China's got our men and our plane

Great Debates
181

Sorry, that was a cite error on my part. I was intending to refer to Zarathustra instead.

I wouldn’t trust the heads of either government to tell the truth; what bothers me is that it appears that many folks in this thread are ready to accept whatever the Bush administration has been throwing out, without question.

[QUOUTE]China is way out of line from the American point of view in demanding an apology.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not entirely sure I’d agree with this point; from the Chinese perspective, America has been engaging in a series of Chinese-embarassing acts for the last few years, from the bombing of the Chinese embassy, the detention of Wen Ho Lee, and Bush’s own “China is a competitor” hard-nosed rhetoric. It certainly doesn’t help that we (Americans) are claiming that 80 miles offshort is international territory while our own Air Force threatens to shoot down foreign military aircraft that comes within 200 miles of our own borders. And we keep criticizing China on their human-rights abuses, yet take several days before expressing any sort of concern for the downed Chinese pilot. It’s the culmination of such acts that is causing the Chinese to see us as “arrogant” and demanding an apology, IMO.

As we do with them. Which is why I’m still baffled at Dubya’s initial hard-nosed reaction of a few days ago…

I realize that some of my more recent messages have been excessively oiver-the-top, and for that I apologize – I can only attribute it to overexcitement at seeing the IMO overeager acceptance of Washington’s view of events.

As for giving Bush a break, that’s harder to do – I really do think he’s been handling this situation all wrong (though I’m glad he finally offered his regrets, something that he should have done sooner), and his earlier reversals and policy actions (Kyoto, arsenic, Ashcroft, energy crisis…) have not endeared me in any way, shape, or form. The guy’s still IMO a blundering fraud, and his shoddy control of this incident is merely par for the course.

182

04-04-2001 10:27 AM

NEEDS2KNOW –

Huh. So again I ask you: If you rearend my car and it is your fault, should the fact that I have been in other car wrecks in the past (my fault) mean that YOU having hit ME makes ME look like a “bumbling fool”? You are AGAIN assuming that the Americans are at fault and you simply do not know enough to make that judgment. No one has accused you of “America bashing,” but you do seem almost gleefully willing to believe the Chinese version of events (it was our fault; they have a right to set their own territory because they’re in Asia and we’re not, even if it violates international law; we look bad in the eyes of the world because of this) and to assume we are to blame. In my mind, your post of April 4th, 10:27 a.m., speaks for itself in this regard.

Can you not see that the bombing of the embassy, the sinking of the fishing boat, and the collision of the planes are three different incidents? Do you not understand that just because we were responsible for the first two does not mean we are automatically responsible for the last? Each incident arose under very different circumstances, and you cannot assign blame for one based upon how you have assigned blame for the others, any more than you can say that because I burned down your house I must also have run over your neighbor’s dog. And do you have a citation for “all the countries” who “think w’ere just a little bit arrogant and self-righteous” or for the assertion that many are siding with China? Because most other nations are studiously staying out of it.

I continue to be amazed to see you post stuff like this. How could our having “fucked up a lot lately” leave us “wide open” for having our plane hit with a Chinese fighter pilot with a history of reckless behavior. If the incident is NOT OUR FAULT, then mistakes you think we’ve made in other contexts are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Can’t you see that?

183

rjung…could you do me a favor and address Jodi for awhile I can’t. How anyone could have such a high degree of tunnel vision I just don’t understand.

Needs2know

184

Did you not read the part of my post where I said, “but it makes sense from the Chinese point of view”?

In addition
A. Bombing the Chinese embassy was an accident in the middle of a strategic strike
B. Wen Ho Lee is from TAIWAN, not the PRC.
C. Bush is correct. China is a competitor, so why shouldn’t he say it?

185

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rjung *
**

Sorry, that was a cite error on my part. I was intending to refer to Zarathustra instead.

[QUOTE]

rjung, I think you’re making yourself look more and more of a fool. You realize that goboy has called you on your lie, and try to weasel out of it by defaming me instead? Where did I
ever say such a thing? Unlike events in the South China Sea, we can examine very clearly what has happened in this thread. And unless you can point to a message where I shouted, stated, or even merely suggested “my country right or wrong”, then I do expect an apology from you–to me, to goboy, and to all other participants in this thread for making us put up with this lying nonsense.

186

Hmmmm…one would think that you’d be intimately familiar with tunnel vision.

If you and rjung think most people in this thread have been jingoistically shouting “my country right or wrong” then I suggest you go back and re-read what people have actually said.

Saying that we don’t believe the Chinese dictatorship’s version of events doesn’t mean that we automatically accept the US version of events. Pay attention, please.

187

Stage direction: Needs2know cringingly exits from Great Debates, stage left, with tail between legs

Still waiting for your apology, rjung.

188

Zarathustra: Are you waiting for an apology or an expression of regret?

Just so I don’t look like an apologist for Beijing, because I certainly am not. The Spratley’s are claimed by China as well as Taiwan, Viet Nam, Philippines and Malaysia (could be wrong about Malaysia but certain about the other countries). Not that the possibility of significant oil fields or abundant fishing grounds have anything to do with the claims…

Taiwan makes territorial claims even greater than China. All the Taiwanese maps of “China” also include the sovereign country of Mongolia. China at the moment is not physically capable of invading Taiwan. It is also extremely likely that Taiwan has the bomb and made it clear years ago that a few key cities of China would go should there be an invasion. Unfortunately, I live in one of those cities.

Much of China’s territorial claims come from the Yuan dynasty (1279-1368), which was actually the Mongolian empire. And since Mongolia conquored China along with most every where else in Europe and Asia, somehow that became Chinese territory.

While I don’t have proof worthy of the Great Debates, the word here is that the embassy bombing in Belgrade was no accident. It was being used as the communication center for the Serbians. Said embassy was warned to ceast and desist, and after failing to do so was subsequently bombed.

189

For what? You and Jodi have demonstrated that your minds are already made up – the U.S. could not possibly be at fault, because George F. Will said so. The Chinese government must be lying, since they’re all godless commie heathens and we know how untrustworthy they are. And, of course, the United States has done nothing wrong during this whole affair; “President” Dubya was certainly in line to play cowboy and make thinly-veiled threats to China earlier in the week, since he really is a cowboy with his own ranch and all!

Just remember, folks, if the Chinese government decides to fly a spy plane near our borders, we won’t shoot them down within 200 miles of our shores. And if, by some circumstance, they have to make an emergency landing, we’ll give them free and total access to any of our military bases that they need to land at. Of course, we could not even think about boarding their plane or interrogating their crewmembers, and I’m sure we’d never do anything as juvenile as dismantling their plane and return it to them in crates. After all, we’re Americans!

Sheesh.

I love America, but you people freak me out…

(So it turns out the Chinese are housing our crewmen in officers’ quarters and feeding them catered meals. Funny, I wouldn’t have expected such behavior from evil godless commie hordes – they must be out of stale bread crusts.)

190

I had heard that as well. If it is true then I see nothing wrong with blowing up the embassy.

Marc

191

Your indication that I had stated, directly or by implication, that I believed in “my country, right or wrong”, was a lie, rjung. And it was a particularly weaselly kind of lie, because it was made in an attempt to disavow yet another groundless accusation you made against yet another poster in this thread. Admit that you lied, and apologize for wasting our time, that’s what I’m requesting.

192

I believe that Taiwan’s government has effectively stated that they recognize Beijing’s authority over the mainland, though I don’t know exactly what kind of convoluted phrasing they used. Anyway, the leader of Taiwan is a former (and possibly current?) advocate of that island’s formal independence, so I don’t think those maps carry much meaning vis-a-vis Taipei’s territorial goals.

It’s funny that Beijing would prefer Taiwan’s maintaining the fantasy that it will someday recover the mainland, rather that giving up the idea and confining its authority to its own (de facto) borders. If Taipei amended its constitution to say that it legally gave up all claim to the mainland, Beijing would find that very upsetting indeed.

193

You have yet to encounter my Uncle Gordie, who is presently employed by the Canadian government to assert Canada’s sovereignty against the United States over Machias Island.

He’ll treat you to a mug of tea, fry up a wonderful meal for you, and regale you with tales of the land, the sea, and his life.

As Canada’s official squatter, his position is that if he is friendly enough, then we win. The International Court of Justice seems to agree with him, though for different reasons.

“China wants to run their part of the world, just like we control ours.” Harrumph, says I! As long as my Uncle Gordie is out there on Machias with his mug of tea, you certainly do not control your end of the world. Darn upstart Yankees. Don’t know when to keep in your place. :wink:

194

rjung: surely you are aware that the Soviets used to routinely penetrate our airspace. And just as routinely our fighters would intercept them. And the planes would play tag and the pilots would have a great time zooming around taking pictures of each other and such.

They don’t do it so much any more, because their economy is in ruins and they can’t afford to maintain the planes and aircrews. But we never shot down ANY Soviet planes overflying American territory. And if we had, it would have been a mistake.

Please explain to all of us where the American goverment is lying in this case. Do you think the plane wasn’t in international waters? Even the Chinese agree it was. Do you think the plane was observing the Chinese military? Everyone agrees that it was, except that’s not against the law and you’re not allowed to shoot at people for looking at you or listening to your radio transmissions. Do you think our crew intentionally rammed the chinese fighter? Why would they do that? Do you think our plane landed on Hainan Island to piss off the Chinese? No, they landed there because otherwise they’d have to ditch in the ocean, which would mean a high probability that those 24 people would be dead.

Are you seriously proposing that if a Chinese airplane was in trouble that we would refuse to let them land on american soil? You do realize that airplanes from foreign countries land in the US every couple of minutes, right? Do we hold those people hostage? No, we do not. Would we board a damaged plane from one of our allies? No we would not. Would we board a plane from a non-allied country? Yes, we probably would. Of course we don’t want the chinese to board the plane, but that’s not the issue.

I still can’t figure out what you think we’re being lied to about. The simple truth is that the Chinese are holding those 24 people prisoner.

You still haven’t pointed out a single lie from the American Government, and I don’t expect you ever will, for the simple reason that there is no reason to lie in this case, because of the strong likelihood that any lies could be contradicted.

Explain to us what George Bush has done wrong, please. Oh, wait, you’re too busy with your kneejerk America bashing to take the time to figure that out. But you’re sure we MUST be wrong, because we’re America.

195

This page reports on the possibility that the Chinese embassy bombing was no accident. It seems to have lots references and links to back this story up.

196

Thank you so much Jodi, goboy, chique, Milossarian, and Jonas Marainen (I think), for trying to knock some sense into this thread. I’ve been butting heads with the rjung/n2k types in the other China threads. Talk about scope-lock! These people have death grips on their views and won’t be swayed by logic or reality. I can’t believe I’m supposed to put my life on the line for these people.

chique, you sound like a fellow Aries flyer… are you out of the business now? Q1 or Q2?

197

rjung: editorial commentary from former USAF Captains (hardly up there in the “movers and shakers” level of policy making) doesn’t exactly equate to a credible cite.

Saying what we [US] will do in the event of a similar situation is a bit presumptuous of you. I sure as hell didn’t vote for you.

And another stirling example of intellectual dispassion in the pursuit of truth. Rjung, your beef with W is certainly yours to have, but you’re seriously letting your hatred of the man, and his official policies, cloud your thinking.

You hate him for having a ranch? WTF does that have to do with the status of an EP-3 in China?

You keep implying that the U.S. is wrong for conducting a routine intelligence gathering mission, in spite of the fact that there is a long Cold War precedent for countries, even putatively hostile ones with thousands of nuclear tipped ICBMs aimed at us, for doing exactly the same, as their means allowed.

The PRC hasn’t, to my knowledge, conducted such missions towards us as they haven’t the means to do so. That isn’t to say that the PRC isn’t engaged in intelligence-gathering missions against us; they just aren’t flying aircraft to do so. Instead, because of our wonderful Constitution and Bill of Rights, the average PRC “cultural attache” can gather more and better intelligence for less risk than actually going out and recruiting an agent by turnng on CNN Headline News, watching C-SPAN1 and 2, and reading maybe a dozen major newspapers.

IIRC, the “200 mile limit”, often cited here-and-there, is what called the ADIZ, or “Air Defense Identification Zone”. We are somewhat interested in who’s in it, and what their intentions are (if they aren’t on a declared and established flight plan, like an airliner), but to my knowledge, we don’t shoot people down, or ram them and force them to make “emergency landings”, for being in it w/o flight plans.

Any “cultural attaches” engaged in intelligence gathering is normal, on the stage of international affairs and the conduct of nations; we [US] accept this. Military liaisons and observers routinely watch US military maneuvers under legal diplomatic cover. “Cultural attaches” apprehended in the conduct of espionage are arrested, tried, given a comfortable cell until the next “spy exchange” between us and their home country, then PNG’d and put on a plane for home.

ChinaGuy:

Accepting this statement at face value, this kinda makes the embassy a quasi-legitamate target. I say quasi, as there was no declared war zone, or declaration of hostilities, against any group party to the situation. It was an IFOR peacekeeping mission to protect one group from another engaged in ethnic cleansing.

Hypothetical: If the PRC were part of an IFOR PK mission, and another country (a nominal ally) was providing a belligerent with intelligence or material assistance, don’t you think the PRC would quickly warn them to stop?

And failing to stop, don’t you think that the PRC would put a stop to it, one way or another?

198

I think rjung’s saying sarcastically that it’s all right for Bush to behave like a cowboy since Bush thinks he’s one. Does his use of sarcasm mean that he hates Bush? Not necessarily. One can have no respect for a person and not hate him. Also, notice the “” around President. He apparently thinks Bush is not a legitimate President because of that weird election.

So it’s all right to perform a morally indefensible act as long as other countries are engaged (or would like to be) in that same morally indefensible act? Instead of trying to be better than our enemies, we should be no worse?

Careful, you come across as sarcastic there. It’s as though you were criticizing the First Amendment.

What, exactly, are you implying here? That the Chinese blew up their own embassy?

199

jab1, where do you get reconnaissance operations being morally indefensible? Is this the ‘act’ you refer to, or are you talking about espionage in the Cold War traditional sense? Let me ask you: If you’re American, do you like having a superior military? Their job (my job) is to protect US citizens and US interests. We need this information to effectively fight wars and to negotiate with these countries. Going into a battle with little information about an adversary it dumb, no? If you ask me, gathering information on potential adversaries is COMPLETELY moral, and I challenge you justify it being IMMORAL. Good luck. Now, I guess you could harp on the manner in which we conducted the recon… but come on, we’re there in broad daylight, well away from their airspace, not trying to hide anything, nothing sneaky, hostile, illegal, or immoral that I can think of.

I think he’s saying it’s great we have one, but it works against us in this case.

[/quote]

I think he’s saying the PRC would have done the same thing NATO did in taking that comms node out. But I’ll let him speak for himself; he’s doing a great job so far.

200

I believe that any kind of spying is a violation of the right to privacy entitled to all human beings. The fact that the kind of spying done by the EP3 gives us some kind of advantage over the Chinese is the old, morally indefensible, “ends justifies the means” argument.

What a person (or country) is willing to do to survive reveals the character of that person (or country). Our actions have revealed us to be no better than the people we claim are our enemies. It’s no longer Good vs. Evil, it’s animal vs. animal. The winner of such a conflict is not necessarily morally superior to the loser, just stronger or more clever.