Among other things, jab1, reconnaisance (note I don’t use the perjorative term “spying”) probably allows the US to document Chinese human rights violations, such as those against Tibet and members of the Falun Dafa movement. Would you prefer that we simply shut our ears to that?
Would you prefer that we have no advanced warning if and when Beijing decides to start lobbing over missiles at Taiwan, killing citizens of a generally peaceful, democratic republic that’s been our ostensible ally for over fifty years now?
Would you prefer that we leave our other East Asian allies blind, and let them feel so threatened and exposed as a result that they start building their own nuclear arsenals (as Japan and South Korea could easily do)?
I guess you can take the position that “gentlemen do not read other peoples’ mail”, jab1, and condemn the whole world for being such a sorry place. Just recognize that this effectively removes you from the debate.
I can’t believe I’m hearing this. So, if you’re having an argument in your house, and your windows are open, and I’m standing on the street listening to it, is that immoral? After all, it’s perfectly within my rights. So you’re saying that the legal right is an immoral right. Let me ask you again: If you’re American, do you like having a superior military? Do you enjoy the protection afforded to you by it? Or do you think that protection is gained immorally? If so, aren’t you therefore morally bound to abstain from it and move the hell out of my country?
The right to privacy only extends so far. It has to stop somewhere, right? We exploit this. To say that brings us down the level of our enemies is insane. So, we commit human rights violations, killing our own people, like the PRC and Iraq?
I’m still waiting for you to answer my questions from my last post, jab1. If you can’t, I’m with Zarathustra… this effectively removes you from the debate.
We can’t be the world’s police force. We don’t have the resources and we need to clean up our own act before we can criticize someone else’s.
That’s Taiwan’s problem. If they want peace with China, I’d suggest they give up the fantasy that they will ever regain control of the mainland. Maybe then, China would stop considering them a renegade province.
Maybe they should do more to defend themselves and not depend on us. We shouldn’t be involved in the affairs of other nations.
What “right to privacy entitled to all human beings”?
So I suppose, using your logic, things like driver’s licenses, passports, border guards, airport security checks, heck, even birth certificates, are immoral violations of privacy. whatever :rolleyes:
. . . And I hope you still consider the right to be free from spying to be inviolate when your country’s defenses are compromised by other nations who are not as high-minded as you apparently expect yours to be.
*Originally posted by jab1 *That’s Taiwan’s problem. If they want peace with China, I’d suggest they give up the fantasy that they will ever regain control of the mainland. Maybe then, China would stop considering them a renegade province.
**
[/QUOTE]
[hijack] Hoo-boy. Jab, if Taiwan declared independence and disavowed intentions of conquering the mainland, the PRC would flip. The fiction that there are 2 governments vying for control of 1 country allows for the possibility for reunification, something that parts of the PRC’s Commmunist Party want very much, (even if it involves 1 country, 3 systems).
Zarathustra: The US recognizes that there is 1 China. I’m not sure whether Taiwan counts as an ally: for example, the US does not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country. (But, yes, it is understood that the US extends some level of military support to Taiwan).
Jab: generally speaking, I’d say the more adversaries know about one another, including their military capabilities, the better. [/hijack]
Eavesdropping is all right? Since when? As long as no one is being hurt, you’re damn right you have no right to listen in on someone else’s conversation. If it doesn’t involve you, it’s none of your business. Ignore it.
What’s legal is not necessarily moral. Illegal is not necessarily immoral. And something that is legal could also be immoral.
HOW superior? What if the price is too high? (And I don’t just mean money.)
No, I feel morally bound to try to change my country so that it behaves in a more moral fashion. Sending our planes and ships where they are not welcome may get us attacked.
(I can’t believe there are still people who say, “America: Love it or leave it!” I thought that went out in the 60’s. A better philosophy is “America: Change it or lose it!”)
How many people do we have in prison on death row? Do you honestly believe they all belong there? (I don’t want to hijack this thread into a death penalty debate.)
Webster’s definition of “reconnaissance”:
If we aren’t at war, they are not our enemy; we therefore have no right to do reconnaissance. If we had not been performing reconnaissance, this whole event would never have happened. We are just as responsible for this event as they are.
(Earlier, I said “those we claim are our enemies.” I want to amend that to say “those our government claims are our enemy.” I don’t think of China as our enemy because we are not at a state of war with them.)
JAB, your naivete is touching. So touching, in fact, that I haven’t the heart to argue with it. Yes, let’s give up reconnaissance and all attempts to find out what other countries are doing, regardless of their military power or our apprehensions regarding how they might use it. Surely every other country will be struck by the nobility of our politesse and join us in harmony and civility, and peace will reign o’er the the earth. We will raise our teacups to the sky as we pledge “Death before incivility!”
You don’t think you have a right to privacy? Do you leave the door open when you use the bathroom? Or change clothes? Or bathe? (It ain’t just for reasons of security, it’s so people can’t see you while you do your business, am I right?)
We agreed to surrender a bit of our privacy in exchange for those things. When did the Chinese people agree to let us eavesdrop on them? I don’t think they ever did.
Hey, jab, guess what? PEOPLE ARE BEING HURT. It’s called HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.
Aside from that, we have every right to collect on anyone, as long as we do it legally. Your morality is irrelevant, since the fact of the matter is that our country is involved in world events, and it should be. Walk around much more talking about how we should practice isolationism and watch how quickly people’ll start to ignore you. In fact, I think I’ll start right now.
No no JAB; I understand your position completely. No one should spy on anyone else. We should all remain in our homelands, aggression and incivility should vanish, and Kum-by-ya should become the new international anthem. I’m just not sure it’ll work.
As tempting as it is to bombard your incorrect assertions with valid descriptions of reality, I’ll just confine it to this: The United States is not the only nation “acting as the policeman of the world.” Last time I checked, a few countries in Africa got together to protect themselves from a budding dictator, Israel is fighting for their existence while the US is attempting to get them to parlay with their enemies. Another thing is that “our act,” as you call it, is far and away a lot better than many other, if not most other, countries’ “acts.” Also, our “act” is improving. Lies do not show your stated case to be morally correct.
I could’ve sworn this board was supposed to be about fighting ignorance. The government of Taiwan hasn’t been making waves about “regaining the mainland” for quite some time. Of late, the big issue between the PRC and the Taiwan governments is what to do about Taiwan declaring itself no longer part of China. As the PRC considers Taiwan to be part of China, they will continue to consider any government other than the one based in Beijing as a “renegade” government of that particular province, no matter what the government of Taiwan does.
It’s a mighty fine thing that France decided it was a good idea to get involved with another nation’s “problem.” Or are you completely ignorant of how the United States attained its independence? Are you completely ignorant of China’s own occupations of other countries in that area over their history?
Probably because it shows you continue to remove yourself from the realm of the real and the realm of the rational. These two realms are kind of big on this site; well, they are for those who want to be considered seriously. Let us know when you intend to be serious.
jab1: George Washington ran a spy ring as part of his duties as head of the Continental Army. It’s been going on ever since. I can’t figure where you got the idea that spying on other countries is so immoral. I can honestly say this is the first time I’ve heard that one.
Spying on China in particular is necessary, regardless of whether we want to act as the world’s policeman or not. It is as of now the second most powerful country in the world, and therefore our natural rival. Even if we were to withdraw from all the rest of our commitments on the basis of not wanting to be the world’s policeman, we’d still be keeping a close eye on China, out of sheer necessity.
Yours truly would like to see us pull back from a lot of the commitments we have in the world, and scale back our military some. But a military of some size is now and will in the future be needed, for as long as the U.S. is a world power, which is to say for the foreseeable future. And one of the military’s necessary missions, IMO, is keeping a large and dangerous adversary like China from even thinking it could do something to us. And part of that is going to involve the necessity of resisting them when they make claims on areas of the world unilaterally, as they do in stating that the entire South China Sea is theirs. The military would be derelict in the extreme not to perform this necessary bit of resistance. The current situation flows out of this. It’s distasteful, it’s stressful, nobody really wants it, but it has to be done.
Does anyone else think that’s a little bizarre? We have said that we regret the incident, but that is not good enough. But the Chinese President has said “when two people bump into each other, they say ‘excuse me’” – using the English expression “excuse me.” ??? So an expression of regret is not enough, but an “excuse me” would be? Shoot, “excuse me” is what I say if I inadvertantly burp. Why is it better than “regret”?
I was mildly amused watching the Chinese news broadcast on C-SPAN, though. It included heart-rending footage of the pilot’s parents and wife in hospital beds receiving treatment for “grief illness.” (And do get me wrong, I do feel for them.) There were also many “man on the street” interviews condemning the arrogance of the Great American Satan. And many uses of the word “hegemony,” which I gather the Chinese think is a specific American policy, which we crash planes in the furtherance of.