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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

---

quote:

---

It is clear that the US is not at fault here

---

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.

---

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!"

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.

------------------
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).]

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

"How do you know?"

"He's playing with his dick."

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

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."

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

What does THAT mean?!

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

"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."