendly move to violating their sovereignity. Now they've got a dead pilot, a lost fighter, and a foreign plane filled with various spying/intel gathering/whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-call-it technology aboard ...

And all they want is an apology.

The air crew hasn't been mistreated. The Chinese simply want a "so sorry, we won't do it again", and what's the US reply? "Tough shit."

::shrug::

quote:
They have no choice. They WILL return our personel and equipment. Unless, of course, they value an apology over their continued existance as a moderately powerful nation.

Unless, of course, you think they'd be stupid enough to go to war over something like this. They will return our crew: but if the US doesn't apologize, we come off with dirt on our nose -- not them. Would YOU be willing to go to war with China (or any country) over a fiasco like this? Has the air crew been threatened? No. Why do you even start up this line of thinking?

Hell, there was a better chance of war after the CIA fucked up and told the bomber pilots that their embassy in Yugoslavia wasn't their embassy (Central Intelligence Agency and they can't even get current maps? C'mon).

Just proves the old motto. "It's my US of A: right or wrong."

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 08, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I'm simply giddy at the fact that there's someone in this world that has the semblence of balls to go up to the wall with the United States.

Lord knows how hypocritical this whole 'incident' sounds in light of the many Soviet Bloc aircraft captured and dissembled by the US (and vice-versa).

Other than the fact that I absolutely love the United States immensely, and plan on moving once I'm mobile, your horse needs lowering.

------------------
"Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited April 08, 2001).]

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

You can back this up, I suppose? Or is this just another example of, "they're Chinese, so they're OBVIOUSLY lying because the US would NEVER lie!"

"Isn't that what the plane was doing? It's crew was employed by the US military"

You forgot a part of the definition. "Secretly" this plane was not doing it secretly, it was pretty out in the open, where anyone can(and did) see. Hence, it was conducting survelliance, not "spying."

"Couldn't an intelligence gathering plane be considered a spy plane?"

Words are very important, especially in politics, Jeff. You of all people should know that.

"The pilot couldn't have turned the plane suddenly?"

Not fast enough that the F8 jet wouldn't notice, and do you honestly think our plane would jeopardize the crew to pull such a stunt? Doubtful. The possibility of it happening is very minute.

"18-wheelers crash into Ferraris all the time, dude."

Really? Wow, that's pretty expensive. Whatever car would be in its path is moot. They'd have to be sitting there in the direct path to get hit.

"I think the real issue here is, was our plane in international air-space or not?"

It's been said over and over again, we were in International Airspace. Why would we send a a giant, lumbering Radar elephant into someone else's airspace??

If it wasn't in Chinese air space... it away, right?"

Not necessarily. International airspace is free. China can do what they want. The fact that they don't or can't doesn't come up.

"is NOT apologizing really worth it?"

Really worth what?

"If the Chinese have been constantly sending up planes to buzz ours, then it's pretty damn clear that we've been provoking them."

Provoking them? In International airspace?

"Oh -- I see. The Chinese ordered one of their pilots to fly into our plane. Yeah. Sure. Whatever. "

I didn't say that, you did. If anything, the pilot thought he'd be cool by buzzing the plane, got too close and paid for it.

"Now, come on: the Chinese are ruthlessly paranoid about protecting their homeland. How many times have they been invaded? They're going to be a lot more sensative when they feel someone is making a possibly hostile or unfriendly move to violating their sovereignity."

Again, in international airspace?

"And all they want is an apology."

They want to test the new president, and want to find out how far they can push.

The Chinese simply want a "so sorry, we won't do it again", and what's the US reply? "Tough shit."

Why apologize when we haven't done anything wrong?

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

My $0.02 worth.

This is clearly not out fault. The Chinese pilot who is CLEARLY responsible for this incident has been reported as being a "Hotdogger". For those of you who don't know what that means, it means "uneccesary and unwise manuvers" while in control of a plane. There is a WORLD of difference between a 70's era jet fighter and a turboprop recon plane. The fact is, this lil' SOB fucked with one of our planes and it cost him his life. TOO bad. He shouldn't had been hotdogging. We don't owe the Chinese anything.

Another case in point. 200 mile exclusion zone? Nobody doesn't recognize that. The Lybians pulled that stunt back in the 80's and shot at our F-14's while they was on patrol. Or could it be that the Chinese don't want us to get a really good look at the brand new missle battery facility they put up that can hit Taiwan?

Keep in mind one thing: These are not the Russians. When the folks in Bejing say they expect to come to blows with the USA in 15 to 20 years from now, they mean it in a way them ol' codgers in the Kremlin never did.

------------------
In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

"The Chinese are an especially tricky people, Mac. The Chairman has a popular saying over there: 'There is great disorder under heaven, and the situation is excellent.'"

"Sounds like one of your parties, sir.."

"Yeah, that's why I think we're gonna hit it off..."

--then-American Samoan Governor Duke & his assistant Mac, on Duke's appointment as US ambassador to China, 1975.

------------------
"For people with resources, the right events happen. They may look like coincidences, but they arise out of necessity." --T�rk Hviid

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
You forgot a part of the definition. "Secretly" this plane was not doing it secretly, it was pretty out in the open, where anyone can(and did) see. Hence, it was conducting survelliance, not "spying."

How many times do I have to post the definition of spying, Jeff?

An agent employed by a state to obtain secret information, especially of a military nature, concerning its potential or actual enemies.

Where do you see "secret"?

quote:
Words are very important, especially in politics, Jeff. You of all people should know that.

The military can call it an intel gathering plane all it wants -- it's pretty clear it's still a spy plane.

quote:
Not fast enough that the F8 jet wouldn't notice, and do you honestly think our plane would jeopardize the crew to pull such a stunt? Doubtful. The possibility of it happening is very minute.

But the possibility still exists. Since we don't know exactly what happened, let's wait until we do to make conclusions, hum?

quote:
Really? Wow, that's pretty expensive. Whatever car would be in its path is moot. They'd have to be sitting there in the direct path to get hit.

You don't do much driving, do you? Accidents happen ALL the time. Large trucks hit small cars all the time.

quote:
It's been said over and over again, we were in International Airspace. Why would we send a a giant, lumbering Radar elephant into someone else's airspace??

Why would we send a giant lumbering Rader elephant so close to someone's airspace they would feel the need to send up a fighter to scare it away? Oh, right, we were spying ...

quote:
Provoking them? In International airspace?

Yes. Provoking them. If our plane was flying down their coast just outside of their airspace, they could look at that as an unfriendly act. In other words: they could be provoked. I mean, who wants an intell gathering plane flying down their coast gathering info?

quote:
I didn't say that, you did. If anything, the pilot thought he'd be cool by buzzing the plane, got too close and paid for it.

So, without any info as to what might've happened, you just automaticly discount American pilot error. Talk about jumping to conclusions.

quote:
Again, in international airspace?

I refrain from calling you names, even though you clearly don't get it. International airspace doesn't begin ten or fifteen miles away from a country's coast, it begins much much much closer. Besides, would YOU allow a spy-plane (I'm sorry: intelligence gathering plane) to fly down YOUR coast? It's a provocation, whether inside or outside of international airspace or not. The US is guilty of the same behavior as the Chinese: sending up fighters to scare the thing away.

quote:
They want to test the new president, and want to find out how far they can push.

Maybe our new President should try and make relations friendly and apologize for sending an "intell-gathering" plane down the Chinese coast, huh?

quote:
Why apologize when we haven't done anything wrong?

The Chinese view what they see as a spy-plane sent down their coast spying on them as something wrong. Therefore, they deserve an apology. Also, you're again completely jumping to conclusions before all the evidence is in. You don't know the pilot didn't committ an error, do you?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
All other options failing, what I'D do is recall our ambasadors, expel theirs, and send in some of those nifty stealth bombers to turn our plane into a smoking hole in the ground before they can reverse-engineer it. The people might be a little trickier. Are they still on the island where the plane landed? 'Cause a single carrier group could blockade the place, and I'm sure they don't have that many land forces stationed there. We could flat out take the place, if we had to.

YAY! Let's start a WAR!!!!!!!!!

quote:
If they don't give our people and plane back, they will become an international pariah, on top of their economy being destroyed.

No they won't. This scenario had a better chance of happening to the U.S. or Great Britain after we bombed Baghdad.

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

Um...an EP-3 isn't a "spy plane." It's an ELINT craft. C'mon, you should know that. ELINT isn't the same as photo recon. They were listening to Chinese TV & radio.

The Chinese...well, they're the closest analogue we have to the Romulans today.

------------------
"For people with resources, the right events happen. They may look like coincidences, but they arise out of necessity." --T�rk Hviid

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

"How many times do I have to post the definition of spying, Jeff?"

It would appear that the only part of the definition that you posted that counts is the one that sustains your point, right? Is this another case of what the definition of "is" is?

quote:

One who secretly keeps watch on another or others.

And I think that Shik has also resolved this issue.

"Since we don't know exactly what happened, let's wait until we do to make conclusions, hum?"

Fine, we'll wait. However, an apology isn't necessary unless you make conclusions, is it?

"Large trucks hit small cars all the time."

I could look it up, but I'm sure that when trucks hit small cars, it's usually due the small car doing something stupid.

"Why would we send a giant lumbering Radar elephant so close to someone's airspace they would feel the need to send up a fighter to scare it away?"

That is assuming we were "so close" to their airspace, and that the fighter was sent up to scare it way. Take note what you said about jumping to conclusions.

"If our plane was flying down their coast just outside of their airspace, they could look at that as an unfriendly act."

Then what is the point of having any airspace boundaries at all? Remember that when I drive by your city.

"Talk about jumping to conclusions."

You're one to talk, Mr. Let's Apologize Now.

"I refrain from calling you names,"

I should hope so. This discussion is getting good, and I don't think it should be bogged down with something as low-class as name-calling.

"International airspace doesn't begin ten or fifteen miles away from a country's coast, it begins much much much closer."

I have one source that says it begins at 20 miles and one that says 12 miles(does not specify whether its air or seas though). What's your source?

"It's a provocation, whether inside or outside of international airspace or not."

China has every right to fly their F8 jet near our plane, as much right as we have to fly our plane in international airspace. That is not the issue. China wants an apology for the plane crashing into their fighter. Not because the EP-3 was out there, but because it crashed into their F8. Since there is no evidence to suggest that such a thing happened, why apologize when it can't be proven we've done anything wrong?

"Maybe our new President should try and make relations friendly and apologize for sending an "intell-gathering" plane down the Chinese coast, huh? "

Again, we have done nothing wrong. Why apologize?

"The Chinese view what they see as a spy-plane sent down their coast spying on them as something wrong. Therefore, they deserve an apology."

They want an apology for the crash, not the flying near their airspace. check cnn.com, and read.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

By sending what the Chinese view as a spy-plane down their coast, we are provoking a response. That response has constantly been a Chinese fighter sent to harrass our plane. By continuely sending up our planes, they continuely send up theirs, and an incident like this was unavoidable.

The Chinese have obviously felt threatened by our planes, or they wouldn't be sending up theirs. Is it wise to ignore a country when they're feeling threatened?

To pretend that the US would resort to military action is foolhardy and delusional. To pretend that China might become an outcast from the UN over this is likewise.

And you, Jeff, are just as guilty of only picking the definition of "spying" that you like.

spy (sp)
n., pl. spies (spz.)

An agent employed by a state to obtain secret information, especially of a military nature, concerning its potential or actual enemies.

One employed by a company to obtain confidential information about its competitors.

One who secretly keeps watch on another or others.
An act of spying.

quote:
You're one to talk, Mr. Let's Apologize Now.

Because I'd like to see our crew get home to their families, and not leave them stranded in China (where, it should be noted, they're being well taken care of) because President Bush doesn't want to lose face by apologizing or be seen as giving in to the Chinese.

Also, because I think by provoking the Chinese, the US is at least partially at fault.

JeffR: actually, there have been lots of cases of larger trucks at fault in accidents for a variety of reasons, including the drivers being asleep! This is why the Feds stepped in and mandated how long drivers could drive per day, etc. Incidently, accidents of which large trucks were responsible have dropped dramaticly.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 08, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Kardde, listen to me very closely.

One apologizes when one has done something wrong.

We did nothing wrong.

Therefore, we should not apologize.

Simpe enough? Would you prefer that we lie, and admit to something that didn't happen?

I would also point out that under all codes of flight conduct, it is the responsibility of the smaller, faster plane to stay out of the way of the larger, slower one. If Mr. Wei was too dumb to obey the rules, and his stupidity cost him his life, well, too darned bad. It's HIS fault, and we owe no one an apology.

The ONLY thing we did was to fly a plane through international airspace, something that, by definition, we have every right to do. CHINA's plane crashed into ours, killing their pilot. CHINA is holding plane and crew, in violation of treaty. CHINA should be apologizing, not we.

To pretend that the US would resort to military action is foolhardy and delusional.

Our military personel are being forcibly held by a foreign government, in violation of all international law on the subject. We most certainly would resort to military action to get them out, if it seemed to be the option most likely to succeed.

By sending what the Chinese view as a spy-plane down their coast, we are provoking a response.

Irrelevant. We have every right to put a craft anywhere in international airspace that we please. If they don't like it, that's their problem.

in China (where, it should be noted, they're being well taken care of)

Of course they are. The Chinese aren't QUITE that stupid. What, would they torture them for information? They lay a finger on those prisoners, they WILL have a war on their hands.

President Bush doesn't want to lose face by apologizing or be seen as giving in to the Chinese.

Exactly. First, military morale will drop. He'll effectively be saying, "Well, you're job doesn't REALLY matter, even though you're risking your lives to do it every day." Second, we'll seem weak to rogue nations, like, say, China. There is no reason for us to give in, here. China can not win this battle. Our people must eventually be returned, as well as our plane. We have much to lose, and nothing to gain, by offering an apology for something that we didn't do.

there have been lots of cases of larger trucks at fault in accidents for a variety of reasons, including the drivers being asleep

We're talking trained military pilots, here, with multiple pilots aboard. You REALLY think that lack of sleep could possibly cause something like this? 'Cause if so, you need to learn a bit about how a military operates.

Me: "If they don't give our people and plane back, they will become an international pariah, on top of their economy being destroyed."

You: "No they won't. This scenario had a better chance of happening to the U.S. or Great Britain after we bombed Baghdad."

So let me get this straight: you think that engaging in a legitimate war would be looked upon less favorably than stealing another country's plane and kidnapping their military personel, all in violation of treaty? Get a clue, man.

YAY! Let's start a WAR!!!!!!!!!

The Chinese have already given us more than enough excuse to do just that. Bush is level-headed enough not to persue it at this time, of course. Good thing, too. Clinton would probably have blown up a tylenol factory in Shanghai three days ago.

The Chinese view what they see as a spy-plane sent down their coast spying on them as something wrong. Therefore, they deserve an apology.

I see it as wrong that you post such drivel. By your logic, do I not therefore deserve an apology?

What the Chinese FEEL is wrong is irrelevant. There is treaty describing what all nations have AGREED is wrong, and THAT is what matters.

JR:

I have one source that says it begins at 20 miles and one that says 12 miles(does not specify whether its air or seas though). What's your source?

As I understand UN convention on the subject, the maximum you can establish your naval soverignty away from your shoreline is twelve miles. You can establish less, if it suits you. All airspace above your soverign territory is considered yours, presumably up to some arbitrary limit.

'Course, we never ratified the convention in question, but we recognize other people's claims under it.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

I'll wade into this discussion here.

First off: China houses a very xenophobic culture. When Jeff Raven says that the existence of government is through the people, the Chinese see it as the other way around, the people exist through the volition of the Chinese Government. An communist group which restricts ANYTHING from violating their communist culture or not. Translation: Paranoia. Basically East Germany before the Berlin wall came crumbling down.

Shik claims that the U.S. plane was honing in on Chinese radio and TV transmissions. Now why would they want to listen in on those waves? To get a new recipe for Dim Sum? No. Of course, if they scan in on all frequencies, they could probably gather information on Military Radio transmissions.

We don't know. Yet.

We also hear that the US was flying outside of Chinese Airspace. So despite all the Chinese's ramblings about the US spying in on their territory, if they want to protest, they can write a letter of protest to the US or UN or NATO or whatever it is. The Chinese can't do anything about it.

So if I decide to set up some sophisticated equipment here and listen in on CIA, FBI, Secret Service, and other classified transmissions, what would happen to me then? If the US decides to shoot a nuke at my house, then we have a double standard here.

JeffK is right about one thing, it does not have to be secret in order to be spying. Gathering information on another persons conversation without the second person's permission is part of what spying is all about. It doesn't matter if it is about Dim Sum, Jackie Chan Movies, and the like. No permission was given to the US Plane to eavesdrop on such transmissions. China didn't approve it. Therefore, it's still spying.

JeffR is right about a second detail, while 18-wheelers hits Ferrari's all the time, it usually happens when the driver of the Ferrari does something very stupid. That US plane (spy, reconnaisance, intel, call it whatever you want, it's all the same to me) is simply too big and old to perform evasive manouvres compared to the Chinese craft. It is clear from this picture that it was the Chinese Pilot decided to swim with the fishes.

Verdict: While the U.S. may have alarmed the Chinese, it was the fault of the Chinese and the Chinese pilot that this incident took place.

On the other hand, the U.S. should not risk gambling 24 of its own men and women so that some xenophobic country can say it was wrong. If I know the Chinese in China, they will continue holding these soldiers until the U.S. blinks.

One other thing: Colin Powell referring to the soldiers as hostages doesn't really help things.

------------------
"In a completely unrelated news story, I have a date tomorrow night."
- Omega, in trying to explain why pigs are now flying, why Microsoft products are now working perfectly, hell freezing over, and George W Bush giving a flawless speech. 04/06/01, 12:17AM

[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited April 08, 2001).]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

"It was a survelliance airplane."

Thanks for that doubleplusgood correction.

------------------
Not even a god can deny that I have squared the circle of a static Earth and cubed the Earth sphere by rotating it once to a dynamic Time or Life Cube.
--
Gene Ray
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet" Or don't. You know, whatever.

Posted by Evolved (Member # 389) on :

<>

By "rogue nations" do you mean nations who do not listen to the United States?

Also, names in cultures like Chinese and Japanese have the format "Family Name-Given Name". Thus, John Smith would be Smith John and still referred to as Mr. Smith.

But how would a war really help us? We have here a civilization who have now for the past 200 years been oppressed by Western powers. Will another war with another western power do any good for anyone?
------------------
Ace

"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."

[This message has been edited by Ace (edited April 08, 2001).]

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Well, I have way too little info to pass judgement on this situation.
The most interesting items in this scenario are the positions, headings, mission objectives and attitudes of the two crews.
And I don't trust any info either of the two governments let out as they'll only share what they decide should be shared.

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

By "rogue nations" do you mean nations who do not listen to the United States?

No, I mean nations that don't live up to their treaty obligations.

Also, names in cultures like Chinese and Japanese have the format "Family Name-Given Name". Thus, John Smith would be Smith John and still referred to as Mr. Smith.

Of course, but I was using his name in the American sense on purpose. I doubt they call each other "Mister" in China. What the appropriate title would be, I don't know. "Comrade Wong", perhaps?

Will another war with another western power do any good for anyone?

Certainly not China. Which is why they never should have caused this situation in the first place.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

I'll concede to Tahna's logic, for the most part. I still do not believe an apology is in order.

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

Omega said:

quote:
You know, maybe we need two flameboards.

We do, one for discussion, one for american arrogance and ignorance.
Jeff Raven said:

quote:
It would appear that there are a multitude of myths going on about this whole event. I think that there needs to be some clarity here, especially since the Chinese are blatantly lying.

Jeff Raven also said:

quote:
It is clear that the US is not at fault here

Omega said:

quote:
They may have a few nukes that MIGHT hit LA (and wouldn't we all be better off without Rosie O'Donnel?), but we could, and probably would, burn their entire country down to the bedrock in retaliation.

Omega also said:

quote:
They WILL return our personel and equipment. Unless, of course, they value an apology over their continued existance as a moderately powerful nation.

quote:
We have a world of options. They have none.

Quattre said:

quote:
This is clearly not out fault. The Chinese pilot who is CLEARLY responsible for this incident has been reported as being a "Hotdogger". For those of you who don't know what that means, it means "uneccesary and unwise manuvers" while in control of a plane. There is a WORLD of difference between a 70's era jet fighter and a turboprop recon plane. The fact is, this lil' SOB fucked with one of our planes and it cost him his life. TOO bad. He shouldn't had been hotdogging. We don't owe the Chinese anything.
Another case in point. 200 mile exclusion zone? Nobody doesn't recognize that. The Lybians pulled that stunt back in the 80's and shot at our F-14's while they was on patrol. Or could it be that the Chinese don't want us to get a really good look at the brand new missle battery facility they put up that can hit Taiwan?
Keep in mind one thing: These are not the Russians. When the folks in Bejing say they expect to come to blows with the USA in 15 to 20 years from now, they mean it in a way them ol' codgers in the Kremlin never did.

Jeff Raven said:

quote:
One apologizes when one has done something wrong.
We did nothing wrong.
Therefore, we should not apologize.

Omega said:

quote:
Of course, but I was using his name in the American sense on purpose. I doubt they call each other "Mister" in China. What the appropriate title would be, I don't know. "Comrade Wong", perhaps?
Will another war with another western power do any good for anyone?
Certainly not China. Which is why they never should have caused this situation in the first place.

The best part about all of this is that I said nothing myself, but I quoted all of the previous posts to prove my point, this makes it pretty impossible for any of you to refute my argument, because, well, it's not mine, it's YOUR OWN argument.

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Clinton would probably have blown up a tylenol factory in Shanghai three days ago.

If Clinton (or Gore) had been in charge during this, that crew would be back home with their families right now. Instead, George "Dubya" feels it important to show the whole world he's got a big cock and those twenty-four men and women (and their families) are suffering for it.

Way to go, Georgie.

One thing they HAVE done right, though:

Cheney rejected the description of the crew as ``hostages'' by Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill.

quote:
I see it as wrong that you post such drivel. By your logic, do I not therefore deserve an apology?

No. There's a difference between you being insulted and a paranoid country lashing out at what it sees as a hostile act.

When one country baits another (on purpose or not), and something like this happens, it's the fault of the country who did the baiting. I mean, c'mon, if little 4-yr old Joe calls his 3-year old sister Susie an ugly bitch, and Susie punches Joe in the face, who is at fault? Well, yes, Susie punched him, but only because Joe gave him good reason too.

The fact that people think the US did nothing wrong is ridiculous. We were spying on another country! Hell, we'd've done the same thing if someone was flying down OUR coast! Would we feel at fault if one of our fighters crashed into a Russian spy plane? Doubtful. You know what you'd be saying, Omega? Damn Russians, what'd they expect sending a spy plane down our coast? They owe US an apology!

quote:
Certainly not China. Which is why they never should have caused this situation in the first place.

We caused it, Omega. If our plane hadn't been in the sky, the Chinese would've have sent up a fighter to chase it off. Honestly.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 08, 2001).]

Posted by Evolved (Member # 389) on :

<>

Well, actually, it would just be the name. No "Mister" or "Comrade" unless it was official such as "President" and so on.

My question though is how any military conflict with China would do us (the United States) any good.

Also, what do the other countries besides the United States and China think about this incident?

------------------
Ace

"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

"Americans got a new president."

"How do you know?"

"He's playing with his dick."

Posted by Evolved (Member # 389) on :

Perhaps this whole problem is just WHAT is China to the United States? A partner, a "potential enemy" as the military would say?

It is obvious countries that are our "allies" are simply those who we can control. The United Kingdom, Japan, etc. Would any of them actually try to stand against the United States? Probably not.

Is it possible that China is simply the best target the militaristic minds can think of? Where is Russia? Are they friends, foes, "strategic competitors"?

------------------
Ace

"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."

Posted by Evolved (Member # 389) on :

<<"Americans got a new president."
"How do you know?"

"He's playing with his dick."
>>

What does THAT mean?!

------------------
Ace

"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Yes, leaders and brownnoses worldwide must've started siding with either party the minute this thing started! A fair share of lobbyism too, no doubt.

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

It means that Dubya has the power to end this any time he wants to, but he's refusing in order to have the opportunity to "handle" a foreign-"crisis." In other words, he wants the whole world to know he's got a big dick.

Posted by Evolved (Member # 389) on :

Ah...

So, Nimrod, I assume you mean that most of the other nations in the world are simply staying back and whatching what will happen. Correct?

------------------
Ace

"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

"It is obvious countries that are our "allies" are simply those who we can control. The United Kingdom, Japan, etc."

Now, I'm in a really mellow mood, so all I'll simply say is "pardon?".

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Well, this discussion has gone down the toilet. Thank you Jeff Kardde for expounding on your fascination with our President's genitalia.

It now comes down to one point: China wants an apology for the crash- NOT the survelliance- and since there is no evidence that the US is at fault, there is no reason for an apology. That's all there is to it.

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Ace: Well that's another conclusion, my main thought was the instant "proposals" made by the people in the shadows. This situation can probably be profitable for someone, I just haven't figured out for whom, yet.

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

I'm glad to see the responses of a few more enlightened individuals, but the same old keep at it, so if no one does anything to provoke me, I'm staying out of this because I am strongly against any americanising discussion.

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Evolved (Member # 389) on :

<<"It is obvious countries that are our "allies" are simply those who we can control. The United Kingdom, Japan, etc."
Now, I'm in a really mellow mood, so all I'll simply say is "pardon?".
>>

Sorry, that statement was constructed rather poorly, although I don't remember putting "who we can control" in italics.

By "control" I meant that the United States has a military base there.

Also, look at Bush and how he got the EU angry at him with global warming. Will any of those countries actually DO anything about it, though? Seriously? Would the EU declare a revised trade agreement with the United States because of this? How about Japan? If the Unites States got Japan angry, what could they do?

BTW, I am not saying I LIKE these facts.

The United States sadly has become a bully in the world, and I hope American arrogance won't do any harm to the world in the future.

------------------
Ace

"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."

[This message has been edited by Ace (edited April 08, 2001).]

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

You needn't worry about the near future, the USA has sealed it's fate by reaching hegemonic status, same as any other nation that has reached it before, there is a natural cycle of things, a transition from a uni-polar world, where one country dominates, to a bi-polar world where it's a stand-off between two major powers, and then ofcourse the winner takes over and you have a uni-polar world once more.
The USA has held this place for an entire lifetime(in some people's cases) but there have been empires that have held hegemonic status for much longer, but they have still crumbled into obscurity, do not expect anything different just because you're "American", history doesn't give a damn, it just happens.

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

The point I am trying to make, JeffR, is that George W. has the ability to end this crisis right in front of him ... but because he wants people to think he can handle a foreign crisis, he's not willing to offer an apology.

How presidential.

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

There is no sense in lying, Jeff, just to end this fiasco- because it won't end there. Apologizing, would in a sense, make the US look weak. Not to mention, it would a lie, then we'd certainly would lose trust in our allies. You don't negotiate with terrorists, Jeff, and you don't concede to lying governments.

Currently, the Chinese military is using this event to boost their budget. They're milking it for every drop they can get. You think they care about some pilot? Do you think they care about 24 people being detained? They don't, Jeff. If they can make their budget bigger, and win favor with the people, they'll do anything they can. They do not want an apology out of principle, they want one to make the US look bad.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

IMHO, the US already looks bad just by sending a spy plane down their coast.

Let's just hope the crew and the families of the crew don't mind the seperation ... I mean, it's all in the name of giving the US a good, strong name, right?

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

Note that this crash isn't exactly a new thing. We've lost aircraft to games with Soviet & other Eastern Bloc counterparts before--anyone remember back in the early/mid-80s when that F-14 on an extreme-range BARCAP got clipped by the wing of a Tu-95 "Bear" over the North Atlantic? Couldn't make it back to its carrier (Saratoga or Independence, I think), had to land at Keflavik instead. Turned out the "Bear" pilot panicked when he saw the interceptor slowly coming closer & closer & accidentally wobbled a bit.

As for my "TV & radio" comment, I didn't mean to suggest that the DoD is interested in reruns of "Kangaroo CourtTV" or bootlegging a copy of the Peking Chorale Group's latest hit single. ("Everyone Is Rejoicing Over The Wiping Out Of The Four Pests") It was merely meant to imply a broadband EM-spectrum emission analysis.

Back on main track. The Chinese are not the Soviets/Russians. The SovRus will admit that they fucked up..eventually. The ChiComs claim complete infallability. Have we actually SEEN this F-8 pilot yet? I'm willing to bet he's become a nonperson ("'Teng?' 'Teng' who?") & been shipped off to a May 4th farm for a nice relaxing visit pending a return to "honored reliability."

Incidentally, the Chinese are already at war with the US, their own kind of war using the most readily-available resource they have: people. It's an economic & populational war they're waging. This shit? It's sleight-of-hand meant to keep the West off balance so we continue to think conventionally about their warfare. Nothing more.

------------------
"For people with resources, the right events happen. They may look like coincidences, but they arise out of necessity." --T�rk Hviid

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

Ai ao...gods bless Burke, man. He make me laugh so much.

We're not gonna take it...anymore!

------------------
"For people with resources, the right events happen. They may look like coincidences, but they arise out of necessity." --T�rk Hviid

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Man, you stay off line for a couple of days and look what happens.

The hawks want to go a mano y mano with China and finish what MacArthur 'should have started' back in the 50's. Damn Truman!

Diplomacy be damned. Well, diplomacy needs time to work, and even more time to work when dealing with the Chinese.

Please consider this, there is a deal beng conisdered to send a crapload of high-tech military equipment to Taiwan. THE issue in China is Taiwan and the last thing that mainland China wants to see is Taiwan getting top-flight military stuff.

So, if you put yourself in China's shoes...something that no one seems willing to do...they obviously see this incident as an opportunity. They have something to bargin with to prevent the military transaction. Has anyone at all considered that?

Does that make their position right? Not in the least bit. The American plane was within our definition of international air...collecting information...although I wonder how we'uns would feel with Chinese information gathering planes flying down the west coast on a regular basis. Indications are that the Chinese piolt flew too close to the American plane as it make a turn...8 to 10 feet was the Department of Defense analysis as I recall...far too close.

The American position needs to be foremost about the saftey of the military personnel. However, the government can't make international decisions based on the morale of the military...they knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

------------------
The negotiations have failed. Shoot him!
~ C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

I knew there was a reason I enjoyed discussion with Jay. I agree, but I'm not totally sure what you mean by your last paragraph...

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Then let me tell you JR.

Omega made the statement that Bush shouldn't apologize because, for among other things, the morale of the military is likely to suffer. It is my opinion that that should not even be a consideration in negotiations.

The military is a dangerous job. Even if one joins the ARmy to get GI college loans, there is a chance of going to a foreign country, or flying by one, in the line of duty and not coming back.

Clearly the military personnel currently held in China are alive and apparently well. The American government should do the utmost to make sure that remains the case and that they return home safely.

However, overall military morale should not even an issue here.

Oh, and regarding the plane and bombing it all to crud with stealth bombers while sitting in China, that is quite the overt act of aggression. Considering that the personnel had time to carry out whatever destruction of sensitive data and equipment that the Defense Department had planned for such events, that is a very bad idea.

------------------
The negotiations have failed. Shoot him!
~ C. Montgomery Burns

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited April 09, 2001).]

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

There is such a thing as being polite, also.
"We don't think our plane did anything wrong, it seemed to be in international airspace, but if it indeed was our pilots fault then we're very sorry. Here, have ten million for the downed plane, it's the least we can do."

But the sight of two F-22's flying over Taiwan, playing "Gimme some lovin'" from loudspeakers, that'd be a sight!

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK:

IMHO, the US already looks bad just by sending a spy plane down their coast.

Well, you're opinion doesn't really matter, does it? NO ONE has brought up this objection on our side of the pond, except perhaps the rare ultra-left loony like you. We might look bad spying on an ALLY, but that ain't China. You apparently don't have much of a memory, Jeff. Remember all those nuclear secrets they stole/bought not too long ago? If they can do that blatant illegality without suffering any consequences AT ALL, we can do this without looking bad, don't you think? They started it.

Jay:

Oh, and regarding the plane and bombing it all to crud with stealth bombers while sitting in China, that is quite the overt act of aggression.

Legally, the plane is our soverign territory. We could do whatever we wanted to it. 'Course, we'd have to be in violation of Chinese airspace to do it.

Nimmie:

Here, have ten million for the downed plane, it's the least we can do.

But that would be like saying, "Yeah, we didn't do anything, and in fact, you damaged OUR plane, but instead of making you pay the consequences for your actions, we'll buy you a new Russian fighter instead." STUPID.

Politeness is translated as weakness in some cultures, and as JR said, you don't negotiate with terrorists.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

The Chinese aren't terrorists, Omega, although I'm sure you'd like to clump any country that doesn't see eye-to-eye with the US as such.

quote:
Well, you're opinion doesn't really matter, does it?

Well, in that case Omega, I guess neither does yours, does it now? As far as I can tell, your opinion is that this incident is worth the loss of millions of lives on either side, because, the US NEVER apologizes! What complete fucking hogwash and dis-regard for human life.

quote:
NO ONE has brought up this objection on our side of the pond, except perhaps the rare ultra-left loony like you.

I know, I know, I have that rare ability to see things from the other side's perspective. Besides, Omega-san, please tell me how calling me a "rare ultra-left loony" isn't degrading this conversation that way JeffR said was a bad way, you ultra-right hipocrite?

quote:
We might look bad spying on an ALLY, but that ain't China.

You make more friends with honey than molasses, isn't that the saying? Seems to me sending spy-flights down their coast isn't going to make them WANT to be an ally with us. You know, the whole thing here should be to AVOID a war. Not so, Omega. He wants us to go to war with China.

quote:
You apparently don't have much of a memory, Jeff. Remember all those nuclear secrets they stole/bought not too long ago?

Los Alamos? While that guy may have looked Chinese, he was a US citizen.

quote:
If they can do that blatant illegality without suffering any consequences AT ALL, we can do this without looking bad, don't you think?

Well we've already been doing it, sending spy planes down their coast. It's all variations of the same game, but two wrongs don't a right make.

quote:
They started it.

So big-boy Omega wants the US to go to war and FINISH it! Because he likes Dolph Lundgren!

I realize that war and combat is exciting to young boys. This is why young boys don't get elected to office, because adults realize that war is a (let me make sure you understand this) VERY BAD THING not to be engaged in lightly. And certainly not over something this trivial.

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Then there's the adults that stop growing at the age of 13, get raised in a racist family, get twisted in a corrupt military-service, and then they run for office in Yugoslavia.
Might wanna steer clear of those fellas...

As for China, they wouldn't be interested in taking over the world, I believe they just want to have their own country for themselves.

USA otoh already has, through burgers, movies with explosions & asskicking presidents, the dating system, cars and whathaveyou and whatnot.

I'm not saying that all of it is bad, just that you guys have been busy.

Now, I don't want this thread to turn around, those things were just part of my post. Carry on...

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

[This message has been edited by Nimrod (edited April 09, 2001).]

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

*sigh* It returned for but a moment, but it is soon returning to le crapper. Try not to insult the other side--and I'm speaking to both of you. Take it as a given that both of you are rational beings even when it doesn't appear to be, ok?

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

So, let's see what I've gleaned from all this.

1. A US radar/surveillance aircraft patrolling 'near' China's borders (in an area which I believe is the subject of much dispute of ownership between China, Vietnam, who knows who else. . .) suffered a mid-air collision with a Chinese fighter.

2. The pilot of said fighter might or might not have been a hotdogger, or even ordered to ram it. That is, either reckless, or a deliberate Kamikaze, because those slanty-eyed yellow fellows tried it before, and they're all the same "really," aren't they?

3. The spyplane (or whatever it was, I don't really care, I'm just not gonna type "surveillance aircraft" every time) could conceivably have swerved into the fighter, but there's no way this could have happened because the pilot was American while the fighter pilot was Chinese.

4. We should take the military option, regardless of the consequences. And thank God it's Dubya who's President, because instinctively we know (since he's Republican) he'll get it right, whereas the previous incumbent (who was a Democrat) would have got it wrong.

5. The US Military should set foreign policy, because if we don't let them they'll sulk.

6. Those wily Orientals have set all this up to make a political point.

7. Tom Clancy has a lot to answer for.

8. Anyone who doesn't agree with Omega or JeffR is a loony lefty.

I think that covers everything. Now, listen. I have my misgivings about China. And I know sooner or later the US will probably go to war with them. I'd prefer later because the more things change with time the more avoidable it might become. And hopefully, since it'll largely be over control of the Pacific, the rest of us can stay well out of it (we're members of NATO, not NPTO).

Regardless of the nature or overtness of that surveillance, the US plane was conducting surveillance of another country. This has gone on for years. China has known they do it for years. They've probably intercepted planes before. Unfortunately this time there was an accident. Yes, an accident. You couldn't set this up.

And as for the violated-airspace thing, reality check, guys: EVERYONE has their own views of where territorial airspace boundaries start, especially given the range of modern weapons and compass-reading errors (don't know what Chinese GPS tech is like).

So now 24 people are being held in reasonable comfort - for China. The Chinese government have exploited this situation, much as any other government would. Why didn't the US plane head out to sea and ditch, I wonder? If they really had anything to hide that's what they should have done.

So, there. I tried to come up with some sort of conclusion but in the end, as with all the times I come to the Flameboard, I end up not caring! I don't like the way everything here has to become so fucking partisan.

------------------
"It strikes me that there are enough episodes of the Simpsons that people could speak entirely in Simpsonese, using references from the show to explain or describe an endless series of situations. Nelson and Apu . . . at Tinagra.

But now I�ve brought Star Trek into it again, haven�t I. Sorry."

- James Lileks, 09/04/2001

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

*applauds Lee*

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

*joins the applause*

------------------
"I can be creative when I have a good idea. That just happens way too rarely."
-Omega, April 6

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

*Applauses*

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Hmmmm......

Why didn't the US plane head out to sea and ditch, I wonder? If they really had anything to hide that's what they should have done.

There is a true point to all this, if there was sensitive information on board, the US would probably (or should) have disposed of it before it fell into the wrong hands. One conclusion (though it is not the only one) is that there IS no sensitive information on board.

We've heard that the Chinese are interested in this intelligence bonanza that lies within that craft. What makes this more interesting is that this piece of American property is on Chinese soil.

Why didn't the Americans ditch the plane? Who knows. What's in it that the Americans don't want the Chinese to see, who knows.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

New episodes of the Simpsons?

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

Nimrod said:

quote:
Then there's the adults that stop growing at the age of 13, get raised in a racist family, get twisted in a corrupt military-service, and then they run for office in Yugoslavia.

Please Nimrod, don't get me started on that, the actions of the US in that event is what makes me dislike them so much right now, had they kept out of it, my oppinion of the US wouldn't be nearly as low as it is now.
I was born in Macedonia, and grew up there, that's right down south from Yugoslavia, if anyone wants to start with me on anything from there, I will not stop 'till he/she is dead, and I am not joking. I usually let people have their way in these debates, because for the most part it doesn't concern me, but this is THE thing, I beg of everyone never to bring it up again.

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

"Macho, macho man. I wanna be a macho man."

That should be Omega's theme song. So much for "ooo, I'm a Christian and I love everybody."

------------------
"There comes a time when the mind takes on a higher plane of knowledge but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap."
--Albert Einstein, on intuition.

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

*ROTFLMAO*

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Now this shall become a religious thread =)

Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :

The pilot didn't ditch the aircraft in the sea because HE was responsible for 23 other servicemen/women. The aircraft was 'somewhat flyable (apparently with some difficulty)' and as any pilot will tell you it is much easier to land AND SURVIVE a landing on ground rather than a landing at sea.

What the intelligence weenies here in the US don't want the Chinese to find out is just how sensitive the EP-3's sensors are. If they determine that we can detect a particular range of EM emissions with ease, the Chinese would immediately begin searching for ways to use signals that are much more difficult to detect.

One point that hasn't been touched on here is that EVERY country (with a respectable military) conducts signals intelligence. The Chinese undoubtedly have dedicated aircraft that monitor US naval deployments much like the Soviets did during the Cold War. It's a method of determining your potential foes' intentions, any sane person can see the benefits of knowing as much as possible about your potential enemies. I think, personally, that all this talk about discontinuing these types of flights is rediculous, they are necessary so as not to be caught off guard.

As for whose fault it was I can't imagine a smaller, more maneuverable fighter being unable to move out of the path of a swerving prop aircraft (even if it was) unless he was either:
A) Too close to have time to respond (big no no on his part)
B) Wasn't paying enough attention to the situation (another big no no)
C) Was too worried that the US pilot didn't notice that his email address had changed since their last encounter (no idea if that account was true but interesting nontheless)

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

That last one is a beaut, Shipbuilder. I can see it now.....

US Pilot: I can't hear you..... try another frequency

Chinese Pilot: I said it was *garbled message*

US Pilot: I still can't hear you.....

Chinese Pilot: dammit here I'll write it down on a piece of paper *writes e-mail on a piece of paper and sticks it to window of craft*...... here can you see yet?

US Pilot: uh.... lets see now..... no can't see it yet. Can you fly a little closer?

Chinese pilot: see it now?

US Pilot: Still Can't see it.... Closer!!!

Chinese pilot: how about now?

US Pilot: Still need to be closer, closer..... closer..... ok, I can read something now.......

*WHAM*

[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited April 09, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

C) Was too worried that the US pilot didn't notice that his email address had changed since their last encounter (no idea if that account was true but interesting nontheless)

LOL. What was this -- ?

Posted by dih1138 on :

The Chinese want an apology for the loss of the pilot & his plane, nothing else. The surviving pilot led them to the island and showed them where to land as a goodwill gesture. He even showed them the correct direction to land in!
The captive crew of the EP3 is being treated very well: they are sleeping in officer's quaters and eat catered food. The only reason they have not been let go is that, as was said before, the military hardliners want to consolidate popular support and secure more funding, as well as impair the sell of AEGIS equipped warships to Taiwan

------------------
Ian Hughes

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

I won't bring it up again, infinity. I realize I must've sounded detached, and it didn't have anything to do with this thread. I know a few makedonians here in Sweden, in fact they get their faxes from home through me.

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

1138:

The surviving pilot led them to the island and showed them where to land as a goodwill gesture. He even showed them the correct direction to land in!

Only after asking permission to shoot them down. Ten to one he was directly ordered to take them to a safe landing zone, against his wishes.

JK:

The incident in question was an example of the late Wong Wei's... skill... at close-range piloting. He apparently got so close to an American plane once that he flashed a sign from his cockpit with his e-mail address written on it.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Only after asking permission to shoot them down. Ten to one he was directly ordered to take them to a safe landing zone, against his wishes.

Hate to ask, but ... what's the source for the request to shoot down?

Anyway, all this means is that the goodwill was on behalf of the Chinese government and not one individual fighter pilot.

quote:
The incident in question was an example of the late Wong Wei's... skill... at close-range piloting. He apparently got so close to an American plane once that he flashed a sign from his cockpit with his e-mail address written on it.

This is what you get for sending planes in the vicinity of hot-dogging aggressive fighter pilots.

Posted by dih1138 on :

To Omega:
Is there anything else but conjecture behind everything you say?

------------------
Ian Hughes

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

Sorry for coming off like that Nimrod, but that's the one issue I feel very strongly about. I still respect you as one of the few people in this flame board that aren't ignorant assholes.

dih1138: That's just Omega, you learn to luv 'em, or in most cases you don't but you get over it He has his merits, but in my oppinion he is the most stubborn person I've seen when it comes to supporting one's own oppinion, it's just pointless, he doesn't wanna hear you, he's right, you're wrong, that's it

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

EP-3 airplane has electronic equipments that has the ability to monitor communication traffics inside Chinese territory. Any leaders with the right minds will veiw this as an violation towards his country and can be treated as an act of aggression, and he will respond correspondingly.

Let me ask what would you feel if any of you guys live across the street from my house and I listening in on you and your wife "doing it" or use night vision equipment taping the "shagging" process?

So guys, playing "word game" or "let's check the dictionary" for this situation is just stupid, maybe the media see a difference, but from a military standpoint, spying and surveillance are pretty much the same thing.

Going over the war over this? Kicking China's ass as easily as you did in Iraq? Wow, list of moronic statements just keep getting longer and longer! Some of you guys think that going to, and winning a war is as easy as cooking an egg.

Don't even talk about military analysis or stratigies until you have at least the rank equvalent to a Colonel. All the military statements I read so far from this thread is superfical and idotic limiting to "we kick ass" or "gonna bomb their asses back to stone-age" type. Why can I say this? Because I know. Why do I know? cuz both my grandfathers are career military, one in army with THREE STARS hanging on his shoulder, one with TWO STARS in navy.

Are the American gonna apologized? Maybe, or maybe not, depends on how hard the line is drawn between the Chinese official and Bush administration. Any conclusion drawn now is premature.

Do you guys really so naive to think this apologize thing only has the purpose to save face? Chinese at this moment are analysising the sensitive equipments on broad the aircraft! That's the real intention here. That is why the American are really pissed off, but what can they do, they only did the same thing to the Russian at least a dozen time.

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Oh, you're absolutely right! Everyone who doesn't have vague and specious connections to an armed force, get out while you can!

I, on the other hand, am a direct descendant of a couple guys who fought the Romans near the Rhine, or at least I could be. So I'll stay, being so obviously qualified.

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

I should point out both my grandfather are still in service, so non of that "ancient dinosour don't know sqaud about military warfare of today" shit.

And I don't know about your military relatives, my grandpas actually went over military stuffs with me, and I do read their collection of military books.

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

I wouldn't be surprised if the military WAS squabbling over "surveillance" versus "spying." Did any of you read the paper today? I know the New York Times is going through great pains to make sure people see the difference in wording. Quatation marks and italics abound. US calls it a *sureveillance* plane, and the Chinese are calling it a "spy" plane. The NY Times also had an article on how the United States was considering PHRASING their apology, (if it ever comes down to them giving one), and how a single consonant may make or break relations.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

I do have one particular bone to pick here Blue E., and that would be the "privacy" of radio or electronic communication of anyone including a country.

Please don't think that the Chinese are not fully aware that the United States and other intelligence gathering communities are listening in on open air communication. Afterall, radio waves being what radio waves are, they can not be considered private property and therefor privileged.

Which leads me to conclude that the United States is being what amounts to a nosey neighbor. Now while you might not like your neighbor looking in your windows, there is no way you can prevent such an action other than closing the blinds or growing a tree.

Be sure that the Chinese have done the electronic equivalent of that with encryption devices for sensitive material.

This is prime example of Bismarckian "political realism" with a Chinese pilot and several American service people used as pawns to whatever national interest is at stake as viewed from either side. The Chinese view this situation as a opportunity to bargin with the United States from a position of power...having the American service personnel. It seems to me that the Chinese love to bargin from a position of power be that position percieved or real.

And I imagine along those lines that there is a good deal of talk about Taiwan going on even as we quibble.

------------------
The negotiations have failed. Shoot him!
~ C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

For me to over heard a conversation from my neighbour because they're too loud is one thing.

For me to actually go right up to the border of their properties and set up "Peeping Tom" equipments in broad day light is another thing.

and might I mention EP-3 is not as simple as "monitor radio frequencies"

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Perhaps, but electronic reconnaissance isn't necessarily the international equivalent standing next to a girl with a mirror on one's shoe.

------------------
The negotiations have failed. Shoot him!
~ C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I am a spy plane. Shiny, too. What then? What then indeed.

"Everyone who is not American has a role for America. Mostly they are people who have no role for themselves. Mostly they're jerking off."

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :

"they only did the same thing to the Russian at least a
dozen time."

The difference was the Russian pilots WANTED to leave Russia and not go back.

I'm not sure about a dozen times either..I know of the one instance where the pilot defected to Japan, we stripped the MIG down, rebuilt it, and returned it. The other MIG aircraft that we obtained were purchased by former Warsaw Pact nations after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

BE:

EP-3 airplane has electronic equipments that has the ability to monitor communication traffics inside Chinese territory. Any leaders with the right minds will veiw this as an violation towards his country and can be treated as an act of aggression

Blue, China signed treaties saying that this WAS, in fact, acceptable. You can do whatever the heck you want in international airspace (minus some environmental stuff). If they want to go back on their word on a United Nations convention, then they're gonna be in a world of trouble, because NO ONE will trust them after that.

Some of you guys think that going to, and winning a war is as easy as cooking an egg.

Depending on the situation and the scope of the war, it can be. I doubt it would be here, but it wouldn't be that bad. We're not talking about trying to take Beijing, here.

Don't even talk about military analysis or stratigies until you have at least the rank equvalent to a Colonel.

*L*

Well, Daryus, looks like you're gonna have to shut down that website of yours...

Chinese at this moment are analysising the sensitive equipments on broad the aircraft! That's the real intention here. That is why the American are really pissed off, but what can they do, they only did the same thing to the Russian at least a dozen time.

True, but when we did it, it was not in violation of treaty. This is.

As for my source about the pilot asking permission to shoot down the plane, there was a WND article yesterday. Unfortunately, it's been supplanted by more recent news stories, and their archives are set up horribly. I'll try and find it...

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

I feel like a tool quoting a Tom Clancy novel, but a guy I knew who was a "upper mid-level" Secret Service liaison to CIA (& a damn fine wreck diver, too) basically said the same thing to me.

From "Red Storm Rising:"

"He called himself a spy," Toland objected. "You don't say that. You call yourself an 'officer.' An 'agent' is a foreigner who works for you, and a 'spy' is a bad guy. They use the same terms we do."

------------------
"For people with resources, the right events happen. They may look like coincidences, but they arise out of necessity." --T�rk Hviid

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

International Law recognizes a limit to airspace of 4 miles out to sea.

The U.S. and Chinese airplanes were 68 miles out to sea when the incident occurred.

Admittedly, China claims airspace out to 200 miles, but those claims are not recognized by any other nation or international body and never have been, and are considered Chinese saber-rattling. It is the equivalent of claiming you own all the road that leads to your driveway for a half-mile in each direction. Nonsense.

According to the incident reports, The Chinese plane dipped under the American plane, and came up directly in front of its nose, striking the nose of the plane with its tail, damaging the tail, which caused the crash. This is the equivalent of someone who suddenly cuts in front of your car and them slams on his brakes. (which is usually a prelude to insurance fraud). A big lumbering prop-driven plane would have an exceedingly difficult time avoiding such a blow, whereas the highly maneuverable fighter could have avoided such a thing if he'd not been hot-dogging it.

China wants an apology for the crash and the loss of the pilot, even though its clear that the pilot was lost as a result of his own arrogance. They don't want an apology for the "snooping," bcause it might set a precedent when we pick up some of the 'fishing trawlers' that are the Chinese methods of spying on US.

I'm sick of all these whiners saying we should apologize for snooping on the Chinese. Fuck them. We've been snooping in on them for decades, and they've been spying on us for just as long. (Except that they no longer have the silent assistance of the administration in office)

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Fuck them

How compassionate.

So ... those who don't want to give an apology apparently feel it's okay to keep the flight crew away from their families for this length of time.

I, on the other hand, would just like to issue an apology so those crew members can be reunited with their families.

For all the grand talk of war, and kicking ass, shouldn't the goal be to reunite the crew with their families? Quit yer' fuckin' bitchin' and apologize so those people can go home.

Oh, right, I forget -- a war would be so much preferable.

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

There are probably many people who would be sad if all the glorious toys we've built during all these years never would come to use, like new bombs, new tanks, new planes and ships. Some harmless battles down in who-knows-where would boost the morale! It would be a nice shakedown on the boring and inexperienced armies of today.

Well armies are made to avert war...

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

Um, Canada, y'know, Canada, that big evil empire to the north of you that routinely and blatantly disregards international law, claims 200 miles of sea and air off the coast.

And horror of all horrors, the US recognizes it. Even though this recognition cuts down on the amount of sea that can be fished by boats out of Washington State and New England. Even though if Canada only claimed 4 miles, there would be no "salmon war" and economic benefits for America's economy.

So, why the double standard?

------------------
"I can be creative when I have a good idea. That just happens way too rarely."
-Omega, April 6

Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :

Bad example, since we ARE having boundary disputes with Canada.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html#Issues

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Any boundry on naval and arial soverignty would likely be derrived from the UN convention on the topic. It simply doesn't allow for costal regions that big. See, the difference is that China ratified that convention, whereas we didn't. Don't know about Canada, but since the US never ratified it, we can recognize or not recognize whatever we darned well please. CHINA, OTOH, would be in violation of treaty by claiming that distance. Canada might not, depending on ratification.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

You know, I just heard something interesting on CNN.

In China, an apology is akin to an "excuse me", or "sorry 'bout that!"

In the US, an apology is admitting responsibility and perhaps legal culpability for something.

Seems to me, that if this is the case, like the big issue here is that the Chinese are saying what they want and we're interpreting what we would demand if our positions were reversed.

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

"Seems to me, that if this is the case, like the big issue here is that the Chinese are saying what they want and we're interpreting what we would demand if our positions were reversed."

*rolls eyes* I coulda told you that.

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

Oh, that wasn't directed at you, Jeff, but at this entire thread.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I know =)

I just don't see what the big deal is about apologizing to China. Get our people back.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Incidentally, it looks as though I was wrong, and that international treaty respects boundaries out to a greater extent. 12 miles.

It also appears that the Chinese aviator did NOT first strike the nose of the US plane, but in fact clipped its wing first.

The reason we're not apologizing to China is the same reason I didn't join in the collective guiltfest when Darkstar left. WE DIDN'T _DO_ ANYTHING!

THEY clipped US over free airspace.
We landed at one of their airfields after sending out an SOS, which International agreements ALSO permit.

Apologizing for something that wasn't your fault sends a clear signal. And that signal is "weakness." It opens the door to an infinite number of potential problems. It is similar, very, to what happens when you negotiate with terrorists (not that the government of China is exactly the same as terrorists... they're thugs with legitimacy.)

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited April 10, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Damn straight. Let's let those 24 men and women stay in China until they drop this apology nonsense. Because, dammit, it's more important that we appear strong! The families of those crew will learn to live without their loved ones!

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

See, the difference is that China ratified that convention, whereas we didn't. Don't know about Canada, but since the US never ratified it, we can recognize or not recognize whatever we darned well please. CHINA, OTOH, would be in violation of treaty by claiming that distance.

I sense American Big-Boy-Bullying "we do what we want and you do what we say" mentality here. Does anyone else see this?

[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited April 10, 2001).]

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :

Yes, how convenient. Had the plane flown one mile closer to the shore, it would have been violating Chinese airspace. But the pilot(s) knew very well not to cross the border, so they could conduct their business above international waters. Now that's nice - conducting surveillance, as close to the border as you can, yet being legally untouchable.

Imagine being constantly monitored by spyplanes, without any means to prevent it (apart from shooting them down, which would mean war). Being forced to stand idle as these planes take their peeks. That would... annoy... me, to say the least.

------------------
"Cry havoc and let's slip the dogs of Evil"

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

And of course, by saying that, you assume that only the horrible, evil, US of A would EVER do something so dastardly as spying... thereby ignoring over two thousand years of world history.

What are they teaching kids in school today?

the USSR spied, and the Russians STILL spy.
The Chinese spy a LOT. There's probably a half-dozen 'fishing' boats within range of our Pacific fleets and off our own coast. We know they're there.
The Israelis spy.
The UK spies, the French spy, the Germans spy.

So don't pull that crap and try to make the US out to be the bad guy just because they got caught. Uf the other guy had SR-71's and spy satellites (Which the CXhinese are working feverishly on), he'd use them.

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

TEL: If China doesn't like it, it can file a complaint. There is no legal and binding treaty that prevents eavesdropping while in international territory. The US plane was never in Chinese airspace, period.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Why, First of Two, not at all.

However, whom do we blame when spies get caught? The people who caught them, or the people doing the spying? I mean, come on now. The US was caught in the act of spying, let's just get out people back.

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :

1st of 2: I never assumed that. The difference in this case however is that such a big deal is made out of it. If the Chinese are caught spying, what happens? Threats follow to cut relations, expell all diplomats, and what not. Now it's the other way around: the USA caught with its pants down, and guess what? The Chinese must be at fault, demands are issued that the plane and crew be returned immediately (for oh wee if the Chinese ever discover just what kind of data was being gathered on them), and the entire world gets knowledge of it.

TL: Seriously, such a complaint would not even be looked into. After all, anything that's got a red flavor gets canned. And no, there is no treaty of any kind that prevents eavesdropping, because really, who do you think would bother to sign it? That would exclude both parties, and when has history ever shown people to have that much blind faith? No spying means no way to see what the other side's doing.
And whether the plane ventured into Chinese territory or not doesn't make much of a difference now, does it? China is asking for an apology, not an acknowledgement of that fact.

------------------
"Cry havoc and let's slip the dogs of Evil"

[This message has been edited by The_Evil_Lord (edited April 10, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Well, let's get a few of our patrol boats to ram a few of their 'fishing' boats and see how THEY react when WE demand an apology.

OR, we could go and arrest that guy (Was that Charlie Tri?) who was visiting the White House dozens of times while he was working for a branch of the Chinese military. See what he can tell us before the Chinese govt. starts rattling the sabers to get him back...

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :

I *obviously* don't have the full story here, for it is not confirmed the Chinese plane deliberately rammed the U.S. aircraft.

In any case, accident or otherwise, the Chinese would like an apology for their loss. Regardless of whether that is out of order, is it so hard to just grant them that pleasure and end this puppetshow? Or is national pride more important than the lives of military personnel?

------------------
"Cry havoc and let's slip the dogs of Evil"

[This message has been edited by The_Evil_Lord (edited April 10, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Fo2: what the Chinese mean by "apology" doesn't neccessarily mean what we in the US think of as an "apology."

As I gather it, the US is loathe to "apologize" because we here view an apology as taking responsibility for an act. It would mean we would take the blame both for causing the incident, and then also possibly taking the legal ramifications for such an act (which would mean the US might have to pay reimbursement for the lost plane and possibly to the pilot's family).

However, the Chinese view an "apology" more as an "oh, excuse me." What you might say to someone after you bump into them in the hallway. It wouldn't be an admission of responsibility as much of acknowledging that an accident had occured.

I got that from CNN. I could be mistaken.

Still, I STILL don't understand what the big deal is about apologizing. Or why some insist on SENDING IN THE NAVY SEALS AND FIGHTER BOMBERS AND TEACHING THOSE DAMN YELLOW SLANT EYES A LESSON! WE CAN KICK THEIR ASSES! YEAH!! AND WE'LL ONLY LOSE 4OUR SOLDIERS! THEY'LL LOSE SIXTY BILLION! AND WE'LL NUKE THEM, TOO! ISRAEL ROCKS AND HAS A BIGGER NUCLEAR ARSENAL. WE WILL WIN -- NO ONE FUCKS WITH THE UNITED STATES AND SURVIVES TO DO IT AGAIN!!!

Oh well. I guess a new Administration has to take a hard line to appear tough in foreign-relations "crisis" ... but is it really worth it to the crew and their families, this forced seperation? George W. Bush can end this at any time he wants too. Personally, I think this is all an excuse for him to boost his approval ratings a bit.

Now that I think about it -- didn't AMERICAN pilot error (essentially) cause a great big American submarine to sink a much smaller Japanese boat recently? Is it that hard to assume that the Spy Plane's pilot couldn't have made a similar error of judgement like the Greenville's CO?

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 10, 2001).]

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

Actually, what the CIA are referring to is the fact that the Canadian Coast Guard in the past has left Canadian waters to monitor Washington-state-based fishing boats that intercept spring salmon runs heading towards BC rivers while the fish are passing through US waters. It's part of the whole salmon ruckus, because Olympia and D.C. say there are enough fish to catch that there can be an unlimited-haul fishery within a season starting on day x and ending on day y, while Victoria and Ottawa want everybody to wait until a minimum replenishment stock reenters the rivers to spawn before fishing commences. Things have gotten ugly in the past, but nowhere near as ugly as on the Atlantic coast, where international courts upheld the rights of the Canadian Coast Guard to monitor fishing outside of the 200 mile Canadian claim. About seven years ago the Spanish trawler Asai was caught with an illegally-sized net catching Turbot outside Canadian waters, the CCG boarded their ship and arrested the crew. The Spanish appealed Canada's right to do so and lost, indeed, the rest of the EU sided against Spain and supported Canada in the whole mess, IIRC.

Basically, what this means is that there certainly is precedent for legal intervention of activity occuring more than 200 miles of one's coast. Like I was telling Omega over ICQ, international law isn't like the US Constitution in that every possible thing that can happen is defined... it's more like British Parliamentary law which runs more on custom and precedent than a few set documents. You Americans are all-too-quick to jump on the wording of treaties and agreements when they help you and all-too-eager to blatantly disregard them when they don't *cough* ABM *cough* Treaty of Ottawa *cough* International Criminal Court

------------------
"I can be creative when I have a good idea. That just happens way too rarely."
-Omega, April 6

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I love it when you post, The_Tom. You say it all so well

Posted by Evolved (Member # 389) on :

And don't forget that whole global warming emissions treaty...

------------------
Ace

"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."

Posted by Evolved (Member # 389) on :

BTW, whoever said that bit about going to war with China in the 50s...gee, I wonder...what was that country we were all afraid of back then? I think is was above China and had the word Union in it...hmmm...lots of nuclear weapons...could it be the SOVIET UNION?!!

What did you want to start? World War III?!

President Truman recognized this and that's why he fired MacArthur, who had the "great" idea to bomb China, the U.S.S.R.'s ally at the time. Do you want to show me how we would have been better off in ANOTHER world war?

If we go to war with China today, Russia would ally with them because they view the United States as a greater potential enemy, especially after the spying incident and economic trouble.

------------------
Ace

"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK:

However, whom do we blame when spies get caught? The people who caught them, or the people doing the spying?

Oh, come on, a Clancy fan who doesn't even know the difference between legal and illegal espianage? We had every right to be where we were. It's not a matter of being caught. We weren't trying to hide what we were doing. It's a matter of our people being ILLEGALLY held.

The US was caught in the act of spying

Oh, boo-hoo, we were "spying". So frikin' what? It was perfectly legal, unlike what the Chinese are doing.

Let's try some analogies, and see if those get through.

Say I call you a jerk, for whatever reason. Say you, in response, punch me in the nose and take my wallet. (I'm sure you like this analogy.) Say you then demand an apology before you'll give my wallet back. Who's the bad guy?

Well, my calling you a jerk would be well within my right of free speech. Your punching me and taking my wallet, however, is a crime. In the real world, you would be legally required to give the wallet back, and probably do some jail time as well.

See it?

Try this one: what if, instead of expelling all the Russian diplomats that were spying on us, we arrested them instead? They were spying on us. So what if arresting them's in violation of the most fundamental international law? They deserved it. What do you think would have happened to us?

TEL:

Or is national pride more important than the lives of military personnel?

You still don't get it. They HAVE to give our people back. They have no choice. What, can they hold them as POWs? If they don't give them back, eventually, they will be economically destitute.

JK:

If that's the case, then why are they not accepting our offer of our regrets as an apology? Sounds like what they want, according to you.

didn't AMERICAN pilot error (essentially) cause a great big American submarine to sink a much smaller Japanese boat recently?

Completely different situation. Not even close to analogous.

Is it that hard to assume that the Spy Plane's pilot couldn't have made a similar error of judgement like the Greenville's CO?

Considering it was supposed to have been on autopilot at the time...

Ace:

If we go to war with China today, Russia would ally with them

Russia couldn't afford a war. Their soldiers are begging for food in the subways. If they so much as tried to martial a force, the country'd fall apart into even smaller pieces. And before you bring up their vaunted nukes, they can't have been properly maintained on their low military budget. An ICBM is an extremely fragile device. I doubt those birds would even fly.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Legal espionage? How fascinating. Go read The_Tom's post. I see you've ignored it, probably because you have no counter arguments to it.

And last I heard, the Chinese were liking the idea of a statement of regret. Catch up on the news, bubba.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

And yet they still demand an apology? If they're happy with the regrets, then why are they still holding our people? Perhaps you're wrong about what they want? Ya think?

As for Tom's post, it says nothing about legal and illegal espianage. Under any circumstances, China, by law, CAN NOT do ANYTHING to a plane over international waters. If he thinks otherwise, well, sorry, but he's wrong. Look up the UN convention on the subject.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited April 10, 2001).]

Posted by Evolved (Member # 389) on :

"An ICBM is an extremely fragile device. I doubt those birds would even fly."

Let's hope you're right...

------------------
Ace

"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."

[This message has been edited by Ace (edited April 10, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I said they were liking the idea of regrets, not that they were happy with it yet.

Too bad you ignored what The_Tom was talking about. But then, this IS you, we're talking about ...

Not too mention that your analogy is highly inaccurate. Maybe this is a better one:

Person A's car strikes Person B's car. Person A believes Person B to be at fault, but Person B's car is injured, so Person A allows them to stay at their house. When Person A demands an apology from Person B's family, Person B's family refuses, citing that they had the right to drive on that road, and it was probably Person A's fault anyway.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 10, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Your analogy neglects the fact that person A would then hold person B and their car until they obtained said apology. This is called kidnapping. Again, illegal. Thanks for helping me make my point again.

But what, pray tell, is wrong with my "highly inaccurate" analogies? You didn't say.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

That the second person deliberatly attacked the first person. There's no proof of this. The action would have to be accidental.

The Chinese didn't kidnap that crew. They landed on that island of their own will. Granted, the plane was damaged, but they could have just as easily flown out towards water and hoped a rescue team would find them. I guess my analogy is incorrect -- Person A would willingly find sanction at Person B's home (where they would be well treated).

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 10, 2001).]

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

Has anyone ever thought that maybe China is still bitter about the bombing of their embassy thing? (nevermind that it was under Clinton, the US is the US)

I've been reading some Taiwan-based Chinese newspapers. One from five days ago quotes Tang Jia Xuan (I don't know who the hell that is) saying "This incident is entirely the Americans' fault. Reasonably, they should take complete responsibility and make an apology." He also says "I need to point out, the Chinese continues to take a cool-headed, disciplined, and responsible attitude to deal with this affair." The article says the 24 Americans will be in touch with the American Embassy, and finally this other guy Yang Jie Hu says "I believe, the most important thing is for the US government to face the facts. The US should take all responsibility, and they should apologize to the Chinese."

In this other Chinese article I found online, the American representative says pretty much what 1st described of the incident.
The Chinese rep replies: "the American plane swerved and the Chinese plane was unable to dodge it. We trust our pilot to have done the right thing."

The American rep: "Our people were flying in a straight line. It was your fault."

Chinese rep: "No, they swerved. It's your fault."

American rep: "They did not."

Chinese rep: "Did too."

American rep: "Did not."

Chinese rep: "Did too."

Well, it sounded like that anyway.

A third article I read did some fun psychoanalyses (and gross generalizations) of American attitudes. Here it is.
"Americans often don't understand that it is difficult for foreigners to understand Americans. The U.S. isn't like Europe, with nations each having a single culture, but it has many histories and cultures combined in a great union. Although the contrasts between American cultures have dwindled somewhat in the last few decades, there are still long-term differences. This phenomenon has many interesting effects, one of them is the American view of conflict.

"Different cultures in America have different attitudes toward conflict. Take the South for example. Southerners take their personal honor extremely seriously. If insulted past a certain limit, they are compelled to respond; if they don't, it's seen as a sign of weakness (sounds familiar), but the response only provokes more retaliation. On the other hand, in New England, the center of their culture is ethics. If everyone acts reasonably, their first reaction to any type of invasion should be peaceful resolution, seeking to understand the other party and finding a common ground. But if the other party lacks ethics (or morals?), they are quick to conflict, having an all-out battle, until the other side surrenders."

There's another part to this that has to do with the plane collision. I'll translate that when I get home.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Maybe a malfunction with the auto-pilot ...

The Chinese Embassy was the fault of the CIA. They planned what buildings to attack, and it's their damned fault they didn't have up-to-date maps of the area. As I understand it, their maps were several years old.

Not that I'm excusing the incident, it just seems to me blame should be laid where it's deserved, and the CIA deserves the blame in this case. Especially since, as I believe happened, other nations on the allied side of the bombings warned the US that the maps were out-dated.

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :

It's sometimes hard to tell the CIA and the government apart.

------------------
"Cry havoc and let's slip the dogs of Evil"

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

Here's the other part of that article I wanted to quote. Here's a link to the article if anyone cares.
http://www.chineseworld.com/publish/today/12_0900.4h/4ha(010412)02_tb.htm

"The unfortunate part of the incident at Hainan Island is that perhaps most of the American cultures gravitate toward one thought: that the US and China may eventually come to war. When the ethicists/moralists look at the Tiananmen incident, jailing laborers (wha?), and the Tibetan problem, they already deeply believe that China's leaders need to be taught a lesson. Economists (i.e. people whose main concern is economy), because they have concern for China's markets with cool-headedness from having experience learned from investments and collaborations (*LOL* that's the best I can do), don't want to see Taiwan destroyed. If the collision incident turn into a hostage situation, Southerners who are exceedingly sensitive to shame and slight insults may become infuriated.

The final factor of this conflict is false prediction/estimate on China's part. China, mislead by the Vietnam and Persian Gulf wars, may think that the way to stop U.S. retaliation is by causing heavy American casualties at the start of a war."

Uh...I should remind you guys that this is a huge speculation of some guy from Taiwan. They've been waiting for a war of union with China since the Taiwanese government was established ninety years ago.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK:

That the second person deliberatly attacked the first person. There's no proof of this. The action would have to be accidental.

Good point. So say your limo driver does something stupid and crashes into my car. I've only got some bruises, and you're just fine (but minus one bad limo driver). You then grab my wallet and refuse to give it back until I apologize for the accident.

Still not get it?

And you never responded to my analogy using the Russian diplomats.

The Chinese didn't kidnap that crew. They landed on that island of their own will.

Holding someone against their will is kidnapping, is it not? If not, what would be the term? I believe that whether you forced them to be where they are, or whether they came of their own free will is irrelevant. They're still being held against their will.

I guess my analogy is incorrect -- Person A would willingly find sanction at Person B's home (where they would be well treated).

But not allowed to leave. A well-furnished prison is a prison, none the less.

Maybe a malfunction with the auto-pilot

Those things are as darned near failure-proof as any bit of tech that we have. If there was ANY possibility of one failing, then 24 men and women wouldn't have trusted their lives to one, now would they of?

Ziyal:

The unfortunate part of the incident at Hainan Island is that perhaps most of the American cultures gravitate toward one thought: that the US and China may eventually come to war.

Well, considering that we got the idea from one of their generals ten years ago, I'd say we have good reason to think that. He even said that it was a certainty, not a possibility. In fact, he's the general running this whole mess on their side!

jailing laborers (wha?)

I think he means striking laborers. I heard something about that.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by bear (Member # 124) on :

I can imagine what happen given the wealth of information provided by this forum and the various other media sources, so laying blame would be relatively easy for me, but I don�t honestly see any benefit of either side admitting their solely responsible.

Militarily, I can�t possible fathom the idea of admitting that surveillance of the Chinese was wrong, because knowing what your neighbor is doing, and having him know that you know what he is doing does nothing in my mind but provide stability. Its not like we are providing Taiwan with an arsenal to retake the mainland. I see this whole thing as something bigger, whether that be the exclusion of arms to Taiwan, testing of W, or American resolve in maintaining a presence for the benefit and security of Taiwan. If memory serves something was said a while back about it not being a question of would Taiwan be taken but when it would be taken. I would like to see a show of hands that believe Taiwan should be given back to China? In my mind they are and should remain separate states until they both decide to get back together. Now you can make references to the American Civil war if you like, but that war was not fought some fifty odd years after the separation, so the grounds that Taiwan being a rogue state to me is ridiculous.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, China has the potential to be the larges consumer country in the world, so trading countries, U.S. included, will sell their souls for a piece of what China has to offer. For those that absolutely detest the U.S. for our meddling, should we be chastised for playing nice and giving in to the Chinese, throwing the Taiwanese to wolves, or playing the perceived John Wayne part and protecting Taiwan. In actuality either way we are going to be doing something wrong, so I ask you what is the more right course of action?

For all I know this whole thing could be the Chinese militaries attempt to receive world attention and recognition as a legitimate and professional military. I several years ago if someone had asked my perception of the Chinese army I would probably conjured up a vision of a peasant carrying an AK47

------------------
Access Password
47at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/9268/index.html

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Holding someone against their will is kidnapping, is it not? If not, what would be the term? I believe that whether you forced them to be where they are, or whether they came of their own free will is irrelevant. They're still being held against their will.

That's not kidnapping.

To take (any one) by force or fear, and against one's will, with intent to carry to another place.

The plane's crew weren't forced to land on China's land. They could have opted to crash-land into the ocean. They opted to land on that island of their own free will (or, at least the free will of the plane's CO).

They're not exactly hostages either, so we'll go with "detainees" as the appropriate term to refer to them as (this, coincidently, being what the Bush White House refers to them as).

As for your Russian analogy, we caught 'em spying, we got pissed, we kicked out a bunch of their diplomats. This is hardly the same situation, yet we've responded with a hard-line (the same sort of hard-line that the Chinese are).

quote:
So say your limo driver does something stupid and crashes into my car. I've only got some bruises, and you're just fine (but minus one bad limo driver). You then grab my wallet and refuse to give it back until I apologize for the accident.

No, I still don't think that's a good analogy. For one thing, insurance would cover it. For another, we're talking airplanes here. I don't know why you and JeffR keep comparing this to 18-wheelers and Ferraris. And of course, I can't even bring up the Greenville 'cuz "it ain't relevent"

quote:
But not allowed to leave. A well-furnished prison is a prison, none the less.

I find it hard to believe the crew of that plane didn't know the possible consequences of landing in Chinese territory. They knew the risks: they took them. They willingly walked into that "prison" by landing on Hainon Island. I think we're all greatful that they're being well-treated, and as soon as Dubya gets off his high-horse, maybe they can come home.

quote:
Those things are as darned near failure-proof as any bit of tech that we have. If there was ANY possibility of one failing, then 24 men and women wouldn't have trusted their lives to one, now would they of?

Computer malfunctions never happen? Some technician didn't forget to adjust the whatever to cause it to go hay-wire? Those Marine Ospreys haven't been crashing quite a bit, have they? Yet, the Marines continue to fly 'em (and Marines continue to die). That's machinery that dozens of men and women have trusted their lives too ...

More importantly: with two aggressive Chinese jets buzzing by so close, why leave the flying to the auto-pilot when it can't predict the manuevers of the Chinese jets? That's like setting your car (oh, look, I'm doing it now...) to cruise control and taking a nap as you drive down I-95. Better hope nobody does anything unexpected, or you're in a world of trouble ...

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 10, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

In movies the autopilot usually explodes in a large orgasmic firy ball of pyrotechnics mastery. I believe what I see in the movies, for they are a window into the soul - fears, desires, all - of the audience.

By the way, Chinamen are deserved of painful death by Molten Plastic. Ride of the Valkyries.

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK:

You didn't even read it, did you?

My point, for those of you who pay attention, was that we were in a similar position with the Russians as the Chinese were with us. The Russians did something we didn't like, but legally, we couldn't detain them. Same deal with the Chinese. What would you think if we HAD, in contravention of all international law, arrested the Russian diplomat spies? Because it's the EXACT SAME SITUATION. It is/would be an action taken in total contravention of treaty for the simple reason that one party did something perfectly legal that the other didn't like. We were legally required to return the Russians to their homeland, as the Chinese are required to return our people here.

For one thing, insurance would cover it.

This is relevant how? WHY you take the analogous actions doesn't matter. The analogous actions HAVE been taken. How do you view them?

For another, we're talking airplanes here.

That's why it's called an analogy. How does the vehicle affect the accuracy of the analogy?

I don't know why you and JeffR keep comparing this to 18-wheelers and Ferraris.

Then you must not be paying attention. Jeff explained this at least once.

So since you have no REAL objections to my analogy, shall we just say I'm right and call it a night, then?

They willingly walked into that "prison" by landing on Hainon Island.

No, they didn't, because as far as they knew, there would BE no prison. There COULDN'T be, under international law. Effectively, the Chinese promised that they would not do exactly what they have done. They broke their word.

Computer malfunctions never happen?

Remember, this is a thirty year old plane. Who says the autopilot is computer controlled? You may just push a button that says, "Fly in a straight line," for all you know. And besides that, we're not talking a Windows operating system, here. These things are designed to be totally failsafe. There is NO WAY that the autopilot could fail and ditch the plane, or they wouldn't be allowed to use them. Yet further, IF the plane swerved while no one was at the controls, how did they avoid dropping into the ocean? Ain't no way they moved around the plane to get to the controls while it was banking like that.

Those Marine Ospreys haven't been crashing quite a bit, have they?

On landings and takeoffs, which are definitely not auto-pilot controlled maneuvers. We're talking about flying in a straight line, here. All you really need is a physical clamp to keep the yoke from moving. Heck, a well-placed rope or two in the cockpit could do it, in a pinch.

There is NO WAY that our plane could have caused the collision. You have no argument here. Give it up.

with two aggressive Chinese jets buzzing by so close, why leave the flying to the auto-pilot when it can't predict the manuevers of the Chinese jets?

Perhaps they assumed that the Chinese pilots had half a brain in their collective head. You are quite correct in that this is now known to be a false assumption, but at the time, it was a good one based on the available information.

It's also worth pointing out yet again that the US plane was under no obligation to try to avoid the Chinese jets. The jets, being more maneuverable, were required to avoid the larger plane, eg. ours.

That's like setting your car (oh, look, I'm doing it now...) to cruise control and taking a nap as you drive down I-95.

Completely unanalogous situation. A plane has three degrees of maneuverability, whereas a car has two. A plane is far, far more maneuverable in those degrees than a car. There are several orders of magnitude fewer planes in the sky than cars on the road per vehicle volume. International rules of aviation require that the faster plane stay out of the way of the slower.

UM:

By the way, Chinamen are deserved of painful death by Molten Plastic. Ride of the Valkyries.

For great justice?

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited April 11, 2001).]

Posted by Evolved (Member # 389) on :

"By the way, Chinamen are deserved of painful death by Molten Plastic. Ride of the Valkyries."

I do not believe 'chinamen' is appropriate in a constructive discussion, just as the term 'nigger' or 'cracker' would not be appropriate.

------------------
Ace

"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Embassy bombing nothing; China's still sore over the Boxer Rebellion.

------------------
"Excuse me, Mr. Rampaging Killer? Why don't you put down the gun and take a look at this hand-held monkey? Does it not have clever little forepaws? It eats gum and sap!"
--
L. Fitzgerald Sj�berg
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet" and something pleasent will happen to you. Possibly involving syrup.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I'm gonna say this again, for JeffKarde's benefit:

Under INTERNATIONAL Law, any plane in distress can make an emergency landing at any nation's airport. This does NOT give that nation's military/government the right to hold them there once they land. For ANY reason. It doesn't matter whether the plane is military or civilian or engaged in any operations outside that of open warfare.

In other words, the only way that they can legally hold the crew is to admit that a state of war exists between them and us.
____________________

In any case, I hear we're probably going to issue an 'apology' of some sort, anyway.

This will at least send a clear message.

Unfortunately, that message, which all our other allies and trading partners in the Pacific rim will receive loud and clear, is: "The United States is unwilling to stand up to China in a crisis situation."

On a personal, humanitarian level, I want to get our people home as fast as possible.

On a political level (that which we three-dimensional thinkers refer to as "The Big Picture,") it's a very bad idea to go about it this way.

Unfortunately, the Chinese don't give a damn about the humanitarian angle (ask the students at the Square), but they're willing to use it against us. We've shown them how 'desperate' we are to 'get our boys back' by broadcasting all those yellow ribbons and rot on CNN, and they're milking it for all its worth.

Believe me, if the reverse had happened, and it was their people we were holding, even in a MUCH more clear-cut case of espionage, it'd be a cold day in hell before we got any apologies. Gnashing of teeth, threats to nuke California again, but no apologies. See, in a communist culture, individuals, especially 'snoops,' are expendable.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

UM: "By the way, Chinamen are deserved of painful death by Molten Plastic. Ride of the Valkyries."

Ace: "I do not believe 'chinamen' is appropriate in a constructive discussion, just as the term 'nigger' or 'cracker' would not be appropriate."

Me: I do not believe that 'ace' can detect UM's subtle sense of humour. He is obviously gay.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

BEIJING (April 11) - The United States ended an 11-day crisis with China on Wednesday by saying it was ''very sorry'' a Chinese pilot died in a collision with its spy plane and ''very sorry'' the U.S. plane landed in China without permission.

But despite not accepting responsibility for the incident or apologizing in full as China had insisted, the U.S. ''double sorry'' won a promise that the spy plane's 24 crew detained on China's Hainan Island since the collision would be freed.

A chartered passenger has taken took off from Guam to pick up the crew on China's Hainan island. The current scenario is for the charter flight to take the crew back to Guam, a U.S. island 2,360 miles southeast of Hainan, either for refueling or transfer to a military aircraft. The crew would then fly to Honolulu, where the U.S. Pacific Command is based.

The apparent end to the diplomatic crisis came following a letter by U.S. Ambassador Joseph Prueher to Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan on Wednesday.

Diplomats from both sides had agonized for days over the exact wording of the letter to make it mutually acceptable.

''Both President Bush and Secretary of State (Colin) Powell have expressed their sincere regret over your missing pilot and aircraft,'' the letter read.

''Please convey to the Chinese people and to the family of pilot Wang Wei that we are very sorry for their loss. We are very sorry the entering of China's airspace and the landing did not have verbal clearance,'' it added.

Prueher said later that Tang had given his assurances the U.S. air crew would be able to leave China promptly.

''As the U.S. government has already said 'very sorry' to the Chinese people, the Chinese government has, out of humanitarian considerations, decided to allow the crew members to leave China after completing the necessary procedures,'' the official Xinhua news agency quoted Tang as telling Prueher.

BUSH EXPRESSES SORROW

President Bush reinforced the letter, expressing sorrow for the death of fighter pilot Wang Wei, who parachuted into the South China Sea and is presumed dead.

''I know the American people join me in expressing sorrow for the loss of the Chinese pilot. Our prayers are with his wife and child,'' he told reporters at the White House.

Prueher declined to say when the U.S. crew could leave, but the 21 men and three women aboard the crippled EP-3 spy plane when it made an emergency landing on Hainan were expected to be flown out on Thursday.

U.S. officials said a chartered passenger plane would fly from Guam to Hainan and take the U.S. crew back to the Pacific island, from where they would head to Hawaii for debriefing.

The U.S. ''very sorries'' fell short of China's insistent demands that Washington apologize for the mid-air collision, which the United States refused to do, saying its plane was not responsible for the accident.

But they will allow the Chinese government to convince an angry public that Washington has indeed done so.

But while the immediate crisis was over between the world's only superpower and its most populous nation -- which harbor deep suspicions of each other -- it appeared Beijing was eager to continue using the issue to its advantage.

Xinhua quoted Tang as telling Prueher ''this is not the conclusion of the case'' and Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi, said the investigation into the incident was still going on.

Asked what would happen to the EP-3, packed with super-secret electronic eavesdropping equipment, Sun replied cryptically: ''The Chinese side reserves the right to make representations to the U.S. government pending the results of the investigation.''

RELATIONSHIP FRAUGHT WITH DISAGREEMENTS

Nor was there any sign that Washington was prepared to soft-pedal a relationship both countries acknowledge is fraught with deep disagreements and needs to be improved with trade between them running at more than $100 billion a year.

No sooner had the spy plane drama taken a decisive step toward the final curtain than the U.S. delegation at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva presented a resolution accusing China of abuses.

Although China is likely to fend off a vote on the resolution -- as it has every year since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre of pro-democracy students -- the annual battle in Geneva is likely to further inflame relations.

Throughout the spy plane crisis, China's Communist government worked hard to convince the country's 1.3 billion people that it would not bow to a foreign power as its 19th century predecessors did.

It kept the massive search for pilot Wang and the grief of his wife on the front pages and on television, fueling nationalist emotions.

With a Communist Party leadership reshuffle due next year, no one in power could afford to look weak.

But initial reactions on the streets of Beijing to the resolution of the spy plane crisis were that China had not got enough in return for freeing the U.S. crew.

''Sorry is not enough,'' said Liu Yan, 33, a delivery man working the late shift in the diplomatic quarter. ''Our government has not been hard enough on the United States,'' he said, piling boxes of fruit and vegetables outside a luxury hotel.

''China has lost valuable equipment and an even more valuable life,'' said restaurant owner Yang Pin, 44.

''In the U.S. people get awarded millions for choking on their McDonald's,'' he said. ''The United States should back up its words with concrete actions -- that means money.''

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan was swift to express his relief the crisis was over.

''I'm extremely happy that this issue has been resolved because we were all concerned that the longer it got drawn out, the more the possibility that positions would have hardened in both countries and complicated and perhaps that has taken so long to put together,'' he said.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Then you must not be paying attention. Jeff explained this at least once.
So since you have no REAL objections to my analogy, shall we just say I'm right and call it a night, then?

Sorry, Omega, you're not correct. The anaologies AREN'T correct. And I wonder why you keep objecting to my use of the Greenville as an example ... ?

Posted by Evolved (Member # 389) on :

<Ace: "I do not believe 'chinamen' is appropriate in a constructive discussion, just as the term 'nigger' or 'cracker' would not be appropriate."

Me: I do not believe that 'ace' can detect UM's subtle sense of humour. He is obviously gay.
>>

If you believe racial slurs are humourous, that's your choice. I simply said I believe that words such as "nigger", "chinaman", or "cracker" are not appropriate. If that belief is considered by you a sign of obvious homosexuality, you might have a problem you need to think about. I did not insult UM, you, or anyone else for that matter, but I guess it's okay to insult an "obviously gay" guy.

------------------
Ace

"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Ace,

Try not to get too wound up. It's the depricating humor that PsyLiam and UM specialize in. UM was spoofing the "hit 'em hard and hit 'em fast!" mentality that many people have taken in regards to this "crisis."

I also agree with you about "Chinamen", "nigger", et al.

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

Orignally posted by PsyLiam:

quote:

UM: "By the way, Chinamen are deserved of painful death by Molten Plastic. Ride of the Valkyries."
Ace: "I do not believe 'chinamen' is appropriate in a constructive discussion, just as the term 'nigger' or 'cracker' would not be appropriate."
Me: I do not believe that 'ace' can detect UM's subtle sense of humour. He is obviously gay.

Okay, this is the first post that pissed me off, so I'm gonna take it out on you Liam.
How is it a bad thing to be gay? It is a person's own choice.
How can you assume that someone is gay? People that are not tend to find it offensive, so this is why you DON'T call people gay, unless they specify they are gay.
How can you approve of racist attitudes? Maybe UM was only kidding, but if I were chinese, I'd be pinging his computer to hell with my T3, I would not care for an explanation or anything like that. I really do not appreciate the attitudes of a lot of people, in particular this has been Omega and UM, who have been against me since my very joining of this board, and now I see Liam has joined them as well, the people who have respect for others like JeffKarde, Nimrod and Ace, are becoming too few and far between, I suggest others make some changes.

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Liam is himself gay.

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

Which makes his comment make less sense.

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

infinity: sar'casm (n.)

------------------
"I can be creative when I have a good idea. That just happens way too rarely."
-Omega, April 6

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Yes, Liam imitated the typical guy who overuses the word "gay", in online gaming, for instance. Ace not picking up UM's joke has nothing to do with gay.

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

.

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited April 11, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I heartily congratulate myself on the ruckus I have created.

Now, on to the responses.

Ace: Racist? Not I. My best friend is even white. So am I. Although not racist. My friend isn't either. Responding to lamebrain ignorant comments about taking China hard and fast, and generalizations about Chinese culture? I.

Liam: If we use that as the judge, then the majority of this thread is gay. And so is everyone I've ever met.

Ace, Part II: Again, I had nothing to do with the whole 'unfunny = gay' determinant that Liam has invented. Again, I am not a man who is not friendly to the races. One who attempts to parodize those who are, yes.

JeffKardde: Deprecating? Liam, you and I should be very proud.

Infinity: Without retyping the posts to Ace, I will say that the answer here would be the same as those, had I not posted them first. And what's this about me being against you since you came here? I don't even recall replying to you recently at all. I think you're a tad paranoid.

The_Tom: Thank the Black Jesus.

Nimrod: Yes.

All: It's like that one guy who was on TV said once: "No matter what you say, you'll piss people off. You can say that you love bunnies, and you'll get millions of letters from people who think that you meant sexually, or from people who are allergic to them and have to live in bubbles."

Me: By the way, Chinamen are deserved of painful death by Molten Plastic. Ride of the Valkyries.

I think viewings of Oliver Stone movies involving molten Plastic are in order.

*Rolls eyes*

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

JeffK: It was more a general stereotype humour-thingy that an on-line gaming jab. But close enough.

I am dissapointed at Ace and Infinity11 not getting the point though. They are obviously all gays and lesbians.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Well, I'd point out to Jeff that he can't just declare that an analogy is wrong and expect people to listen, without explaining WHY is it wrong, but it's kinda irrelevant now.

Under any circumstances, go, Bush!

And when do we get our plane back?

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

The Russian analogy or the car analogy? And what's wrong with the Greenville analogy?

The car analogy is incorrect because you don't include the fact that the driver of the vehicle would have two choices: ditch his vehicle in water, or go for aid with whomever struck him. Also, there would have to be two other cars involved, with one of those drivers being killed.

The Russian situation is a totally different thing. We invited the Russians over here in the first place (sort of) to work their Embassy. It's not like their plane broke and we had to let them land.

Now, please explain what's wrong with an analogy to the Greenville? It seems to me that we're trying to compare apples with oranges...

Well, Omega, we probably DON'T get our plane back. You know, that's the other thing. You're all (1of2, JR, Omega) so vibrant about how you can't trust the Chinese, then something like this happens and you expect that you can trust them then ... ::sigh::

And so when something like this happens, you kinda gotta realize that the Chinese probably aren't going to obey a treaty (although, you skipped over The_Tom's post, which pointed out that if a court were to look at previous rulings, they might rule in China's favor). The pilot knew that by landing on Chinese territory, they would be in danger (of either being killed, or not being allowed to return to the US). For all your talk of not-trusting the Chinese, don't ya'll think that maybe you should think about that when deciding to ditch in the ocean or land on Chinese land?

Then you BITCH about not being able to trust the Chinese afterwards! Good GOD! If I run a red-light and get hit by a truck, I'm not going to blame the red-light for causing the fuckin' accident, I'm going to blame myself for not realizing that by ignoring a certain set of past experiences, I shouldn't be too dammed surprised when they repeat themselves.

We got our people back. The crew destroyed what on the plane was valued as a security assett, and the Chinese have gotten the rest of the stuff off. As it is, the plane probably couldn't be flown of Hainon Island, so it'd probably be just as well to push it into the ocean as try and recover it. And if the Chinese keep it -- so what? What else could they get off of it?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
I wouln't say that anyone who has ceased to post every time you rant has "realized that they couldn't win" Omega. It's more like "oh, great he comes Mr. conservative frontal lobotomy boy who only hits one note over and over and over and over..."
-Jay, July 15, 2000

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 11, 2001).]

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

the_tom: Look up overdoing it, or annoying, whichever you prefer, ace did not take it as a joke and he was offended by it, I decided to act on his behalf.

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

Only just caught up reading this thread. . .

quote:
Only after asking permission to shoot them down. Ten to one he was directly ordered to take them to a safe landing zone, against his wishes.

So. . . thank God the Chinese givernment can override THEIR military, who are psychotic, while all along you've been saying that YOUR military should be allowed to immediately go all out to recover the crewmembers?

I'm just glad it's all over. Bush doesn't seem to have lost any prestige for himself or the US. Mainly because all his supporters, his Party etc. will back him as a matter of course, while the rest of the world had already formed an opinion of him as an incompetent wanker. 8)

But now I�ve brought Star Trek into it again, haven�t I. Sorry."

- James Lileks, 09/04/2001

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

The Chinese military is a bunch of murderous, gun-slingin', gang-rapin' assholes with no self control.

The U.S. military is virtuous, and only attacks when forced to. No American soldier would ever do anything that a damn Chink* would do. That's the difference: our military upholds The Constitution, the Chinese don't.

Just ignore My Lai ...

*Please understand that this is being used with extreme sarcasm.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 12, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Lee:

while all along you've been saying that YOUR military should be allowed to immediately go all out to recover the crewmembers?

Hmm... immediately? Did I say that?

JK:

That's the difference: our military upholds The Constitution

No, the difference is that on the rare occasion taht they don't, they're severely punished.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Hmm... immediately? Did I say that?

Along with blowing the plane up, yep, you sure did.

quote:
No, the difference is that on the rare occasion taht they don't, they're severely punished.

So, the difference isn't, in fact, that the Chinese military doesn't uphold the Constitution? It's that when the Chinese military fails to uphold the Constitution, they're not punished for it?

You know, I think the vast majority of the armed forces in the world don't uphold the US Constitution either.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 12, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Or any document which delineates and insures the rights of the citizenry, for that matter.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I still think it's kinda funny that Omega apparently thinks that the Chinese are supposed to uphold the US Constitution, despite 1of2's attempted to cover for him.

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

"The U.S. military is virtuous, and only attacks when forced to"

oh yeah, I see the American bunches of self-rightous ego-maniac, who can't stand anyone that is different from them.

The Americans always want to butt in on every single other countries affairs after WWII.

I'm glad that a country like China can stand up to them and say this to them in their faces:

"We are not going to do whatever you want us to do, we don't give a shit what you think of us, and if you want to make a big deal out of that, we're ready to kick your sorry asses whenever you're ready"

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Blue,

I hope you realize I was being sarcastic when I wrote that.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

if you want to make a big deal out of that, we're ready to kick your sorry asses whenever you're ready

You have a highly overrated opinion of China's military, Blue.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

Do I?

Chinese have been arming themselves with all the best military technologies from the Russian ever since the fall of the USSR. Not only that they're getting the best equippments, they are also getting the technologies transfers, so they can build it themselves.

The Chinese military are no longer fixated on quantities, now they also have the quality as well.

Mind you, the American probably will have the upper-hand on the European continent or in the heart of Pacific. But in this situation, I'm referring to an American invasion on South China sea, or to attempt an amphibious landing on the mainland. That, I can assure you, the American will be greeted with total annilation.

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

Um, excuse me, but since when did America need to be able to mount a successful invasion of mainland China and win?

It's one thing to bitch and whine and say you can't defend yourself against everyone. But bitching and whining because you can't attack and beat everyone is, shall we say, a little pathetic?

------------------
"I can be creative when I have a good idea. That just happens way too rarely."
-Omega, April 6

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Someone has apparently fallen victim to that most famous of classic blunders.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

In all fairness to Blue, Omega was talking about sending in the SEALS earlier. That would be an invasion, would it not?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Reaching, Jeff, way reaching. You're bringing up a completely seperate topic.

Chinese have been arming themselves with all the best military technologies from the Russian ever since the fall of the USSR.

Oh, my, Russian fighter technology! Oh, and their submarines! What ever will we do?

Russian tech is nothing compared to ours. Of course, the skill of the pilot is far more important, but, hey! Got 'em beat there, too. Their pilots are stupid enough to ram giant planes that're flying in a straight line.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Er, Omega-chops, if anyone was reaching, it was Blue. I was just pointing out WHY he was talking about an invasion. You WERE all gung-ho about sending in the SEALS and bombing the crap out of that plane. Remember? So, really, YOU'RE the one bringing up a completely seperate topic, aren't you? Yeah, boy-o. Think before ya' speak.

Disregard their equipment if you want to, Omega. Lots of Americans will still die. At least I don't have as cavalier an attitude towards it as you do. WAR = BAD. People die, and I doubt we'll handle the Chinese anywhere as near as what happened in Iraq or Kosovo. Remember Vietnam ... ?

And remember the advice from The Princess Bride? "Never get involved in a land war in Asia! Ha-hah-ha-h::croak::"

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 13, 2001).]

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

I am glad we have an expert on Russian fighter technology to clarify these things for us.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, it's really quite simple. Apparently, if it's not American, [omega speak]it sucks big giant hairy balls.[/omega speak]

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

Well, it's not his fault he was dropped on his head a lot when he was a baby

j/k

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

Russian techs inferior to that of the American counterpart? Since when?

Using some vital numarical statistics(1), which you can find from various reliable sources (Jane's information database, etc), The Russian fighters(in this case, Su-27, and MIG-29) are clearly superior to their American peers (F-16, F-15), which is also suported by the German airforce, who operate both MIG-29 and F-16. I believe that the American also have some "friendly exchange" with the Russian on simulated close air combat (dog fight) with F-15 and Su-27, in which the Russian had a landslide victory.

The Americans fighters only have the advantages when it come to out-of-sight combat, in which advance electronics on Americans fighter combined with sophiscated long and middle ranged missle (AIM-120, Phenoix) will help them gain the upper hand indeed. Mind you, Russian missle technologies are just as good, if not better then American air to air missles

As for the navy, it should be known, even for amatuer, the Russian have way superior techs on submarines(2). As for surface vessels, the American are better equiped in term of anti-air defenses (Aegis system on Burke class, and one other class, I forget the name of it), while the Russian have better techs on sea-to-sea missles (one of many example: Kh-31, with range exceed 100km, and a terminal velocity of over Mach 4.5, and specially design to penatrate Aegis defense system).

(1) - by numarical statistics, I meant wing-load (pound /squre inch), net trust, turn radius, continous turn radius, airplane incline angle(Su-27 famous Cobra maneuver, in which F-15 can never performed), payload, range, etc.

(2) - Russian subs are known to go deeper and faster then their counter parts (Alpha, Akula), also, the American still can't build an entire sub with Titanium alloy, like the Alpha or a sub as big as the Typoon. As for stealth, Victory III and Mike are said to be at a same quietness as L.A class sub.

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

>"The Americans always want to butt in on every single other countries affairs after WWII."

And for forty years, they LIKED it that way. After all, you never saw anybody appealing to France or Turkey or KENYA for military/political/economic/humanitarian aid. It was always either us or the UN.. and guess who was the contributor behind the UN?

But hey, fine, I'm easy.
As soon as I get in as Dictator, all the other countries can go their own way.
You don't want us around? Fine, have it your way. Don't call us. Ever. For anything. Famine? You're on your own. Military Coup? Screw you guys. Invasion? Sorry.

Of course, we'll still look out for our own interests, but now we won't CARE if we step on your toes while doing it, because HEY, you aren't our friends anyway.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

I find it fascinating when people say "we" to refer to their own country. Since when did you become a hive mind?

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

If America wants to help, it is their choice to do so, but if they are gonna help when help isn't wanted, and then complain that other countries don't appreciate that, they shouldn't help at all. The post by First of Two is typical of the American standpoint, if the US wants to help so much then how come they establish so many military bases where they help? You know what? I think they like to help themselves.
You didn't know that?
Oh, well, don't you feel out of the loop?
I think that you're out of it because you've been spoonfed B.S. by good ol' Uncle Sam.

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

exactly!

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

1st of 2:

"But hey, fine, I'm easy. As soon as I get in as Dictator, all the other countries can go their own way.
You don't want us around? Fine, have it your way. Don't call us. Ever. For anything. Famine? You're on your own. Military Coup? Screw you guys. Invasion? Sorry."

Of course, we'll still look out for our own interests, but now we won't CARE if we step on your toes while doing it, because HEY, you aren't our friends anyway."

After the communist took over China, I don't think we've ever ask for Americans' help on pretty much anything, if so, it's done on an "volunteer" bases.

One thing good about the communist China is that they show more back-bone then the Chinese nationalist ever could. And when they want to do something, the whole nation will back it 100%. While the American governement and public are still squabbling rather to appologize or not over this incident, the entire China as a whole are already pointing their fingers at the Americans.

"Of course, we'll still look out for our own interests, but now we won't CARE if we step on your toes while doing it, because HEY, you aren't our friends anyway."

Good, look out for your own interest, it's suppose to be that way. But man, if you step on China's toe, they won't stop a missile to "accidently misfired" from one of their plane and "accidently" sunk one of your ship.

After that, the American will probably be royaly pissed off and want to wage war at China. We won't be stupid enough to chanllenge you on sea or some far away places because Chinese reconize your power and have nothing else beside mainland to protect anyway, so you will have to take the fight to us.

In a war, the American can:

1. Blockade China, and hope to starve the Chinese to death.

- Sorry, we're pretty self sufficient, if there's anything we don't have, we'll get it from the Russian. Oil supplies won't be a big problem, since that China has a way better relation with Middle East then the American. We sells technologies to them, and don't ask many questions. American on the other hand, big friend to Isreal, and Middle East do feel threaten by the whole concept of "American assimilation" culturely, and religiously. Blockade us won't help, hell, Chinese had been doing it to themselves before Nickson decide to nock on their doors. Chinese are makings tons of cash from various free enterprise sector, that will be hurt during the blockade, but again, nothing life threatening. Beside, a pure blockade will bring shame to American pride, so it is highly unlikely.

2. limited warfare. By sending couple of Carrier groups into Chinese controlled sea and carry out bombardments by airplane or missiles as a show of force.

- One big problem, Americans can't achieve air superiority with F-14, and F-18. The Chinese will have advantages in both quantity and quality in air. Couple of well position Kh-31 by Su-27, goodbye carrier fleets, goodbye billions of dollars. The "electronics" drawback on Chinese planes won't be a big problem, since that land-based radar will be fully capable on covering that disadvanges

3. Full out land invasion from European stationed force.

- Ha, guess who is on the way, the Russians!

4. Trying to create a strong hold on various countries bordering China, then carry out an land invasion.

- Most countries bordering China either hate the Americans or don't really have anything to do with the American.

5. Carry out massive carpet or stratigic bombing from Japan.

- Again, no air superiority. Stealth airplane you say? Isn't it a year ago, where Chinese figure out a way to detect plane with stealth technologies, and it's all over the news?

6. A full out amphibitious landing on China mainland.

- Ha, good luck with that one, I'm not gonna waste my breath explain why it cannot be done.

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

mmm, who wrote that book about a Chinese invasion of Russia for the "Northern Resource Zone" or area....
Anyway, looking at the way things are the Russians could go either way in any kind of conflict between the US & China. Any country bordering a another that has over a billion people will always be looking out for their better interests. Today the Russians are pro China, tomorrow when the wind shifts not so pro China, I doubt that they will be anti China till more nations are with them, like the world outcry over students being killed.

What still gets me over the whole thing is:
US Pilot - "Watch, I am going to ram my 400 mph prop plane in to this Mach 2 Chinese fighter...."

He must have come out of the sun.....

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

"Sorry, we're pretty self sufficient, if there's anything we don't have, we'll get it from the Russian."

Which one?

"Ivan! Ivan, get in here! The Chinese are back!"

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

sigh~

don't believe that the Chinese are having good relations with the Russian?

look at all the military trade, and we're talking top notch technologies here. The Russian are even considering inviting the Chinese to participate the development of I.42 (MIG equavalent of F-22).

How much more prove do you want?

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

I is for Illyushing or some such, MIG is another company.....
it actually should be Il-XX...

If China is so self-suffcient then why all this back falling on the Russians???

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

"don't believe that the Chinese are having good relations with the Russian?"

Actually, I think Simon was referring to the fact that that China would get assistance from the singular Russian. And made a funny joke, too.

That Russian must have one heck of a farm.

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

it is true that Chinese are self-sufficient, but having a second option is always good

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

Sorry for the confusion on the comment about the new MIG fighter.

The project for this specific development is code name the "MFI" " or "Mnogofunktsionalny Frontovoi Istrebitel" (Multifunctional Frontline Fighter)

the prototype is coded as Mig 1.42

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

"Mnogofunktsionalny"

Test pilot? Shaft. John Shaft.

Shut your mouth.

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

As long as George Clinton rests his funkalacious hat here on our humble continent, I don't think we have to worry about the threat of foreign funk.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

What of the Renegades of Funk? Rogue Factions?

And not just any funk. Mnogo Funk.

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited April 14, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

>"if the US wants to help so much then how come they establish so many military bases where they help?"

The answer to that is SO simple, it only requires the use of a half-dozen brain cells!

Why isn't there one centralized police department in each city? Why do we have districts and precincts and beat cops? (Or if you like Star Trek, 'Why does the Federation build and maintain Starbases?')

Because it's EASIER and FASTER to get to a trouble spot if you're already CLOSE, you numbskull! The US (and its allies) couldn't have set up "Desert Shield" so quickly if their nearest base had been in Florida, now, could they? Or if the Soviets had attacked West Germany back during the cold war, our having troops ready in New Jersey wouldn't have been nearly as effective as having them in Bonn.

Think for a second before you criticize. Thinking is good.

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

Yes! We're gonna help you! Don't mind our starbase in Your territory! It's just there so WE can defend YOU better! Trust the Federation!
Oh, my god, talk about being spoonfed B.S

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

Wow, I can't beleive I've actually found all of the "dumb american" stereotypes combined into one person. First of Two, you really are the perfect person for me to set up as an example in front of everyone when I am argiung against American aggressive nationalism, and their near infinite beleif in "the american way"

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega would be a better example, IMHO. Fo2 is hardly dumb. He at least (I'm fairly certain) can see the other side's arguement.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone on either side that actually believes that the US would declare war over one surveillance plane...especially now that the crew is safe and sound?
I mean, as Omega is so fond of pointing out, China has stolen "nuclear weapons technology". They could reverse-engineer a bit more military technology, and simply buy the rest...what's the big deal over this dinky little prop-plane?

At the very least, I'd expect you'd want to sell them a few more McDonalds hamburgers, a much more cell phones, and Pepsi bottles before you bomb them...so that you can make money AND get your kicks blowing stuff up.

------------------
"The Guide says that there is an art to flying...or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." - Life, the Universe and Everything

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

nah, I don't believe the States will go to war with China about that EP-3.

my "invasion" theory is based on some causes much bigger then that, such as the Taiwan issue.

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Agreed. The plan almost certainly had all its most sophisticated and secret hardware and data destroyed by the crew. Raising any REAL fuss about it would be incredibly stupid.

Infinity: you remind me of what an Irish friend of mine said about his people... "We don't know what we want, but we're willing to fight for it anyway." You want to attack my position, FINE. I might learn something. But please, name-calling went out with schoolyard fistfights and peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches for lunch.

Present an argument. (And that doesn't mean chanting "US bases suck!" over and over again, by the way.)

An argument is a series of facts intended to support a proposition. Your proposition, incidentally, is that US military bases should be removed from foreign soil. Now, you need to say WHY, and what could be done to replace the power vacuum that will open up when they disappear.

Blathering on about 'cultural imperialism' and 'nationalism' and the rest of that crap will, unfortunately, not help you to establish this proposition. Every country is nationalist. They wouldn't exist otherwise. Every country is primarily out for its own interests. They COULD not exist otherwise.

Now, you can either take this advice, and try again, or not. If you do, we can get started. If not, I shall proclaim you the Leftist Omega, and people will laugh at you and belittle your opinions.

Military bases provide an economic uplift to the areas that they are in. Just look at all the 'base towns' in the US that were hit hard when we closed their bases. (This doesn't really apply to Guantanamo, or other places where the bases are essentially beachheads, but it applies everywhere else, especially third world and impoverished nations.)

They provide a staging area for relief missions, whether military or humanitarian. They are thusly regional stabilizers.

They provide an evacuation point in the event of civil unrest.

And let me make one last thing clear about our military bases. Except for the places we invaded during wartime, which a TRULY imperialist country would have kept ALL of, we were INVITED. Or we PAY for the privelege of the base. (All our base are BELONG to us.) Comprende 'treaty?' These bases aren't held by sheer military might and threats. They're held by agreement. If a government decides we leave, we leave. we left Panama, even though that may turn out to be a bad idea, because we agreed to some years before.

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

I wasn't doing any name-calling. The words "dumb american" were in quotes, because they are representative of the stereotype that other countries view the US thorough.
The US bases are established to help others yet the ones in Macedonia haven't done any good to the Macedonian people. Many Americans drive on the wrong side of the road( although in Macedonia people drive on the SAME side as the US, so it would make no sense for them to drive on the other side, but they do it anyway) thinking they are above the law, and have caused many civilian casualties. When groups of vigilantes try to do something about it, they cry to the Macedonian government to protect their embassy, although it was they who disrespected the country's laws. And to top it all off, the US protected the Albanians in Yugoslavia, which led to the very same Albanians attacking Macedonia. So they CREATED a problem instead of stopping it, and Bush refuses to do anything about it now that the situation is already there. And to top it all off during the US's attacks on Yugoslavia, many bombs missed their targets and had civilian casualties in Macedonia. After finally ruining everything, the US could at least leave and let Macedonia and her allies eliminate the Albanian problem whichever way they deem necessary, but instead they are staying there against the wishes of everyone in the country, which I might add is violating teritorial sovereignty.

To summarize:
The base did no good, it caused problems, it doesn't wanna help solve them, and it doesn't even wanna leave and let the people solve it themselves.

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Ok, we'll let them build those nice big ovens.

Are isolated instances being blown out of proportion here??

Has there been a proper poll of the citizens of that area to find out how they truly think, without pressure from the poll takers being armed and of a certain side, a neutral poll taker used?? Or is this a case of the squeaky wheel not getting the oil it's crying for??

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

A totally unrelated note:

I kinda notice the huge magnitude of Omaga bashing...

I was wondering what did the dude do to get people so pissed off??

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well ...

I don't know if "pissed-off" is quite the right word. Omega's an interesting debater. Essentially, he'll side with anything Republican, believes NASA and the Highways are Un-Constitutional, has an EXTREMELY strict view of the Constitution ("diagram the dammed sentence!) and likes to complain about "ad-hominems" and "appeals to authority" (yet, strangely enough, will commit those same offenses as many times as he accuses others of doing them), and is generally just a stubborn kinda' guy.

He also thinks the Chinese military should be punished for not upholding the US Constitution, can't spell Britain to save his life, and has an odd fascination with some show about a Canadian Mountie living (& kickin' butt) in Chicago (the name escapes me at the moment).

Anyway. He's just an odd-kind of debater. You see him enter in the thread and you know it'll be about as progressive as banging you head into a brick wall in an effort to move said wall.

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

^0^

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"due South". It's called "due South".

he'll side with anything Republican

Untrue.

believes NASA and the Highways are Un-Constitutional

You have yet to show that they are constitutional. You assume them to be.

likes to complain about "ad-hominems" and "appeals to authority"

Only when you make them and pretend that you've made a legitimate point. Oh, don't forget, I also complain about your constantly trying to pull a "guilt by association" by attacking Limbaugh and pretending that this makes some point about my arguments.

He also thinks the Chinese military should be punished for not upholding the US Constitution

Never said that.

can't spell Britain to save his life

Find the last time I misspelled it.

See, this is why I argue with you on every frikin' point, Jeff. I don't want you to spread lies unchecked.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited April 15, 2001).]

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Okay...
The highway system, IIRC, was made for national defense, which is covered by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.
"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect
Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

The "...common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; ..." can also be taken to mean NASA in its role of R&D for protection in and from space weapons, and ability to implement projects developed. The need to project power in an "Astriod"-movie type scenerio would be for the "...general Welfare of the United States...", as well as the rest of the world. A slim possibility, but from what I've read still a chance.

Also the technologies developed for both the highways and by NASA would also apply.

Next?

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Untrue.

Ah. Quite right. Let me ammend what I said. Omega has YET to side with anything not Republican in origin.

You have yet to show that they are.

Thanks Ritten

Well, as you'll see in the Volcano thread, I posted a rebuttal of your argument. It happens to be that your arguement was also Mr. Limbaugh's arguement, and the rebuttal was written in response to Mr. Limbaugh's arguement. Since they were the same, I don't see the problem. Except, of course, that you feel the need to cry foul instead of reading the rebuttal.

You make ad-hominems ALL the time Omega. Do you forget about them already?

Never said that.

I made an extremely tongue-in-cheek comment about the difference between the US and Chinese militaries and the Constitution. You replied that the difference was that the US military was punished for not upholding the Constitution. The clear inference is that you think the Chinese military should also be punished for failing to uphold the US Constitution. Therefore, for that to happen, you must believe that they should uphold the US Constitution.

Find the last time I misspelled it.

Ah, it's clear in all our memories, dear sir. I remember a particular amusing thread involving Fraance, actually. And, um, you know, you see how MY name is spelled in every post I make, yet you don't spell it correctly ... Jeff Karrde?

But, at least you're not denying that you misspell it. Just that you haven't done so recently.

See, this is why I argue with you on every frikin' point, Jeff. I don't want you to spread lies unchecked.

You're not arguing with me on every single point. I made many others. Since you're not arguing those, we shall assume those are true. These include the fact that a debate with you is about as productive as banging one's head into a wall.

See, Omega, I argue with you because I don't want people believing your ignorance is in fact, well, fact.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Omega has YET to side with anything not Republican in origin.

Show me a good bill that was introduced by a Democrat and I'll support it.

You make ad-hominems ALL the time Omega.

Yes, but unlike you in your early weeks (since when I haven't mentioned the term in question), I never pretended that saying, "You're a poopy-head," makes an actual point in an argument. It ain't a logical falacy if you don't claim it to make a point.

The clear inference is that you think the Chinese military should also be punished for failing to uphold the US Constitution.

Have you not yet learned to stop making unwarranted assumptions about other peoples' statements? You got into a lot of credibility trouble last time.

These include the fact that a debate with you is about as productive as banging one's head into a wall.

That's not fact. That's opinion. It gets ignored by most.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Omega, how do you feel about my 'interpetation' above?

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

Ritten said:

quote:

Has there been a proper poll of the citizens of that area to find out how they truly think, without pressure from the poll takers being armed and of a certain side, a neutral poll taker used?? Or is this a case of the squeaky wheel not getting the oil it's crying for??

I grew up in that area, I maintain contact with all my friends and family in that area, I go to visit quite often, I read the newspapers in that area. I know that every Macedonian wants to lynch the americans for what they did!! and a goodly number of them have decided TO lynch the americans for what they did, if you happen to recall the destruction of the american embassy.

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Show me a good bill that was introduced by a Democrat and I'll support it.

So you're not denying it.

Ah. I see, so by calling me a left-wing nut, it's okay because you're not trying to make a point?

you not yet learned to stop making unwarranted assumptions about other peoples' statements? You got into a lot of credibility trouble last time.

Well, you could've just said "the difference is that the Chinese military isn't supposed to uphold the US Constitution!" Instead, you said, "the difference is that the US military gets punished for not upholding the Constitution." Leaves a lot to read into.

That's not fact. That's opinion. It gets ignored by most.

Are you so certain of that?

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

While I'll be the first to admit this is an amazing spectacle to watch, mano-a-mano bickering is not what this board is here for. If we're finished talking about China, then I'll lock the thread.

------------------
"I can be creative when I have a good idea. That just happens way too rarely."
-Omega, April 6

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Quite right, The_Tom.

We tend to get a bit off topic, don't we?

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

"An argument is a series of facts intended to support a proposition."

No it isn't.

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

An argument is when a bunch of people get really pissed and yell at eachother--
Extract from Infinity's REVISED dictionary

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK:

so by calling me a left-wing nut, it's okay because you're not trying to make a point?

EXACTLY!

Ritty:

Yeah, that works. 'Course, it would seem preferable to at least clasify NASA as part of the military, even if it operated completely outside of existing chains of command. But, hey, it works for me.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Well, it appears that you are making a point when you refer us as "left wing nuts". It's hard to tell when someone is serious, and not so serious.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

But, Omeie-chops, I'm not trying to make a point when I call you an immature brat with no clue of how the modern world works. So I guess that's okay, too?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

It's hard to tell when someone is serious, and not so serious.

With me, it's difficult to do that in face-to-face conversation. I can understand the difficulty in text.

But, Omeie-chops, I'm not trying to make a point when I call you an immature brat with no clue of how the modern world works. So I guess that's okay, too?

So far as keeping your credibility intact goes, sure. Which is why I haven't complained about it since you stopped trying to flame people, instead of issues.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

*rolls eyes*

Find a new issue to slide personal attacks into, please...

------------------
"I can be creative when I have a good idea. That just happens way too rarely."
-Omega, April 6