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.

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

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

"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

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

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."

------------------
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

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

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.

"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?

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.

"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.

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?

------------------
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

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.

------------------
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

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