Well, if they want to cruxify their own children on a cross of pride, let them. However, if they don’t care about how this may affect other people’s children they are being rather myopic.
Uh-huh. We are the ones spying but they’re the thugs. :rolleyes:
Reminds me, again, of this cartoon.
It seems clear that the collision was accidental, in international airspace (by the generally recognized definition of such), and that China has violated international norms by incarcerating the crew and limiting diplomatic access to them, without a clear explanation, after they were forced to land under Mayday conditions. I also believe that the US has nothing whatosever to apologize for, and that to appease Chinese sensibilities in such a manner would be incorrect.
That said, I see no reason for military intervention on the part of the US unless or until it is clear that China is mistreating the crew (beyond holding them at a guest house, that is).
And in case it’s not clear, I’m no relation to Flyboy88.
Why are all you guys who claim to know so much missing the point? China has been filly farting around with our recon missions just waiting for something to happen. And of course we’ve been concerned about their efforts to beef up military might near the Taiwanese border. They don’t want us snooping around. And maybe, just maybe the fact that it’s common knowledge we’ve been seeling arms to Taiwan and gearing up to sell them more makes them just a tad peeved. Are they getting ready to invade Taiwan? Maybe so. Now they’ve got us by the balls in a nice little international incident. You can claim we were in international air space all you want, but the entire world knows we were “gathering information”.
All the countries that we have been “gathering information” on are loving this I bet. And who do you think will sympathize with the Chinese? The Soviets maybe, we just kicked out all their spys. The Koreans, they like us a lot. Hey the Japanese aren’t real happy with us these days since Cowboy George has decided to completely scrap the emissions treaty.
I do realize that we have to protect our interests, globally. But we’ve been doing this an awful long time and some countries think we’re a bully and a hypocrite. And some of them may be right. If we’re gonna rule the world then we just need to go ahead and be out in the open about it. Of course that wouldn’t be any fun, guys love to play espionage games.
Needs2know
It’s not a claim, the plane was 65 miles off the coast of China; the internationally recognized coastal limit is 12 miles. Yes, we were gathering information, so does every other nation on Earth, including the Chinese.
N2K, you really need to learn more about Asian history and politics. Russia hates and distrusts China, the Chinese hate the Japanese as do the Koreans. Korea has diplomatic relations with the PRC, but they depend on us for their security against a North Korean invasion.
Now I will agree that President Bush needs advisors who are familiar with the Chinese mindset and have experience negotiating with them. So far, the American response to the Chinese provocation has been hamhanded.
[hijack]
Could we please lay off President Bush? No, I’m not fond of him either, especially since he has blown off the Kyoto treaty and reneged on his promise to reduce CO[sup]2[/sup] emissions, but he is our president and we should stand behind him. We should also be bigger than the Republicans were with Clinton, accusing him of Vince Foster’s murder, assasinating people in Arkansas, and rape, not to mention the Whitewater witch hunt, which came up with nothing after four years of investigation.
George W. is our president now, and we must rise above petty partisan backbiting. (although I still plan to needle the idiots who voted for Nader)((I never said I was consistent))
[/hijack]
Ok GB I don’t know jack shit about Asian politics. Gee I don’t want to get into a dick measuring match with anyone on that continent again. I grew up watching the last one on TV.
But do not tell me that I have to stand behind our new president. I was all for that a couple of months ago. I was more than willing to back this man as the leader of our nation. This man’s actions have practically turned me into an activist! And I don’t know much about politics but I do know that this guy does not have a mandate to do the things he is doing. Half of the country feels completely different about his right wing policies. I was all for giving him the benefit of my support before he proved in less time than it could take to grow mold that he is not about representing this country. He’s about represting the agenda of his constituents.
I amazes me why anyone would think that a president sould not at least sometimes compromise. This is a nation of great diversity. And I think for the most part, the most part mind you, we are a nation of moderates. There has been nothing moderate about this man’s actions.
Nuff said…I’m dumb about foreign policy I guess and will just read and learn from now own. I bow to your greater knowledge and intellect. Let’s not hijack this thread with a Bush debate.
Needs2know
At least I’m not the only one who hopes GW Bush has at least rented The Princess Bride!
Needs, perhaps you should consider the possiblity that backing down and losing “face” to China will COST many many many lives in the future.
I cannot understand you attitude that we should have been spying on China. This makes no sense. We MUST spy on China, anything else would be horribly wrong.
Wars start all the time because one side doesn’t understand the other. If we apologize to China over something that was not our fault, then we are teaching them that we will comply with any demand they make just to keep the peace. We should apologize for things that were our fault, like the Embassy bombing in Yugoslavia.
But what if we demanded an apology from Japan after their fishing boat ran into our nuclear submarine? Don’t you think we’d be wrong to do so? If we did something like that, the Japanese would tell us to stuff ourselves, and rightly so.
The situation here is analgous. Their fighter rammed our observation plane. They should apologize to us, if any apologizing is to be done. In fact, they are demanding an apology because they KNOW they were in the wrong. Apologizing to a bully simply encourages the bully. An apology might avoid conflict today, but at what cost? How many people are going to die in the future because of an apology today?
Oh, about the last Cold War? America won, remember? And we didn’t win by apologizing to the Soviets for resisting them.
Okay, I gotta ask here – where’s the cite for this, or are you pulling this out of your ass because demonizing China is the de rigeour trend of the week?
The Chinese are doing a decent job at this all by themselves.
Their plane runs into ours in international airspace. Our plane is then forced to land in their territory, using internationally accepted norms of communication to do so. They then say that we should apologize to them, and that the crew was acting illegally by landing in Chinese territory.
Stupid doesn’t even begin to describe this behavior. Already, Congress is pretty much at the point of approving whatever Taiwan wants in the way of weapons from us. It could get much worse than this, if the Chinese continue to hold our people. They have no chance of coming out ahead in a toe-to-toe confrontation. They should realize this, abide by international law, and cut their losses while they still can.
flyboy88: it was an attempted joke about your sig. But as long as we’re on the subject, Jamie Mcintyre was saying just now on CNN that his sources were telling him that the damage to the propellor was evidence for the following scenario: Chinese plane flies under the wing of our plane, robbing it of lift. The wing then comes down on the plane, knocking it out. Does this sound plausible?
pantom, Duh. I should have seen the joke… I was totally not expecting it.
And Mcintyre’s scenario sounds plenty plausible to me, although usually disturbances in lift come from problems on the top of the wing. But I don’t see why it just as easily couldn’t come from the bottom. I’m not sure how the F-8’s structure could have accomplished this (IANAPhysicist/Aerodynamics expert) but I’d say it’s possible.
From my understanding, the pilot made an abrupt control input because he thought the F-8 was too close underneath the plane. Could have been that the fighter was drifting underneath from right to left, and the pilot last saw it disappear under the right side and decided to veer left, away from where he thought the fighter to be. Then again, I could be totally wrong. Hopefully we’ll know in a few days, if/when our boys get home and can tell all.
[sub]And yes, it’s true about the prop, at least, for me.[/sub]
Yeah, rjung. I’ve got a secret channel with the top levels of the Communist Party.
This is simply an observation. The first thing people do when they are wrong is blame the other guy. Step on the other guy’s toes until HE apologizes. They are testing us on this. If we blink, there’s going to be another test and another test and another test. Eventually we’re going to have to stop apologizing.
I’m not saying that China should apologize to us…but the plain evidence is that their plane had to have caused the crash, since it was 10 times more manuerverable than ours.
And that “demonizing China” crack is bullshit. Pointing out the truth isn’t demonizing China. What, I should lie so their feelings aren’t hurt? China isn’t wrong because they aren’t America, they are wrong because in this case they are wrong.
I think it should be pointed out that ICAO only has authority over civil (that is what the C stands for) aviation which excludes military operations. There may be other rules that apply here (such as treaties, Geneva convention, et cetera) but ICAO would not.
Koreans love us, or at least http://www.blizzard.com/ 
In Korea is the only place in the world where you can actually be a professional gamer. By playing starcraft. Characters from the game are on cheetos boxes and strategies from the game are in music videos.
Okay, I have to ask, based on that article in the NY Times – why is it that when we fly within 80 miles of China’s coast we call it “international territoriy,” but if a foreign military aircraft were to fly within 200 miles of our own shores, we’re ready to shoot it down?
I believe the jury is still out on that one.
We were spying on them, remember? Yes, I know, countries spy on each other all the time, but getting caught is considered a diplomatic faux pas. And from the Chinese POV, we’re being awfully indifferent over the fact that one of their guys is missing/presumed dead.
While a full apology might not be in order, some sort of remorse would help make things cooler. I’m glad that Bush finally offered a statement of regret; I just wondered why he didn’t give that speech on Monday or Tuesday, when he was busy rattling sabers and making threats instead.
In the interest of fighting ignorance, which is what this MB is all about, I’m going to shoot jmullaney. Figuratively, of course. But his ignorance is very, very real.
WRONG. It HAS happened in the past. We got a Tu-95 Bear bomber in Miami once. It had declared an in-flight emergency (IFE) as it was coming out of Cuba on a return trip to the old Soviet Union. It was allowed to land (it has every right to do so under ICAO rules; see the post on THAT below), check the problem, and take off again, whereupon it proceeded with its intelligence collection flight against the east coast of the US and units of our Atlantic Fleet. Talk about gratitude.
WRONG. We were NOT spying. The SURVEILLANCE aircraft that was on a RECONNAISSANCE mission was properly marked and the crew were all in proper uniform. No overflight of denied territory occurred during the mission.
You should be aware that SPYING is a legal term, and is precisely defined. This is NOT a matter of semantics, either. RECONNAISSANCE crews are not spies, and cannot be charged with spying (unless the government that wants to try them are thugs that aren’t interested in adhering to some legal norm. I guess we’ll see how the PRC wishes to play this particular incident, but it is absolutely true that their government IS a thugocracy.)
For an example of spying, you could go to…I don’t know…maybe…LOS ALAMOS! What the hell do you think was going on THERE, jmullaney? I’m not saying we DON’T spy on the PRC, but just read what you wrote (with the rolling-eye smiley sneering at the end of the sentence), and tell me you’re not embarrassed.
WRONG. We have NEVER shot down a foreign reconnaissance aircraft over international airspace. And “international territory” is not defined by the US government. goboy is right: everybody gets a 12 nautical mile limit. EVERYBODY. Libya can CLAIM the Gulf of Sidra, but that doesn’t make it theirs. The PRC can get mad as hell when we collect intelligence in international airspace, but they have NO GOD DAMNED RIGHT to do anything but intercept and identify the aircraft. Although it is routinely done, they don’t even have the right to fly in formation on the reconnaissance aircraft. (Yeah, we do this, too, but our pilots are professional, and skilled enough to have never HIT the hostile.)
WRONG. We were NOT spying on them. See above. As for the regard that China holds for its servicemen, the record is purty dam’ clear. Remember the Long March? The Cultual Revolution? They kill each other faster than we ever did when we were fighting them in Korea! Indifference? We can’t compete.
Okay, Needs2know, you’re next:
We aren’t trying to rule the world. And that’s provable. Look around you.
And do you think survelillance, reconnaissance, and yes, SPYING is done for fun and games? You’re a fuckin’ buffoon. I am a former aircrew member on an RC-135, and a former airborne linguist. I am a fifteen year veteran of the Air Force (all active-duty time), currently assigned as an intelligence analyst at the National Security Agency. I know what I’m talking about, and you don’t.
But right about here, I’m going to state an opinion, and I can’t cite anything to back it up: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. There have been hundreds of people killed defending your right to minimize their sacrifice as “fun ‘n’ games”.
Today there were several reconnaissance missions flown by men and women all around the world. Tomorrow, they’ll do it again. Some wear patches on their shoulders, along with the American flag. The patches read, “Alone Unarmed and Unafraid”. When they get back to base, IF they get back, they’ll wish they could go back to their families, but they have to stay at the shitty place they’re deployed to for sixty days before they can go home. And after sixty days at home, they’ll go back for another sixty days. That’s their life. And the pay SUCKS. Fun? Can I go ahead and sign you up for the next “game”?
But maybe you don’t care. If you don’t, you’re probably not a Kurd in northern Iraq. Or a Shi’ite in southern Iraq. Because if you were, you’d need somebody to watch out that nobody would gas you and your kids AGAIN. But you’re not one o’ THEM, are you? Just li’l brown wogs, fuck 'em, right?
OUR interests? Bullies and hypocrites? Jam it.
rjung, get in line right here:
See above. Lemur866 is right.
Dr. Lao, your blindfold, sir:
Originally posted by flyboy88
FACT: The PRC, as a member of ICAO (if you dunno what that is, look it up) is bound to render assistance to an aircraft in distress.
<snip>
WRONG. ICAO still applies. Military operations are only excluded if one or both sides are belligerents or in a declared war zone.
Whew.
I realize that in my effort to inform I went on a rant there. I’m not apologizing for it, it’s all true and I meant everything I wrote. But I realize it wasn’t Encyclopedia Britannica in its tone.
Thank you, bluesman and flyboy for your expertise and elucidation. I gotta ask, though, if you could provide a cite for that Tu-95 story. Personally, I just want to read more about it, and I know someone else is going to ask if I don’t anyways.
Personal memory, waterj2, with all the problems that answer implies.
I was discussing it with an old civilian at work yesterday, and he remembers it slightly differently: Alaska vice Miami, and he wasn’t sure if it might have been a Tu-142 Bear.
He’s an old Air Force retiree, working at NSA, and ex-RC-135 crew, too, ironically enough.
Can you provided a cite for that? I went to ICAO.org and the only things I could find that related to military aircraft are when they interfered with civil aircraft. Military-military encounters were not mentioned. Perhaps you can enlighten me, since you seem so sure?
Dr. Lao, my cite is the Rules of Engagement (RoE) for recon aircrews, and no, I don’t happen to have a copy with me. (Some parts are classified.) ICAO rules are not exclusive of military aircraft except in specific circumstances. When the law reads “aircraft” for a particular situation, that’s just what it means. So, if ANY aircraft declares an IFE, it has almost unlimited latitude for safety of flight.
I don’t SEEM sure, I AM sure. Every year, aircrews re-certify on every aspect of their jobs. God help you if you fail. Emergency Procedures, or EPs, RoE, Emergency Destruct, and some other subjects.
Unfortunately, examples of America holding on to someone else’s plane long enough to analyse it have also happened, such as this one:
Strangely enough, here the US ignored Russia’s requests to return their property until they’d had time to analyse it thoroughly.