China

[drisley]

I don't know why, but I forsee potential trouble regarding China. As this situtation over there progresses, I thank God Clinton is not still in the White House. I think he made headway in empowering China, and they loved him for it. Now that Bush is in there and putting his foot down, they don't like us anymore.

[LawyerRon]

We don't dare upset China. Where else would we buy all of our cheap goods. Follow the money.

[mairving]

Well look at the difference between the Clinton adminstration and Bush. Clinton gave them so many secrets and stuff. Now that Bush is in office, they have to get those secrets in others ways like taking them off a spy plane.

But really now, a slow moving prop driven plane makes a sudden turn and causes a supersonic fighter plane to crash. Either they are lying or they need some better pilots.

LawyerRon, I think that it goes both ways. Their economy would falter rather badly without us to buy their goods.

[troysvihl]

Ron is right. The surest way to defuse the tention between the US and China is to eliminate any and all trade barriers between the two countries. Even better, try to get them to join NAFTA. Make our two economies as dependant on each other as possible. Rarely do two countries that have high levels of trade with each other ever go to war.

[drisley]

Come on, now. You don't handle China by giving them everything they want. They are antagonizing. They want world recognition yet they violate human rights daily. The aim of Communism is to spread, not "get along" with everyone. It would be a big mistake to engage in free trade with them at this juncture.

The US plane had right of way. That's the way it works. Just like maritime law: a slower moving sailboat always has right away over faster traffic. Same goes for aviation. A propeller-driven, large plane has right of way over the smaller jets, simpluy because the jets are more manuverable. The Chinese were shadowing our plane and they got themselves into trouble.

[troysvihl]

The surest way of stamping out Communism in China is to make them wealthier. And that will happen the fastest through free trade. plus, we will both benefit.
If you want to ensure that Communism stay rooted in China, just keep the Chinese people poor. (meanwhile costing out economy lots of money too) Opening up trade is a win-win situation. Closing trade routes is a lose-lose situation.



drisley, trade restrictions are an abomination to human rights in themselves. you and I have no right to tell other people how they may spend their money. if i want to buy only chinese goods with my cash, then i should be able to. likewise, if you find china's polcies terrible, then you have a right not to purchase their goods, and i have no right to force you to do otherwise. but to subject everyone to your ideals through trade laws is ridiculous.

[glc]

I was a crewmember on the P-3 aircraft in the Reserves for 20+years. I was not on the EP-3 derivative - just the regular patrol version, not the electronic surveillance one. However, we used to fly very similar patrols in the same general area, and intercepts were routine. I can guess what may have really happened out there. It is very possible that our aircraft was fired upon and we may have taken evasive maneuvers (for what that's worth) and flown into the other interceptor. Another possibility is that the P-3 pilot slowed down below the stall speed of the F-8 fighter to try to shake them - and being that Chinese pilots are relatively unskilled, the fighter lost control and crashed into the P-3. The P-3 pilot had 2 choices - find an airfield immediately or ditch it in the ocean with very possible loss of life. This sounds callous, but he should have chosen the latter if he could not have made it to a "friendly" country. The EP-3 is an aircraft that has an armed guard whenever it's on the ground away from its home base.

I foresee that our intelligence gathering capabilities have been set back seriously, and China's offensive capabilities have been greatly enhanced by this unfortunate incident. We will get the crew back eventually - I'm guessing 6 months. If we ever get the plane back, it will be in boxes, just like the MiG we disassembled in Japan. The Chinese already have the plane covered with tarps and are stripping it.

[mairving]

Well face it. The only reason that China has concocted their little story about the big slow plane colliding into the little fast one is so they could board it. What they are saying is since this plane committed an act of war, all treaties are off.

glc, it is callous but true, the plane should have ditched in the sea. I guess that they assumed that the Chinese would respect international law.

Troy, I think personally that you have to use free trade as club sometimes. Your theory that stamping out Communism by making them wealthy has some validity. But their version of Communism, like most others, is not an equal division of all property among all people. It is to take everything from everybody and give to the super elite and the military. They have to have a strong military to keep the people from revolting. The answer to the criminal acts they have committed is not to reward them by opening up more free trade. Unfortunately, there is probably nothing that we can do except protest. They know it too.

[drisley]

I agree. I see no good in providing them wealth. And I see no logic in saying you stamp out Communism by making them wealthy. In Communism, the government control all wealth, so by infusing them with cash, you are only empowering a Communist government. You are not empowering the people or somehow sparking capitalism. It just doesn't work. Free Trade, in this case, is a bargaining chip. Yes, it would do our contry good, but they also want it pretty damn bad. And quite frankly, if they did, they shouldn't be doing what they're doing. So, it would be a big mistake to open up free trade, especially now.

And, glc, I hear that the crew did manage to carry out a good part of the destruction of the sensitive equipment. And, apparently, there were satellite photos of the plane. It is not tarped. But, I am hearing conflicting reports on whether the Chinese have removed equipment from the plane.

[jessho]

It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that the data storage drive or tape would be enclosed in a large de-gausing enclosure. Apply power to the field and the data is gone. The equipment could be shorted and ruined with a higer voltage. The biggest job would be the destruction of any hard copy information such as orders or notes. The latter would be the toughest to destroy in a short period of time.

[bob]

I think Bush is weak on this issue. Free trade is the best long term solution for us to see things equally. Now we have the influence and the upper hand and nothing is happening.

Reminds me of what happened to Carter.

Hostages are what I believe the airmen are right now. The headlines should be "DAY 5 HOSTAGE CRISIS"

[troysvihl]

curtailing trade with the chinese over this incident would be the equivalent of you chopping down your best tree in your yard b/c your asshole neighbor is enjoying the shade. it's a loose-loose situation. you loose a tree and the neighbor looses the shade, but in the end he's still an asshole.

[mairving]

So Bob, Bush is weak on this issue. What plan do you have for fixing this?

The Chinese want a public apology from us so that they can justify their actions. I doubt if they will get it. Bush does have one of the best teams working on this.

Troy I agree with you that using trade as a club is not very effective and is destructive to both sides. But so is war. I think that you have the use whatever leverage that you have in this situation.

[drisley]

I think Bush is doing what any good stateman would do at this point. This needs to be handled with diplomacy until there is no other choice, and I don't think we are there. Quite frankly, all these Americans saying let's do this and that, bomb them, "use trade as a weapon" just proves why they could never be President. It takes restraint and timing to handle sensitive issues such as this, and it would be a mistake to overreact. It just plays right into the stereotypical view the Chinese have of us, and it would justify themselves.

[waiting]

We know President Bush will do his best. Thank God slick Willie is not there.

[troysvihl]

Amen!

I'm not sure how Bush is being "weak" on this issue. He's taking care of it pretty well, I'd say.

[bob]

"//....view the Chinese have of us//"

IDGAF- what they think. An airplane does not cause an accident with a fighter jet.


"//So Bob, Bush is weak on this issue. What plan do you have for fixing this? //"

The talk that Bush is firm by not giving an apology is loony. If an accident it was China's fault. If not an accident they basically did the same thing as shoot it down and capture the crew.

The people of China are proud and bright. They expect to be the leading world power in the future. A free China like a free Taiwan would be an asset to the world.
We need to be as strong with the communist government as we were with the USSR.

[StuartW]

Originally posted by bob
"//

An airplane does not cause an accident with a fighter jet.




In this case the aeroplane was loaded with high tech surveillance equipment and was in or close to Chinese air space engaged in spying. If the situation was reversed, and it was a Chinese surveilance aircraft brought down on the shores of the USA, I am sure you would quickly alter your dogmatic opinions.

[troysvihl]

you've got to be joking stuart. A slower plane can't run into a faster one, unless the faster one cuts if front of it. It's pretty clear that the Chinese jet caused the accident.

[StuartW]

The opinion in Europe is that the Chinese, having discovered an American spy plane, ordered it to land.When it refused, the Chinese tried to force it down.
If you look at the pictures of the damage to the US plane, you will see that it is only superficial. A Chinese jet, approaching and hitting the slower plane, would have done a lot more serious damage.
The point I, and the rest of the world is making, is that the US plane was spying on a nation it was not at war with, and thus the people of the USA can hardly complain at the consequences of this action - however justified it is; especially as has been said, given the type of government China has.
In other words - if you found a Chinese plane approaching the US coastline with high tech surveillance equipment - would YOU just ignore it - or do something about the threat.

[troysvihl]

stuart there is no way that a propeller driven plane can run into a jet powered plane. just the fact that one was propellar driven and the other jet powered makes it obvious that the Chinese fighter hit the surveillance plane, not the other way around. the Chinese pilot was known by American military pilots, b/c they routinely encountered him in similar past missions. He was known to fly extremely close to American planes and flash his e-mail address to the pilots. from the damage pictures, it's pretty clear that he cut in front of the us propeller plane, but cut to close and sliced off the nose of the US plane.

and the plane was in international airspace, so it may do anything it pleases, including gather data. almost every country that has a military gathers data from other countries, even allies. The Chinese do similar data reconasence with surrounding countries all the time, even thoug they are not at war. hell, I was a documentary the other day where the US and France were spying on each other during the cold war. Nations all over the globe spy on each other.

the US is not the one to blame for this incident. it was a routine recognizance mission, the kind that many countries perform every day. a Chinese pilot was sent up to check on the plane, and while there, his recklessness caused the collision.

[drisley]

Stuart, no offense, but your statement shows utter ignorance of this situation, and I hope that is not the prevailing view in England. The Chinese know very well that we spy on them. They spy on us, too. In fact, President Clinton, if I remember correctly, basically gave them and other countries free reign to do reconnisance missions over US soil, given they follow certain restrictions. So, us spying on them was not a freak occurance. As long as we don't invade their airspace, it is done ALL THE TIME. And, no, we do not make moves to get foreign planes out of the sky when they spy on us. It is routine.

Second, your statement that the damage to the plane is superficial is naive. The nose fell off and the engine was heavily damaged. I am from a family of pilots, and I can tell you that plane would be VERY difficult to fly with that "superficial damage". I'm suprised they didn't fly into the drink.

[waiting]

I think Chinese lovers should go live there.....

[bob]

"//If the situation was reversed, and it was a Chinese surveilance aircraft brought down on the shores of the USA, I am sure you would quickly alter your dogmatic opinions."//


Yea right. That is a real big if. We could examine the "high tech" equipment and only find out what technology secrets they have already stole from us.
We might find a 5 band scanner and a Ham radio.

If it is true that the plane was in international airspace we should take action. If we violated their airspace before the damage then that is a different story.
What is next. Do they accidently knock our spy satalites out of orbit because they pass over their country.

[waiting]

Do the Chinese have enough technology to knock our satellites out of orbit?????? And if they do, guess who gave it to them?????Who was the traitor?

[bob]

Originally posted by waiting
Do the Chinese have enough technology to knock our satellites out of orbit?????? And if they do, guess who gave it to them?????Who was the traitor?

Is this an attempt to blame Clinton? Move on. Follow your new leaders call and MOVE ON.

Did you know the Chinese will soon put a man in orbit and may even be the first to go to Mars in 20 years or so. It is time to see the whole picture.

The thought of the techs stuck (detained - deprived of freedom) in China getting catored meals (all with plenty of steamed rice) turns my stomach.

Why no one else at this board is mad escapes me - for now.

Think of it this way:
GW Bush gets in a fight. He is losing but can easily win. He could punch the opponent but he continues to take the blows. Why? He does not want to hurt his fist.

[troysvihl]

What exactly would comprise "punching" China? You want to start a war over this?

[bob]

The communist government has you figured out. They can continue to rule because they know the greed for their markets (free trade) will not be risked.

Do you think everything will be just fine if China continues to be an expansionist communist power as it becomes a major world power?

It does not matter what Bush does not do. Congress will take care of China if they do not return our people.

As for the punch, lets start with all agreements on hold and deny them the next Olympics.

[troysvihl]

>>Do you think everything will be just fine if China continues to be an expansionist communist power as it becomes a major world power? <<

I dont' think China will become a world power as long as they stay communistic.



>>It does not matter what Bush does not do. Congress will take care of China if they do not return our people.<<


Wow! You mean you acctually read the constitution? The way you were beratting Bush for "not doing anything" made me think you didn't know that all federal action must start with Congress.

[bob]

The power to declare war has been a bit diluted.
Congress will have to make up for bushes wimpness.
He is failing his first test as a leader.

[troysvihl]

well, let's just say that i don't see it that way.

[waiting]

I asked who was the traitor.....Bob replied: "Is this an attempt to blame Clinton?" Bob mentioned Clinton.......nobody else did.

[troysvihl]

lol

[drisley]

I've mentioned this before, but, Bob's reaction to this shows why HE could never be President. It seems people's first reaction is to throw their might around and force people to comply. Sometimes that is not the proper tact, and I think you, Bob, should think about how diplomacy works before issuing your opinions.

And quite frankly, I find it utterly simplistic to equate this whole thing to Bush. Situations like this are handled by many many more people than the President, and personalizing this thing into whether Bush is playing it right or not is stupid.

Chill out. You know very well that the state department and Bush are very aware of their "heavy artillery" and would use it if needed, but they, like myself, deem it too early to take that route.

Bob, you like too many Liberals will smash Bush no matter what he does. It gets old.

[StuartW]

Originally posted by waiting
I think Chinese lovers should go live there.....

I suggest you read my two posts very carefully before making asinine comments. Like everyone else I deplore what is happening in China; just as I deplored the US treatment of blacks in the sixties. Equally I deplore other countries trying to impose their will on other sovereign states.This is not what the free world is about.

[mairving]

Stuart, the point is not about us spying on the Chinese. We were in international airspace. No doubt this can be proven pretty easily. The Chinese would have already produced proof if we were in their airspace. Every country spys on the others. You are kidding if you think that your country doesn't.

So if we were in international airspace, it really doesn't matter what we were doing. We could have been talking about the Chinese leaders momma. It doesn't matter. It is a violation of international law. That point is clear. It is also a violation of international law to board a distressed plane like they did and detain the crew. Look what happened in the Falklands. International law was violated and Argentina paid the price.

I am not sure what your point of bringing up race in the sixties in the US. Does that make it more just for the Chinese to do this? Or is it something to say when you are losing an argument? No country has a perfect past.

[drisley]

Stuart, did you read my post to you from before? You obviously misunderstand what is happening. It completely escapes me how this could be interpretted as imposing our will on anyone.

I don't know what's going on behind the scenes in the negotiations, but if thyis thing is not over by mid-next week or so, I'll be more inclined to say we should start being assholes. After the Clinton era of appeasement, who knows what kind of military might the Chinese have now, but it seems to me it gets to a point where we should just go in and take the crew back.

It is interesting to watch the Chinese, though. They are being naive and stupid, all for "saving face". That idea must be really ingrained in their culture, because it seems they don't know what kind of harm they are doing to themselves by not ending this. For a while, I thought the government wanted out but they were trying to appease their own populations, but then you see the state TV station putting out anti-U.S. propaganda, so obviously they are trying to inflame their people into anti-U.S. sentiment.

Why we deal with these people at all sometimes escapes me.

[bob]

Bet you would feel different if you had a friend on that plane. I will just wait on this one and give enough time for all to listen to their favorite talking heads(pundents).



BTW, Nobody sums it up quite well ;)
Originally posted by waiting
We know President Bush will do his best. Thank God slick Willie is not there.

[waverider]

Bob, what does "nobody sums it up quite well " mean?

[bob]

Originally posted by waiting
I asked who was the traitor.....Bob replied: "Is this an attempt to blame Clinton?" Bob mentioned Clinton.......nobody else did.

Just pointing out the nobody. ;)

[waiting]

Hi Stuart W: My Chinese lovers comment was not aimed at you..........

[drisley]

Drudge is reporting that the Washington Times has learned that China was and is planning a small nuclear bomb test, and that that is why our EP-3 was in the area.

Looks like they never intended on agreeing to the nuclear test ban treaty.

I wonder if they have the technology to send a bomb to the U.S. yet.

[bob]

They can hit LA Calif. They threatened to do so some years back over the Taiwan issue. Well that issue is the real reason we were keeping an eye (spy) on them.

They have a manned space program in the works and all they really want is Taiwan.

It looks bad. Hope you (drisley) are seeing why a "liberal" like me is so upset.

The Taiwan issue is the end game.

[drisley]

Bob, you're not the only one, dude. My only complaint was that you and a few others in here seem like your first move would be to throw your weight around and use force. There is a time for that, but after diplomacy has failed. Quite frankly, if I were President, I'd be pretty hesitant to use military might agaisnt them so fast, because, with them, that could lead to an escalation. if you know what I mean.

I think situations like this make some of the Liberals think like Conservatives. The REAL Lib would generally appease, say we don't want to IMPOSE on them, and probably apologize on the second day.

[JagdPanther]

I gotta laugh. Maybe this current Bush will invade China and then leave the current powers still in power. Yes we very much like Bush's. Makes the rest of the world catch up in comparision. Just because the vastness of oceans on your shores have long been your salvation, you think you hold all the technology?? (:

[drisley]

Whoah, that was insightful.

Welcome to the forum.

[bob]

I work with chinnese nationals - not the ones from Tawain. They were gloating the day the plane landed.

I will give them an I,m sorry - We in the US are trulely sorry that the accident was chinas fault.

[drisley]

Oh shit. I'm hearing rumors that Jesse Jackson is planning on going to China, whether or not the White House agrees or not.

I swear!! What's he gonna do? Turn this into a racial issue as he always does?

Oh, it seems Ross Perot is working on it too. But, he's working behind-the-scenes, not out in front of the media, like Jesse does. All Jesse wants is press to cover up his sex-capades. I trust Perot MUCH more than Jackson.

[troysvihl]

We can only hope that the Chinese slam into Jackson's plane. Maybe we'll get lucky and both Jackson and another Chinese fighter will get taken out.

[drisley]

Hehehe.....

Looks like our guys are coming home soon. For all you Bush-slammers, obverve that diplomacy DID work.

Of course, any thinking person realizes we WILL be dealing with China again. There is still over 50% chance we will have an eventual armed conflict with them, IMHO. Hope not, of course.

[bob]

They still have the plane and that was big "very sorry".
China seems to be on the winning side. Korea, Vietmaim, this problem, and soon to be Tawain.

[waverider]

We can give credit to Bush for a job well done in a most difficult situation. We can be thankful the crew is safe and on their way home. USA did not lose on this one.

[Wonk]

Get real. Bush failed to flex any muscle and makes us look weak and scared. He SHOULD have said "we want our people back in 24 hours or else all trade stops. Period. "

Most people in this country would have been 100% behind an embargo to get our people back. I guess Bush was cowtowing to business interests.

Does the phrase "Peace In Our Time" ring a bell?

(And, BTW, I wonder how the conservatives on the forum would spin this if Clinton were in Bush's shoes and had said "I'm sorry" twice).

[mairving]

Wonk, I am glad you are not president. They probably would have executed the crew members by now.

As far as whether Bush did a good job or not. Well he did get these people home. That is an irrefutable fact.

As far as whether we would have complained about Clinton. Probably so but the thing I won't complain about is that diplomacy worked and the crew members are home.

I am sure that this will not be the last of China vs. US. It is only round one. The bad part will come when they invade Taiwan.

And now the real reason the Chinese decided to send the crewmembers back.

<img src="http://a836.g.akamai.net/7/836/434/16b37993b148fe/www.washtimes.com/images/op-ed/garner-41201.gif">

[Wonk]

Yep, and Bush got those hostages home, too. Too bad we had to endanger national security to do it.

Who knows what side deals Bush promised China to get himself out of this embarrassing situation. "Don't
make me say I'm sorry, and I'll give you some missiles just like my Dad gave the Iranians?"

Don't say it's impossible, because the Republicans and the Bush family have a track record on this.

[drisley]

Gimme a goddamn break, Wonk. To hear you, a die-hard Clinton supporter, tell us about threatening national security is a joke. And before you say, "Oh, he's just bashing Clinton again", let me say that he violated national security in a drastic way as regards China.

IMO, to turn an incident like this into a Bush attack is below contempt. The guys are home and there is no refuting that Bush and his team played it right to make that happen. To go in and make a threat like that would have enflamed the situation. Yes, there is a point for it, but not that soon. A simple-minded approach like that would be wrong.

[bob]

Seems some here feel the need to protect Bush so much they ignore the obvious.
If I had anything to do with that I will express by sincere regrets. I am very sorry I defended Clinton. Did I mention I am very sorry I attack Bush ;)

[Wonk]

<<To hear you, a die-hard Clinton supporter, tell us about threatening national security is a joke.>>

That kind of attack/judgement is clearly out of line. Are you claiming only Republicans understand national security issues? I remind you this is the same party that has sold arms to terrorists, destabilized democratic governments around the world, screwed up and invited Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait ("we have no opinion on this matter"), second-guess Clinton on Balkan policy and guessed wrong every time... shall I go on?

So stick that judgement in your brown-eyed girl, OK?


<<Clinton again", let me say that he violated national security in a drastic way as regards China. >>

A total lie. I invite you again to read:

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1131/chinascandal.html

<< The guys are home and there is no refuting that >>

Yes, but what did we give up in the process? Get real- the job of any soldier, especially those involved in surveillance missions near foreign boarders (spies? depends on your definition of the word spy) includes the
provision that you are EXPENDABLE compared to national security interests. I'm not saying we should have let them rot in jail or be killed, but we can't portray ourselves like a scared little 5-year old girl to China. If that means taking a calculated risk with those 24 people, so be it.

<<. To go in and make a threat like that would have enflamed the situation.>>

No, it would have shown that we were strong. "Oh my gosh! We can't inflame the situation! Those Chinese people might get mad at us? Then their 20-ship navy and 60-plane air force might be stupid enough to try to do something against two carrier battle groups (and they'd lose it all). Wahhh! Wahhh!!!

I'm sick of looking weak.

[Wonk]

From: jcolwel2@ford.com

Remember When We Had a Real President?

We used to have a President who was the MASTER of diplomacy. He could make an apology and
half the people thought it was sincere and the other half would say it wasn't even an apology.

And he could make his split-hairs apology in such a way that HE took all the criticism from
those he failed to please. The world understood that if anyone lost face, it was him, not America.

The world could sometimes even laugh at him and his apologies, but that didn't mean they lost respect
for America. HE took the heat, HE took the criticism, and HE took the embarrassment, all the while
the people who hated him said he couldn't stand up and take it like a man.

If this China incident happened when Bill Clinton was president, he would have suffered minor indignities
himself in order to preserve international respect for America and to gain the freedom of our service members.

W. is willing to let our service members be held and the world to question
our judgment in order to maintain his own reputation.

Clinton was selfless in these situations; W. is a spoiled baby who's going
to need his daddy to go to the neighbor's house to get the ball back.

You know it's true.

[waverider]

Yes Clinton might have been entirely unselfish (selfless) in this situation. He might have ordered our crew to land the plane without destroying any of the equipment.Then the crew could invite the Chinese aboard and demonstrate the use of all the top secret devices.-----------Wonk, I do not believe you could be so cavalier about the crew of that plane if any of them were in your family or a loved one .

[jessho]

Interesting site. (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-ep3e.html)

[drisley]

Wonk, I'm not gonna convince you of anything, so lets not bother. I am just suprised that some Liberals and some Conservatives think we should have immediately jumped down China's throat. IMO, its simple-minded vengeance, and not something you can operate a country or military with. THATS my point. Bush does what is necessary to get them out of Hainan. Now some in his base are WHHAHH WHHAHH because we didn't slam shit down their throats. Most Libs I've talked to agree with how Bush handled it. Obvious you, Wonk, don't agree, but you've proven in the past that regardless of anything you will slam Bush, so just keep that up. Its what you're good at.

My view: its not worth Monday-morning quarterback-ing this. The guys are home. So, lets put a sock in the attacks for a while, huh? The test will be when the administration continues surveillance and how they go about it.

[StuartW]

The outcome is probably the best that could be expected under the circumstances.The difficulty will come the next time - and there will be a next time.If China is again involved, they will expect even greater concessions from the U.S.
I am just wondering whether America is attempting to police and protect too much of the world, and it is now time to withdraw and leave other countries to shoulder some of the burden. Perhaps the time,money and effort the USA puts into 'foreign' policy, could be usefully employed within America.
With one or two exceptions,where defence is concerned, most European countries,including my own, lean very heavily on the largess of America.Perhaps it is time to cut the metaphorical unbilical cord.

[drisley]

Stuart, I think you're confusing the situations. This thing with China had nothing to do with us having an over-extended roll in the world. It is surveillance. All countries do it to each other. Other countties do it to us. When in international waters, we, like every other country, have every right to listen in on other countries.

This reminds me of two other things that the appeasers have been saying:
(1) It was a spy plane. WRONG. This is a surveillance aircraft. Spying is what Hanseen was doing, and that is on a completely different level. Surveillance is just listening, monitoring. Spying would be to dishonsestly go in and fake out the enemy for information.
(2) US was in Chinese airspace. WRONG. International law dictates that international waters start 12 miles out. We were, what, 90 miles out?! We had every right to be there. The Chinese cannot willy-nilly extend international waters out to 200 miles just to include the EP-3. The 200 mile rule applies to economic range, and nothing else.

The vast range of reacitons to this ordeal is intriuging, to say the least.

[mairving]

StuartW, once you get into the role of the world's policeman, it is very hard to get out of that role. America in the earlier part of this century was isolationist. They were driven into wars that they really didn't want to fight. Because of this NATO & SEATO & United (third world) Nations (against the US) was formed and democracy vs. communism was fought. It is a thankless role also. The US has made many enemies by doing this.

A large percentage of people in the US would be in favor of the US becoming isolationist again. Close the borders, return the troops, let everyone fight their own battles. Regardless of what the US does though it will be wrong in some peoples eyes. The globalization of ecomonics has caused more of a dependence on each other. Can you imagine what would happen if China invaded Taiwan. 90% or greater of our electronics are made in that region. If China closed off these, then the US and the world would be in trouble. It is a scary thought.

[drisley]

Not only that, but the potential human rights violations would be something we couldn't sit there and watch.

Remember Tibet?

[jessho]

Communist China, politically, is a threat to the United States. Due to this, the United States needs to stay apprised of what China is doing. Included in this gathering of information is the monitering of radio frequencies, which is what this crew was doing - in international air space.

The pilot of the F-8 was harrassing the U.S. plane by flying very close at high speeds, which is their way of letting the U.S. know that they are aware of them and do not like what they are doing.

Obviously there was either a mechanical problem, atmospheric turbulence or bad judgement that led to the accident - which is what the entire incident was.

The political posturing and name calling is business as usual for politicians and diplomats on both sides.

[StuartW]

drisley - I am not really confused about the Surveillance plane over China, My later comments were slightly off topic. Let me give you an example.
An African village is starving, and there are two courses of action.
1) Give them plenty of food.
Result when the food is gone, they starve again.
2) Give them the means to grow their own food.
Result ,they don't starve unless forces of Nature intervene.

My point about defence is that if,everytime a minor dictator arises,the country turns to the USA, that country will never learn to stand on its own two feet.I know it is a very coarse analogy, but I hope you can see what I am trying to get at.

I have always felt that the way forward is with trade.People become so dependant on trading with each other,they cannot afford to start wars. This was touched on above with the comment about trade with China.
The two most well known brand names throughout the world are Coca-Cola and McDonald. It is the corporate organisations that are steadily conquering the world; and it is perhaps these companies that the US Government should concentrate on spying on.lol

[Prader Willi]

[i]The pilot of the F-8 was harrassing the U.S. plane by flying very close at high speeds, [/B]

The problem seems to be that the F-8 was flying at too slow of speed (matching the speed of the prop plane) and was therefore somewhat unstable in flight.

[Wonk]

A few thoughts:

DR- being strong with China isn't "simple minded vengeance," it's standing up for yourself. You have to stand up to the bully on the playground, or you'll be bullied again. I agree with Stuart W. on this issue.

And, in the process, Bush has left an $80 million spy plane with advanced technology on the ground. It's not coming back. He gave more technology to China than you ever dreamed Clinton gave (and never did).

I'm not slamming Bush for the sake of slamming him (what a funny accusation coming from a conservative!). He got our people back, but he made us look weak in the process. That's an indesputable fact.

MAIRVING- we made enemies around the world not because we opposed communism, but because we supported some brutal dictators in the process (Suharto, Duvalier, the Shah).. and because we interefered in elections when we didn't like the results (Nicaragua). That's why many in the world view America as the bully.

[Prader Willi]

Originally posted by Wonk
Bush has left an $80 million spy plane with advanced technology on the ground. It's not coming back. He gave more technology to China than you ever dreamed Clinton gave (and never did).


How did Bush 'give' this technology to China? I thought the plane made an emergency landing in China because a Chinese pilot ran into the plane-- and as far as the technology, the crew destroyed most if not all of the important technology and information on board before the emergency landing. But I guess given that the Chinese are stilling flying F-8's, and apparently not very well (lol), this prop plane may seem like advanced technology to the Chicomms.

[mairving]

Wonk, I think that it is a little bit of both. We have supported some pretty despicable men. Sometimes it was a matter of us picking a man who was friendly to our interests. Given the choice between a brutal dictator who was friendly to our interests and a brutal wanna be dictator who was friendly to the Soviets, we picked the former. For instance, in Iran, the Shah. He was deposed and replaced by Khomeni et al, who was more brutal and less tolerant to his people than the Shah. The revolution that they had was not because he was so brutal but because he adopted too much of the west too fast. Some like Marcos probably should have never been supported. Others like Noreiga in Panama, were rectified. Other US endeavors like Grenada and Haiti were necessary. I will even give Clinton some credit for the job that was done in Haiti.

It is not an ideal world in which we live. The US has certainly made mistakes and when the US makes mistakes they are magnified severalfold.

Wonk, I hear you complaining about China but what alternatives did Bush have?
<UL>
<LI> He could take a hard stance and not negotiate at all. If he did this, our hostages would still be there.
<LI>He could have sent in the Marines to free the hostages, which would have little chance of success and a great risk of causing a war.
<LI>He could use diplomacy to free the hostages and sort out the details later.
</ul>
There were just that many choices available to him.<font color="red"> I guess what irritates you the most is that Bush was successful.</font> Be honest about that.

[Wonk]

Originally posted by mairving


I would be honest if their was a hint of truth/accuracy in what you just said, but there isn't. I'm not irritated that Bush was successful because HE WASN'T. Did he get our people back? Yes. But again- at what cost? If Bush had given China ten B-2 bombers to get our people back, would you call that a "success"?? Apparently so.

Originally posted by mairving
Given the choice between a brutal dictator who was friendly to our interests and a brutal wanna be dictator who was friendly to the Soviets, we picked the former.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Don't know your history, do you? We DROVE Ho Chi Minh into the Soviet sphere, and he wasn't even going to tolerate too much of their control once his country was freed. Do you know where Uncle Ho got his education? Care to take a guess? Have you read any of his writings about the United States prior to our involvement? Get educated about history before making dumb comments like that.

Originally posted by mairving
He was deposed and replaced by Khomeni et al, who was more brutal and less tolerant to his people than the Shah.

He was? Again, do you know what you're talking about? Are you aware of what the Shah did? And what makes you believe that Islamic fundamentalism is *widely* unpopular in Iran? Did you see the Khomeni funeral on television? Or were you too young? We're talking about a MILLION people going crazy with worship over this one guy. You can't have seen that funeral and felt that his leadership was unpopular.

Originally posted by mairving

Wonk, I hear you complaining about China but what alternatives did Bush have?
<UL>
<LI> He could take a hard stance and not negotiate at all. If he did this, our hostages would still be there.
<LI>He could have sent in the Marines to free the hostages, which would have little chance of success and a great risk of causing a war.
<LI>He could use diplomacy to free the hostages and sort out the details later.
</ul>


You forgot one, and one I have already expressed. He could have simply said (privately, so as not to make a public challenge to their authority) "I want our people out in 24 hours and our plane back in 72 hours, or all trade stops until we get them back." Simple. We don't engage in commerce with thugs. It's that simple. There would have been no problem with public support for an embargo.

Oh, but that would have probably been unpopular with the business community, and Bush is only their puppet. I forgot about that. How silly of me. I was mistaken for a moment- I thought that it was Bush leading our country. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

[troysvihl]

Well, I think Bush did a decent job. He got the crew back, which is pretty much all that could be done in this situation. The Chinese undoubtedly had the whole plane analyzed within a day or two, making the issue of who has the physical plane pretty trivial. (I'm not sure how Bush "gave them" the plane.)

I certainly wouldn't favor any sort of economic retaliation for this issue. Anyone that favors that has failed to look at the historical success rate of those types of policies. (North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, etc.) In fact, I can't think of a single instance where economic sanctions have worked. They just make for bad economic policy.

[Wonk]

Originally posted by troysvihl
In fact, I can't think of a single instance where economic sanctions have worked. They just make for bad economic policy.

It depends on their level of trade with the outside world and the ability to enforce the embargo. Cuba didn't trade a lot with the outside world when sanctions were imposed, so it doesn't work. Everyone is cheating on the Iraq embargo. North Korea has come to the bargaining table (but again, not a lot of trade was coming out of NK in the 1940's and early 50's, as they were recovering from WW2). China, on the other hand, currently depends heavily on trade. Economic policy has worked to put Milosovic behind bars, can't dispute that one. We've pushed post-Soviet Russia around with the threat of witholding loan guarantees.

The tool can work under the right circumstance (e.g., like anything else in life, use the right tool for the job. Don't use a wrench to drive a nail). And in the case of China, a trade embargo from the U.S. alone is a very powerful tool. We just need the *balls* to us it, which our current president lacks.

[troysvihl]

I have no idea where to begin with a respons Wonk. All I can say is that either you have an interesting view of events or you just make stuff up as you go along.


>>Cuba didn't trade a lot with the outside world when sanctions were imposed, so it doesn't work.<<

Yes they did trade a lot with others. In fact almost their entire economy was dependant on outside dollars.


>>Everyone is cheating on the Iraq embargo.<<

Since when?


>>North Korea has come to the bargaining table (but again, not a lot of trade was coming out of NK in the 1940's and early 50's, as they were recovering from WW2).<<

North Korea is in dire straights for food, yet economic sanctions havne't done shit. Arguably, foreign trade is more important to North Korea than to China since they can't even feed their own population.



>>China, on the other hand, currently depends heavily on trade.<<

Just as Cuba and Iraq did. And foreign trade is as important to North Korea as China. Yet in none of those countries has trade sanctions worked.



>>Economic policy has worked to put Milosovic behind bars, can't dispute that one.<<

lol. Like I said, you have an interesting view of how events panned out over there.



>>We've pushed post-Soviet Russia around with the threat of witholding loan guarantees.<<

Name me one thing that we've mananged to "push" them around with? I don't remember any concessions on anything.





>>And in the case of China, a trade embargo from the U.S. alone is a very powerful tool. We just need the *balls* to us it, which our current president lacks.<<


No, it won't work. They'll simply trade with the EU or with the other Pacific rim countries. The only thing trade restrictions will do is to screw the US economy over.

BTW, if you have the "balls" to do so, why don't you just not buy Chinese goods. Just don't presume you have the right to tell other's to do so.


The fact of the mater is, trade sactions have never and will never work. The only way things are going to change in China is if a large chinese middle class is formed. And that's only going to happen with an increase in trade.

[Wonk]

Originally posted by troysvihl
>>Cuba didn't trade a lot with the outside world when sanctions were imposed, so it doesn't work.<<

Yes they did trade a lot with others. In fact almost their entire economy was dependant on outside dollars.

Nice try. Their entire economy was dependent on outside dollars in the form of FOREIGN AID from the USSR, not trade. They didn't trade anything.

Originally posted by troysvihl


>>Everyone is cheating on the Iraq embargo.<<

Since when?

China's cheating and trading with them. Since the end of the war, oil has moved by truck through Jordan and by pipeline to Syria in violation of the embargo. Despire an air embargo, 200 flights a year land in Baghdad.

See Oil &Gas Industry News: http://ogj.pennnet.com/Content/cd_anchor_wire/1,1057,OGJ_7_WIRE_DISPLAY_8080,00.html


Originally posted by troysvihl


>>North Korea has come to the bargaining table (but again, not a lot of trade was coming out of NK in the 1940's and early 50's, as they were recovering from WW2).<<

North Korea is in dire straights for food, yet economic sanctions havne't done shit. Arguably, foreign trade is more important to North Korea than to China since they can't even feed their own population.


Gifts are not trade. And food isn't part of the embargo (duh). Are you feeling foolish yet?

Originally posted by troysvihl


>>Economic policy has worked to put Milosovic behind bars, can't dispute that one.<<

lol. Like I said, you have an interesting view of how events panned out over there.

OK, so why did the current regime decide to arrest Milosovic the day before the decision whether
to approve loans (when the loans hinged on arresting Slobo)? Why else would a quasi-nationalist
government turn him over (an unpopular and destabilizing move)?
Originally posted by troysvihl

>>We've pushed post-Soviet Russia around with the threat of witholding loan guarantees.<<

Name me one thing that we've mananged to "push" them around with? I don't remember any concessions on anything.

We've restructured their banking system. We've pushed them into numerous legal reforms and military downsizing. They've backed off over complaints of our testing and possible deployment of a missile defense system (in violation of a long-standing treaty). They've quietly accepted the expansion of NATO into the ex-Sov sphere.

Originally posted by troysvihl

>>And in the case of China, a trade embargo from the U.S. alone is a very powerful tool. We just need the *balls* to us it, which our current president lacks.<<

No, it won't work. They'll simply trade with the EU or with the other Pacific rim countries. The only thing trade restrictions will do is to screw the US economy over.

Wrong. Currently 80% of China's exports are to the U.S. (1) the other regions you mention don't have the same consumer economy that the U.S. offers. Europeans don't consume anywhere near as much cheap junk as we do, and the Japanese wouldn't touch anything made in china. (2) Even if there were markets, you're talking 5-10 years to shift your trade to those other countries. China couldn't withstand a 5-year recession.
Originally posted by troysvihl


BTW, if you have the "balls" to do so, why don't you just not buy Chinese goods. Just don't presume you have the right to tell other's to do so.

Who says I don't embargo Chinese goods. By your argument, I should have the right to buy Iraqi oil and Cuban cigars. Is that what you're really saying?

[troysvihl]

>>Nice try. Their entire economy was dependent on outside dollars in the form of FOREIGN AID from the USSR, not trade. They didn't trade anything.<<


Of course they traded goods. Before the embargo, Cuba exported tons of stuff including sugar and tobaccoo. They also had a pretty sizable tourist economy. So yes, pre-embargo Cuba had an economy that was quite heavily dependant on trade. (and the embargo has done nothing to change that country)


>>China's cheating and trading with them. Since the end of the war, oil has moved by truck through Jordan and by pipeline to Syria in violation of the embargo. Despire an air embargo, 200 flights a year land in Baghdad.<<

And you don't think the EU will do the same thing with any US embargo of China? A US embargo of China will do nothing but hurt both our economies. China will not change their ways and the progress of constructing a Chinese middle class in order to change Chinese policy will only be delayed.


>>Gifts are not trade. And food isn't part of the embargo (duh). <<

The food gifts are necessary b/c they can't trade to get enough food. (duh)


>>OK, so why did the current regime decide to arrest Milosovic the day before the decision whether
to approve loans (when the loans hinged on arresting Slobo)? Why else would a quasi-nationalist
government turn him over (an unpopular and destabilizing move)?<<

The fact that the current government isn't releasing him before their own trials show that the loans are not the main reason for the arrest. I'm sure that the approval of loans had some part to motivate the arrest, but I hardly think this is sufficient precedent to prove that a US embargo of China will do anything.



>>We've restructured their banking system. We've pushed them into numerous legal reforms and military downsizing. They've backed off over complaints of our testing and possible deployment of a missile defense system (in violation of a long-standing treaty). They've quietly accepted the expansion of NATO into the ex-Sov sphere.<<

None of these things were the result of anything the West did. The restructured banking system was a necessary change. We didn't have to push them with threats of withholding loands. And the military downsizing are due to their lack of governmental funds. And as far as the NATO expansion and complaints of the missile defense system, they don't have much choice in the matter. They logged their complaints, and that's pretty much all they could do. It had nothing to do with the assistance.


>>Wrong. Currently 80% of China's exports are to the U.S. (1) the other regions you mention don't have the same consumer economy that the U.S. offers. Europeans don't consume anywhere near as much cheap junk as we do, and the Japanese wouldn't touch anything made in china. (2) Even if there were markets, you're talking 5-10 years to shift your trade to those other countries. China couldn't withstand a 5-year recession.<<

Where do you get the idea that Europeans don't buy as much "junk" or that Japanese won't touch Chinese goods? Of course those countries will trade with them, and it doesn't take five years to divert exports elsewhere. Sure, they'll suffer some economic drag from it, but the US will be the one worse off. And all for what? To get a plane that is now a piece of junk and was more than likely thoroughly examined withing 36 hours of it touching down in China.



>>Who says I don't embargo Chinese goods. By your argument, I should have the right to buy Iraqi oil and Cuban cigars. Is that what you're really saying?<<

Yes, that is what I'm really saying. You do have a right to spend your money how you see fit without others forceing their views on you.

>>Are you feeling foolish yet?<<

I've no reason to feel foolish. You haven't backed up your arguemant that a Chinese embargo will accomplish any constructive ends. You argue for a trade embargo and then try to cite precedents of foreign aide. Gifts of food and foreign loans are to trade embargos what apples are to oranges.

[Wonk]

Originally posted by troysvihl
Before the embargo, Cuba exported tons of stuff including sugar and tobacco.
Local producers exported an insignificant quantity compared to their overall economy today (and then). US-based companies exported most goods, and the local economy didn't benefit (so losing those exports didn't hurt).


And you don't think the EU will do the same thing with any US embargo of China?

Of course, but the relative trade will be small compared to what they have with the USA now. We'd be plunging China into a five-year economic depression.



The fact that the current government isn't releasing him before their own trials show that the loans are not the main reason for the arrest. I'm sure that the approval of loans had some part to motivate the arrest, but I hardly think this is sufficient precedent to prove that a US embargo of China will do anything.

That's your spin, but it doesn't have much to do with reality. They only had to arrest him to meet the terms of the loans (not turn him over). Powell said OK to the loans hours after the arrest. Get a reality.


None of these things were the result of anything the West did. The restructured banking system was a necessary change.

You don't read much, do you?


Where do you get the idea that Europeans don't buy as much "junk" or that Japanese won't touch Chinese goods?

Umm... worldwide marketing data that document consumption habits? How many cars do the average European own vs. the average American? How much do they spend on gardening equipment? Home improvement products? Furniture? Clothing? Computers, even, for crying out loud. We outspend Europeans in consumer goods by a factor of at least three. It drives ~ 80% of our economy. Which is why when Mr. Heart Attack went on Meet The Press and said "recession" in January, he put our economy into a tailspin.


Of course those countries will trade with them, and it doesn't take five years to divert exports elsewhere.

Name five things China sells to the U.S. that can be immediately shipped to Japan or Germany and sold without modification. Fireworks? Get real. Toys? Can't sell a toy in Europe unless it's CE marked. In fact, that's the case for just about every consumer good. Nothing coming out of China is CE marked, which is why they don't sell anything to Europe!!!!

But, if you knew what you were talking about, you might know that.


Sure, they'll suffer some economic drag from it, but the US will be the one worse off. And all for what? To get a plane that is now a piece of junk and was more than likely thoroughly examined withing 36 hours of it touching down in China.

Try advanced technology 20 years ahead of anything else in the world, and from which they can gain a lot by total dismantlement. If it's such a 'piece of junk,' why don't they give it back???

Answer me that.

[troysvihl]

lol. i don't know why they don't give it back. Probably for the same reason that they didn't immediatley give the crew back. That being, they feel they've somehow "won" something by not giving it back. Let them feel that way, I don't particularily care and it certainly isn't worth going into pointless trade wars with them. It won't change a damn thing.

[mairving]

Well if they give it back, I bet that it won't have the video of the Chinese fighter plane ramming us.

[HAL9000]

Originally posted by Wonk


Wrong. Currently 80% of China's exports are to the U.S. (1) the other regions you mention don't have the same consumer economy that the U.S. offers. Europeans don't consume anywhere near as much cheap junk as we do, and the Japanese wouldn't touch anything made in china. (2) Even if there were markets, you're talking 5-10 years to shift your trade to those other countries. China couldn't withstand a 5-year recession.


If that is an accurate assesment, you don't see that loss of trade going INTO the US having an impact on US economy?

[Wonk]

``There was a meeting of about two and a half hours in Beijing. It wasn't unexpected
the way it rolled out. They gave their position on the accident. We gave ours.
Those views differ considerably,'' the senior State Department official said, speaking
on condition of anonymity.

``It was a tough meeting. There was no progress on the airplane,'' he added.

Well, there you have it. The Chinese know they have nothing to fear. "Come and try to get your damn airplane," they're saying. Then they laugh to themselves. Because they know we have a President who'll cave in every time one of our soldiers is in the crosshairs.

I can see her now:
"George Walker Bush, who stole the election in Florida. You ARE the weakest link. Good-bye!"

[HAL9000]

OK... I get it know.... lets dump a bunch of bombs on them. There's no chance of any repercussions.

[troysvihl]

Why wait for normal bombs, let's just nuke them. Nothing says "We Don't Cave In" like a big nuke. (nevermind that fact that the nuke used is going to cost more than the plane)

[Wonk]

Originally posted by HAL9000
OK... I get it know.... lets dump a bunch of bombs on them. There's no chance of any repercussions.
What are you talking about? Who implied that?

(Why is it that conservatives always try to put words in your mouth when they start losing arguments?
Why is that? Bob, what's your theory? It's really kind of annoying)

[troysvihl]

I think hal is trying to show the absurdity of a trade embargo over a trivial plane.



>>Why is it that conservatives always try to put words in your mouth when they start losing arguments?<<

Losing? lol. I've somehow lost the arguement just because I decided to stop debating every made-up figure and piece of rewritten history you throw out? I don't think so.

BTW, since when is this about conservative vs. liberal? I'm not a conservative.

[Wonk]

So what, exactly, have I "made up" ????

You're the one who said a nuke would cost more than the plane. Cost of production of a nuclear warhead is under $10M, while the cost of the aircrafts is $80 million.

You're the one who said trade embargoes have never worked, while I gave you examples and explainations of why China is a perfect target for such a response.

You're the one making inane statements like "the Chinese had completely analyzed the plane in a day or two," when clearly they have more work to do.

Can you clear this up?

[mairving]

You know this place really is a waste of time.

[troysvihl]

pretty much any fact or figure you spout off. from all the how things were in cuba pre-embargo, to the statement that the Chinese clearly have more work to do on the plane to how much a nuclear bomb costs and how much a used damaged plane. and everything in between.

I've already wasted enoug time trying to counter every statement in one of your posts, and I'm not going to rehash it. My argument is simple and laid out in my previous posts. nuff said.

[waiting]

Yes Mairv: it would be nice if the US plane had a video of the Chinese plane ramming ours. A lot of us would like to see that footage.....Do you think there is footage?

Next time we should have footage....

[HAL9000]

Originally posted by troysvihl
I think hal is trying to show the absurdity of a trade embargo over a trivial plane.

Yup.

[bob]

Will reply - no time tonight.
BTW DR, the "last page" option suckks. In this example/case this is page 5.

[bob]

:) They have taken a position and are unwilling to change. It is a beleif that the conserative position is always correct and if they lose the argument it is just their inability to argue as well as the liberal. Why let facts get in the way of a perfect simple philosophy.

As for the "straw man" words:
Their jeddi mind tricks just don't work on informed liberals.

[troysvihl]

lol