would we check out and throughly inspect a Chinese plane? Sure. Would we hold their people captive as bargaining chips? Nope. Would we pout over our wounded dignity and demand apologies, even when it was our plane that caused the incident? I doubt it, but, we won’t know for sure until it happens. Mind you, I understand how Chinese history has given them the impulse to wig when they think their national sovereignty has been impugned.
I’m curious, Mr. Jung. I read your Web site. You’re Overseas Chinese relocated from Hong Kong at an early age. You’re an American citizen living in LA with your family and what looks like a prosperous, comfortable life.
How comfortable do you think you’d be if your family had emigrated to Beijing? Would you have the same level of material comfort? Would you have the same freedom to speak your mind and trash the government? How sad that America has given you so much and it gets the back of your hand in return.
Evidently, rjung thinks the Soviets are still around to chucle about anything. Keep smokin’ whatever you’re smokin’ rjung, but please don’t keep cluttering up this thread with your pointless yammering. And I haven’t forgotten the fact that you lied and attempted to defame two of the posters in this thread (including myself) because they had the temerity to disagree with you. You really are a sad little specimen.
I don’t think you read the whole article, especially the last page, where the writer, Gary Kamiya, says:
He compares McVeigh to people who try to kill abortion doctors. He talks about the power of guns and says that while some people find this power terrifying, others like it,
My emphasis.
He then goes on to describe a group that has a shallow, even cartoonish understanding of freedom, rights and responsibilities and says this is where McVeigh belongs. (One of McVeigh’s inspirations – according to McVeigh himself – was the end of Star Wars, where Luke Skywalker blows up the Death Star, I kid you not. McVeigh compared the people in the McMurrah Building with all the faceless extras sitting at consoles killed by Luke and noted how the audience cheered their deaths. This is on Page 3.)
Anyway, if there is an example of how the mainstream press is populated by a bunch of gun-fearing liberals, this Salon.com article isn’t it.
With respect, jab1, I beg to differ. You’re right, in that the author does have quite an interteresting and even balanced analysis of McVeigh sandwiched somewhere in the middle of that article. But this makes it even more glaring, to my mind, when the editors at Salon.com slap on a headline like “The Patriot: What separates American terrorist Timothy McVeigh from thousands of other gun-worshiping zealots?”, with the implication that there can’t be much of one. It also seems forced when the author tarnishes everything that went before with a glib, sweeping conclusion like, “Timothy McVeigh would most likely have existed even if America’s mainstream conservatives did not preach a gospel disturbingly similar to his.” To me, that’s got distressing echoes of Paul Begala’s blanket condemnation of everyone between New England and Los Angeles as murdering right wing-hicks all set to drag another black man to death or leave another homosexual to die of his wounds out on some barbed wire fence.
But that’s got all the markings of another debate ouside this thread . . .
You know, I just realized that I seriously embarassed myself by misreading the last quote from the article I just cited–I could have sworn it said, “Timothy McVeigh would most likely not have existed . . . if America’s mainstream conservatives did not preach a gospel disturbingly similar to his.” Oh well. I still stand by what I said about the headline, however.
A quick post. First of all, it was being pointed to this topic that got me sign up for this board. Thanks Chique.
I’ve been reading the posts with great interest since I am in the same line of work that flyboy88 is in.
So, here goes:
We have only heard one side of the story from someone who was there. We have yet to hear directly from the crew of the EP-3E. Until that happens, all is speculation. Only the pilot of the second Chinese fighter has spoken.
The crew is being held against their will and their access to U.S. officials is very restricted.
The Chinese want a total apology. The way I read it, the want us to take complete blame for everything. For operating in international waters, for having the gall to violate their territory while making an emergency landing. I would have guessed that once they saw the damage, they could have figured out why the plane had to land at the nearest airfield.
This is a perfect propoganda situation for the Chinese. I mean, they are pissed off that we operate in international waters they believe is thier own lake; we are considering weapons sales to Taiwan; our planes collide; they lose a pilot; they get our plane and crew intact. Despite customary international law; they will try to get maximum advantage out of this. Especially for thier domestic audience. Also, how better to test the new guy in the White House. BUT, they can only take it so far before they should declare victory over the “running dogs” and “expel” the 24 “militerists”. (Note to any who take this too seriously; words in quotes is sarcasm).
So, lets wait for the crew to come home. I am sure there will be a board of inquiry and I would not be suprised if the Chinese are invited (I also would not be suprised if the Chinese refuse such an invitation since the have the “facts”)
The bottom line - I believe the Chinese government is/was shocked that we were spying on them like we are/were. Just as we were once shocked that missles pointed at us from Cuba. (Maybe not the best comparison. Anyhow,) Through diplomatic endeavors I’m sure we’ll get our troop back somewhat soon, alternatively, I have doubts whether the plane will ever be returned or, rather, the contents thereof.
It would be interesting to know exactly what intelligence was being gathered. I’m sure this has been the main focus of the Chinese.
In short I think they’re a little surprised at what we were doing. Although their claim for an apology is baseless. IMO this thing is dragging on as long as it is is because A) they’re stalling to investigate further and B) their government is a bit slow (in operation).
We’ll see how it resolves…
Meanwhile, it’s fun to see Bush puppeteer to the masses.
If you had read through this thread, you would have seen several posters making the point that we’ve been carrying on this kind of recon for several decades, and the Chinese (as well as the rest of the world) have always known it. Yeah, that comparison is a bit of a stretch–really no need for you to point it out for us.
I don’t know what this means; I wasn’t even aware that “puppeteer” was a verb. Regardless, I’m glad that a crisis where our servicepeople’s lives have been at risk has been such a whimsical fucking laff riot to you.
Yet we complain when another country does the same to ours.
That’s a debatable point; I suspect we’d certainly hold their people for a while, if only to gleam whatever information we can from them. At what point does it become “holding captives”? We’re nowhere near 100+ days in Iran, remember.
(As I’m writing this, the word is that the American airmen will be freed today. So they’ve been “held captive” for, what, less than two weeks? Was this supposed to be a hardship of some sort?)
However, it’s okay for us to pout over our nationalistic machismo and refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing on our part.
(I find it slightly amusing that the Pentagon was quick to denounce the missing Chinese pilot as a “reckless maverick”, yet it took them over a week to reveal that our plane was on auto-pilot when the incident occurred – a move that doesn’t seem particularly wise or careful)
What’s this got to do with anything?
Yeah, boo hoo. After all, everyone knows that if you live in a country, you must toe the nationalistic line and wave the flag and stand by it regardless of what happens. It’s called “patriotism” when we Americans do it, but we’re free to call other countries “fascists” if they demand the same behavior from their citizens.
As for giving back to the country … well, I pay my taxes, participate in elections, obey the laws, registered for seleective service, and generally do everything that’s requested of me by the law of the land. Oh, and then there are all those classified military systems and weapons programs I worked on for over ten years so that our military can defend our shores and work effectively.
Just because I’m able to think for myself and willing to question some of our government’s actions doesn’t make me any less of a citizen than you – I am, after all, merely exercising my Constitutional rights. Though I’m sure you’re too busy waving the flag and puffing up your own self-image to recognize that…
A pilot that would leave his plane on auto-pilot while being approached by a foreign military fighter jet doesn’t sound very responsible. Or bright.
But since the Chinese will no doubt dismantle the plane (if they haven’t already), we may never know for sure if the EP-3 had been on auto-pilot at the time.
Whilst I certainly agree that N2K really knows almost nothing and refuses to be enlightened, I must take exception to your comment above about “IN OUR WATERS.”
First off: The commercial high school fishing vessel is, well, a commercial fishing vessel. They were operating legally under both Japanese and United States law.
Second: the Commanding Officer of the submarine in question has a lot to answer for besides his apparent incompetence in using a periscope.
Third: that incident has no bearing whatsoever on the issue between the United States and China.
Back to the issue: Apparently, the Chinese have come to the conclusion that dallying any longer on returning our folks will do them more harm than good on the international political radar screen.
No, I think the Chinese were a bit surprised that we were doing it like we were.
I was referring to Bush as a puppet for things behind the scenes, granted, it is shy off topic. But I like making pokes at the guy. Anyway, the “crisis” as you deemed it is now over. Have a good nite’s sleep.
Actually, that sounds like a tremendously intelligent thing to do. Think about it: you’re doing routine and regular signals intercept missions that are regularly harassed by the country in question and are in a much less maneuverable, much slower aircraft. The best thing to do is to leave it on auto-pilot! That way, you are traveling on a steady and regular route, not making any sudden deviations or reactive movements, but are rather sedate and predictable in your travels.
The safest thing for all involved would be for the American aircraft to be on auto-pilot. Well, the safest would be for the dumb-a$$ Chinese pilot to keep a safe distance from any other craft in the sky, I mean, what was he trying to do, try out for the Blue Angels? Wait, maybe he was trying to defect and figured he could get close enough and hop onto the wing!
Sorry for being glib, but damn, how many times do you have to hear that a jet would have to be the cause of a mid-air collision, “…doesn’t sound very responsible. Or bright.” Indeed. The onus is on the PRC here, but you can’t quite get that.
Silo, since the fact that these flights (on this very track, with these very planes, at this very altitude, airspeed, and time of day) have been going on for years has been discussed ad nauseum, I’m curious why you think the PRC was surprised?
The best thing to do when you are in a less-maneuverable plane is to make it even less maneuverable? Can a pilot avoid other aircraft while using auto-pilot? Doesn’t he have to take the auto-pilot off first? How long does this take? If a jet moves toward you, in a prop plane, you’re supposed to just sit there and watch it happen? You’re not supposed to try to avoid him? If you are allowed to avoid him, how can you do that if you’re on auto-pilot?
I agree with this, I agree the Chinese pilot is the one most responsible for his crash, that he was flying too closely. But, again, when approached by another plane, the best thing to do is give up control of your plane??
What would lead you believe that they were surprised? We were doing it out in the open. Repeatedly. For several years. All the PRC had to do was look the plane up in Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft or something and see that it was a spy plane. By all accounts this was not the first one they intercepted. The EP-3 is clearly identifiable as a recon plane. If they didn’t figure out that we were doing this sort of surveillence, it could only have come from blindly ignoring the obvious.
Or do you just not believe that Chinese intelligence is capable of figuring out what we aren’t even trying to hide?
Do you actually know anything about flying a plane that is being intercepted by foreign figther aircraft, or do you just want to use your ignorance as an excuse to find fault with the US? Or perhaps you like discussing matters about which you know virtually nothing. Personally, I tend to believe that US military pilots are better trained and more competent at this sort of thing than myself.
rjung, since this is not the Pit, I’ll refrain from personal attacks. For the sake of posterity (since I know none of this will change your mind or affect your attitude), I’ll reply to your posts.
I was thinking for a while that you weren’t really doing anything wrong, but then I had the misfortune to check out the links you provided in one of your previous posts, and that just pissed the living s**t out of me. Here’s what you wrote:
I’m gonna have to call you out on these cites, which you use with such bravado. The first is from Dale Brown, low-quality novel writer and former Capt. in the USAF. I’ve heard other misinformed and easily impressionable people throwing around this article like it’s the bible. What, exactly, does he know? Is he speaking for the US Gov’t? Does he provide US Gov’t or DoD policy to back up his guesswork? Guess what? I’mcurrently an 0-3 in the US Navy (same paygrade as Mr. Brown was), and I say that Mr. Brown is full of shit. I also say that I do not speak for the US Navy, the Dept. of Defense, or the US Gov’t. Neither does Mr. Brown. You still want to use that as your cite?
Your second cite, from lewrockwell.com, contains so much anti-America b.s. and misinformation that I almost puked reading it. It contains 7 points, 6 of which I can easily refute, the 7th I may have to dig a little, but could proabably trash also. I’d be more than happy to go over each of them if you’d kindly step in the Pit, or if you really want, we can do it here. My favorite line is: “This makes [the EP-3] an aggressor against China, just as the US considers any attempt to spy on us to be an aggression and evidence of hostility.” And I also can’t forget: “the US spy plane was not an innocent victim. No one can say for sure how the collision occurred, but it seems obvious that the US version of events – a spy plane minding its own business gets bumped by a Chinese jet – isn’t true. This was a case of the kind of cat-and-mouse that cars play on highways all the time”
Yes, cat and mouse games, like cars on a highway. More keen and insightful wisdom regarding the EP-3 and the F-8II fighter. These were just 2 gems in your cite; there were tons more. You still want to use that one as your cite?
To use your words, what has this got to do with anything? I really don’t recall, but my guess is that they were labeled as hostages within a few hours of the news getting out. Do you have information otherwise? Are you saying our guys would have to be held for 100 days before we started to think of them as captives or hostages? I’m confused as to why you brought up the whole Iran thing in the first place.
This is the attitude that makes me sick. You have the nerve to sit there and imply that it wasn’t a hardship for the guys in the plane which got bumped, plummeting thousands of feet during which I’m sure most of the people on that plane found God, then land, getting forced out of the aircraft, possibly at gunpoint, interrogated repeatedly, held against their will, not allowed to contact anyone in the US Gov’t, and pressured to make statements of apology… No, there’s no hardship in that. You’re absolutely right, rjung. How could I have been so blind?
I’m still waiting to see what wrongdoing you’re talking about, rjung.
As thinksnow pointed out, and as I explained yesterday here, you cannot make such a leap and assume it was dumb to have the autopilot on. jab1, you may want to check out this link, too.
I think he’s referring to your interesting attitude of refusing to acknowledge very reasonable points while clinging blindly, with extremely weak support, to unreasonable theories, and to assuming and assigning guilt before assuming innocence of our aircrew. China may consider you guilty until proven innocent, but here in old US of A, we like to think you’re innocent 'til proven guilty. I’d hope you’d extend that courtesy to our guys.
Keep in mind, rjung, that the PRC has state-controlled media with which they spoon feed their populace. We have a liberal press, freedom of speech, and even a freedom of information act. They have Tiananmen Square.
That is somewhat my contention, yes. Of course a pilot should take evasive action when an obvious threat to the craft is visible. My point is that the PRC has been shadowing and harrassing our flights regularly and, I’m guessing here, but I figure it’s a safe guess, they had yet to make contact with one of our planes.
One generally does not expect to be rammed by another plane when [list=1][li]they are flying in the open[]they are in international waters and not at war/in open conflict[]there is no precident for it[]it would almost certainly destroy the assaulting craft, especially given the size/mass difference[]the shadowing aircraft is far more manuverable and easily capable of getting the fuck out of the way or, I don’t know, maybe not diving into your craft in the first place![/list=1][/li]
It’s late, I’ll see if anything else is needed on this tomorrow.
