posted
Oh, that wasn't directed at you, Jeff, but at this entire thread.
------------------ "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.
I just don't see what the big deal is about apologizing to China. Get our people back.
------------------ 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
posted
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.)
------------------ 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
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited April 10, 2001).]
posted
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!
------------------ 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
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
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?
------------------ "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 10, 2001).]
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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
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.
------------------ 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
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
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.
------------------ "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
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.
------------------ 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
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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
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...
------------------ 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
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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
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?
------------------ 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 10, 2001).]
posted
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
I love it when you post, The_Tom. You say it all so well
------------------ 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic