Comments on: Comments on 6771

Post number 6771

revbrian — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:42:50 -0800

U.S. Refuses To Apologize to China - This seems to me to be the right decision. What do you think we should do here?

By: fuzzynavel

fuzzynavel — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 10:00:05 -0800

I don't quite understand why they are demanding an apology so quickly. The US hasn't been able to discuss the incident with the crew, and they haven't been able to examine the plane. Shouldn't the US be able to find out (by conducting their own investigation) whether they were in the wrong before they go and apologize? I know there are a lot of other issues here having to do with China's government saving face, issues with Taiwan, etc. It seems like an incredibly delicate situation.

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 10:01:36 -0800

Is it useful to compare China/Taiwan/USA with USA/Cuba/USSR? If so, it might help understand the Chinese point of view...

By: Neb

Neb — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 10:14:57 -0800

I think China is demanding an apology because they can. They have America over a barrel for the first time, and they plan to use their leverage to see how fast they can make the US government dance. Many Chinese citizens wish to see China be aggressive with America, and it looks like Tang Jiaxuan is going along with their wishes.

By: fuzzynavel

fuzzynavel — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 10:27:22 -0800

The US can demand an apology from China as well, but I think they are not because they want to conduct an investigation and see what really happened. It seems like China has so much to lose here - is it in their best interests to "be aggressive"?

By: jasonshellen

jasonshellen — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 10:34:24 -0800

Here are a few reasons China might want an apology: 1. The Chinese fighter was downed in the collision and its pilot has not been found. 2. The US plane was in Chinese airspace 3. The US plane was/is a SPY plane 4. We are at ideological and political odds with the Chinese Furthermore, if a Chinese plane were in US airspace I am pretty sure that given the right circumstances that the thing would be obliterated. There would be no crew for China to ask for a "safe return" of. I think Bush should: Swallow his pride. Apologize. Await the return of our soldiers and chalk it up to getting our hands caught in the cookie jar.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 10:36:20 -0800

Assuming the incident occurred in international territory, no apologies. China should apologize to that lost pilot of theirs.

By: donkeysuck

donkeysuck — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 10:37:08 -0800

i'm not sure what we have to apologize about....? that we were watching them from international airspace? if China didn't already know that we do that, then China should apologize to the rest of the world for subjecting us to their ignorance. instead, how about China apologizes to the US for sending a rickshaw driver up in the air at the helm of a multi-million dollar aircraft who then proceeds to run/drift/left-turn-at-alberquerque into our aircraft? the F-8 is a highly manueverable plane and, by no means, should have been piloted into the conspicuous and easily avoidable E-3.

By: anapestic

anapestic — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 10:38:44 -0800

I don't know whether anyone remembers the pre-Simpsons Groening cartoon series "Love Is Hell," but there was a cartoon about inter-gender relationships. Excerpt from a portion on how to keep your boyfriend/girlfriend in line. Hint two: insult him: "you're an idiot." Hint three: apologize to him: "I'm sorry that you got upset when I called you an idiot." (I'm paraphrasing wildly here; it's been a while.) Exactly what would an apology look like at this point in time? "We would like to offer our sincere regret that your plane ran into ours and that we were forced to land on one of your islands to save our crew. We would further like to apologize for the inconvenience caused you by having to lodge our citizens during their period of detention, as well as the trouble caused to your intelligence experts who were required to examine our plane." Ok, ok, we don't know for sure that it was their fault. If the accident turns out to be the US military's fault, then we should apologize. On a related note, no matter how much you like or dislike Bush, do you really think he's going to apologize during his first major international affairs crisis without being absolutely certain that we did something wrong? There is a value for all Americans when the world knows that our leaders can't be coerced. Remember that it was perceived weakness on the part of Bush Sr.'s administration that got us into the Gulf conflict.

By: jasonshellen

jasonshellen — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 10:43:25 -0800

Remember that it was perceived weakness on the part of Bush Sr.'s administration that got us into the Gulf conflict. Really? I thought it was US oil interests that got us into the Gulf War. My bad.

By: chrismc

chrismc — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 10:44:47 -0800

"...sending a rickshaw driver up" wtf???

By: fuzzynavel

fuzzynavel — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 10:53:47 -0800

2. The US plane was in Chinese airspace Everything I've heard says that it was international airspace... but I'm only reading American and British media sources.

By: th3ph17

th3ph17 — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:01:39 -0800

considering they haven't found the chinese pilot, we may never know what really happend. Flying is a pretty complex thing, and even longtime pilots make mistakes. U.S. pilots have killed civilians--and other military personnel-- in other countries doing stupid things. Remember the tram incident? or the recent bomb incident? the "rickshaw driver" comment just sort of Sucks. wtf indeed. and whether or not dubya decides to apologize or whatever, it needs to be done with Tact either way.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:03:24 -0800

Jasonshellon" The U.S;. was not in Chinese airspace. International law would show this plane to be in international air. However, the US, like China, does not like planes from other countries to come within 200 or so miles of our land. they can if they first announce that they would like to and then are granted prmission. China, in this instance, playing the same game without allowing for announcement or request (which was never given),. What seems missed here is that China now assumes a lot of hegemony and regulatory power in and around the area of the China Sea. We deny this. To apologize is to admit that it does indeed belong to them, a two-sphere word not unlike Russian v. U.S. Our plan: to send regrests abut loss of Chinese plane and airman. Then China can spin this to convince their public that they made us eat crow. My plan: no Chinese restaurants for my family till our military and plane come hom. That wil show them I will not e4ven participate as an athlete in the coming Olympics, which China hopes to have there!

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:17:23 -0800

...sending a rickshaw driver... "donkeysuck"....how appropriate....

By: milBro

milBro — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:27:01 -0800

What's the actual consequence if the US did apologize, however? The only people that would mistake this as an act of appeasement would be the US anyway. The rest of the world sees us as caught in an aggressive act (spying) and the specifics (who hit who in who's airspace) are irrelevant to that fundamental point. We should apologize and lead by example by demonstrating that we're capable of dealing with compromising circumstances graciously and with the sensitivity we'd like to foster in leadership in other countries. We're caught in the position of the playground bully, who, caught snooping through someone else's things, is trying to deny we did anything wrong because we can beat the crap out of our accuser. We'd probably even get away with it if they didn't just nail a bunch of our allegedly non-exportable crypto gear. In the interest of maintaining the universal balance of irony I hope their people have it, are bored and as unimpressed as a Beos user after installing OS X.

By: racer271

racer271 — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:27:58 -0800

I think its wrong that everyone keeps calling the US plane a spy plane... If the incident happened with a SR-71 blackbird flying over China mainland... then that would be a spy plane. In this case this is a US communications plane doing its job. Several other countries have similiar planes doing the same thing. Jasonshellen - I diagree with your comments.

By: fusinski

fusinski — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:28:38 -0800

From what I read, according to international law smaller planes have to stay out of the way of larger ones, regardless of where they're flying. And also from what I understand, the American plane is/was large and bulky, and flies very level and rather slow.
Therefore, it seems only logical that A. the smaller Chinese plane clipped our plane, and B. according to international law, the Chinese plane is at fault and therefore the US has no reason to apologize.

By: donkeysuck

donkeysuck — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:29:07 -0800

goodness gracious! i had no idea so many rickshaw drivers were metafilter readers. my apologies. my point, albeit VICIOUS racebaiting and not the least bit humorous, was simply that an aircraft is a highly sophisticated vehicle(unlike a rickshaw) and someone with adequate training and flight hours shouldn't be bumping into other aircraft. when a pilot from the U.S. does the same i will be sure to identify them as a NASCAR driver. oh no, now i've insulted all the Earnhardt fans.

By: Dreama

Dreama — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:29:34 -0800

Spying is not an aggressive act, it's a defensive act.

By: daver

daver — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:31:12 -0800

A point from recent history (easily forgotten in the US). We bombed their embassy and killed 4 people. It's believable to think that from their point of view, we still haven't really atoned for that. Of course they're furious. Wrap this up with the US selling weapons to renegade states. More furious. Didn't we recently endanger the lives of Chinese technicians in Baghdad w/ more bombs? Anyway. From their point of view we have a lot of apologizing to do. Not saying they're right, just saying their point of view is a bit different than ours. Postroad: You're joking, right? You're not seriously considering punishing US Citizens of Chinese descent who happen to be restaurant employees over this, right? Ok. Good. You got me. Ha ha ha.

By: th3ph17

th3ph17 — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:38:38 -0800

Highly trained people do stupid things. Nascar drivers or no.

By: a3matrix

a3matrix — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:46:52 -0800

Maybe an eyelash got in the Chinese pilot's eye's and blindfolded him. Andrew Dice Clay quote: "You can blindfold these people with dental floss, you don't give them the keys to the car." Or the F-8 super sonic fighter jet in this instance.

By: argybarg

argybarg — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:55:55 -0800

Hooray for flame-baiting racism!

By: CRS

CRS — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:00:44 -0800

Yep, I'm sure the Chinese are mad at the U.S. for selling weapons to renegade countries. It's not like those poor Chinese techs were helping an international pariah nation improve its military communications network or anything. (Oh yeah, the bombing took place when the Chinese techs weren't going to be at the site). I can certainly understand why you'd want to hold people hostage for that. Just because some people have a point of view doesn't mean that it's right. Under established international law, they should have let our people come home by now. I don't argue that they can't take the plane apart before sending it back (we would), but there's no excuse for holding our servicemen and women against their will. I'm pretty sure none of them decided to defect.

By: Loudmax

Loudmax — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:11:47 -0800

Maybe an eyelash got in the Chinese pilot's eye's and blindfolded him. That's something only an asshole would say. One should be tolerant of humor, but your comment is very poor form. racer271- Do you think our oil interests weren't at stake in the Gulf War, or were you disagreeing with something else Jasonshellen said?

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:25:35 -0800

That's something only an asshole would say. I disagree, loudmax. I hear morons, fools and apish bigots say stuff like that all the time...

By: jasonshellen

jasonshellen — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:05:31 -0800

racer271 and concerned readers: from today's NY Times article Jiang on Tuesday demanded that the United States end surveillance flights off China's coast. A Pentagon spokesman, Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, said in Washington that the United States was unlikely to do so. Such surveillance flights are meant to gather information on China's military by recording radio, radar and other signals. While this may not be your Blackbird SR-71 variety spying, it is admittedly "surveillance" and that is, in my book, spying. Thusly reason #3 stands and the only one I will consider rescinding is number 2. The US plane was in Chinese airspace. As that appears to be up for interpretation at the moment.

By: fuzzynavel

fuzzynavel — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:16:14 -0800

I would venture a guess that these spy planes are flying in international airspace around various other countries, which is apparently legal according to international law (who came up with these international laws, anyway?). No reason to apologize for that.

By: darren

darren — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:20:54 -0800

Break out the submarines and let's sink all the oriental ships with antennae trolling off our shores ! ... oh wait a minute, we already started doing that.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:21:33 -0800

Daver: of course I was kidding. However, this afternoon I called a running shoe store in Calif to order shoes. I have ordered from them from years. When I placed by order, I asked where the shoes came from. When I was told China, I cancelled! Dumb on my part, yes. Do I hurt anyone? Yes, the shoe store. Enough people do that and they stop getting shoes from China and turn to other low salried countries. It is our Chamber of Congress basically (and mostly conservatives) who said business with China more important than human rights. This will all conclude peacefully unless the Chinese put our people on trial. Then a notch higher.

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:31:19 -0800

let's imagine this for a second, just for the sake of the argument: a Chinese spy plane lands in Florida after a collision with a US fighter plane. It's unclear wether the collision happened in international space or in the American skies. The American fighter pilot is dead. The Chinese crew are detained. Wouldn't you guys want the Chinese govt to apologize? Wouldn't you possibly ask to put the Chinese crew on trial for murder and espionage?

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:33:32 -0800

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:33:54 -0800

By: darren

darren — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:34:44 -0800

Dear China: We are sooooo, so sorry that your pilots are so stupid that can't tell the difference between a P-3 turboprop and a cloud. We are sooooo, so sorry that our pilot foolishly thought you wouldn't turn a rule of international law -- about allowing planes in distress landing privileges -- into an international incident. We are sooooo, so sorry that you Happy-Meal-toy-making idiots think that we need you more you need us. We are sooooo, so sorry that the Mao jacket thing didn't work out in the '60s. We are sooooo, so sorry that we oppose your government policy forcing families to kill their unborn babies to adhere to your laws restricting family sizes. We are sooooo, so sorry that our citizens believe that exterminating hundreds of students in the heart of your major city was wrong. We are sooooo, so sorry that we believe human beings are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. We are sooooo, so sorry that we stay vigilant by listening to what other countries in the Pacific are up to. It's that darn Pearl Harbor thing we're still hung up on. Is that good enough?

By: triplepostguy

triplepostguy — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:36:39 -0800

As the Pretenders sing, "way to go, way to go, way to go ... matteo."

By: rmannion

rmannion — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:40:58 -0800

Powell: 'We regret' Chinese pilot's loss

By: fusinski

fusinski — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:42:38 -0800

Ok, darren... bits of that were uncalled for. For instance, my Happy Meal toy was made in Korea.

By: darren

darren — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:43:20 -0800

The "rickshaw driver" in question is shown here.

By: darren

darren — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:45:41 -0800

... For instance, my Happy Meal toy was made in Korea. Yeah, but your Happy Meal toy was probably made by someone over the age of 10.

By: fusinski

fusinski — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:46:44 -0800

Doomit!

By: darren

darren — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:48:25 -0800

Wouldn't you guys want the Chinese govt to apologize? Only if it was their pilot's fault. Wouldn't you possibly ask to put the Chinese crew on trial for murder and espionage? If they were in international airspace, no.

By: iceberg273

iceberg273 — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:54:38 -0800

I remember the great Turbot War of 1995, when Fisheries Minister Brian Tobin led the Canadians to victory over a Spanish fishing fleet. And that was about fishing rights, not national security. It also occurred in international waters. Apologies were demanded. The Captain of a fishing trawler was arrested. The trawler itself was impounded. The International Court of Justice sided with Canada.
And we're surprised that China is demanding apologies? This is no fishing incident - from China's viewpoint, it's national security.

By: jasonshellen

jasonshellen — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:57:44 -0800

There are a few simple things that lie at the root of this pissing match. Timing and courtesy. When I am in an elevator and someone brushes up against me I usually say "Oh, I'm sorry" out of courtesy. Thus begins the love fest. Usually if it is followed up with a polite, "Oh no, *I* am sorry" by the other party. Did I brush up against them or did they brush up against me? Who cares? The point is when harm is done (brushing up is a poor excuse for harm) people (or nations) like to hear something, or anything. Had the US not waited FOUR excruciating days to come out with their "Sorry to hear about your plane and pilot crashing" statement then we may be in a better situation now, regardless of fault.

By: Dreama

Dreama — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:59:58 -0800

It's only national security to China because they believe that they own the air 200 miles away from their shores. Regardless, they are signatories of the sovereign territories agreement, as such, our servicepeople and plane are supposed to be off limits to them and should have been returned without any interference immediately. They can posture all they want, but according to the sovereign territories principle, they're still in the wrong, and more wrong with every minute those men and women are detained, and every minute their technicians spend on that aircraft.

By: tobyslater

tobyslater — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:02:04 -0800

Some of you are really fucked up. The level of xenophobia and unbridled nationalism in a few of the above posts is absolutely astonishing. Has it occurred to any of you that your view of this incident is being shaped by the American media, just as Chinese people will be fed their own propaganda? All I can say is that were the boot on the other foot, George W Bush would probably have sent a missile over to China by now.

And Darren: last time I checked (although forgive me if I'm wrong) Pearl Harbour was attacked by the Japanese. China is a completely different country. Looks like you've been taking geography lessons from Dubya.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:09:16 -0800

The Chinese were buzzing our plane and one got too close. We were checking out, I have read, a new type destroyer the Chinese have just put to sea. We monitor them electronically with or without planes and they know this and they do this to us. No problem. Problem only if they play tough with their "guests."

By: samsara

samsara — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:11:43 -0800

darren: The "rickshaw driver" in question is shown here.

Hey! Isn't that Rob Schneider? THAT explains everything!

By: darren

darren — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:13:17 -0800

last time I checked (although forgive me if I'm wrong) Pearl Harbour was attacked by the Japanese. China is a completely different country. Looks like you've been taking geography lessons from Dubya. Glad to see news of the British educational system's demise have been somewhat exaggerated, toby. Your snarky grasp on the obvious is stunning. That said, what is your point? The U.S. government maintains a high level of vigilance based on what happened in 1941, not based on who perpetrated the attack. That would be akin to Britain ignoring Hitler's military buildup in the 1930s because it was the Normans, not the Germans, who invaded in 1066.

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:21:15 -0800

Thanks, toby, for injecting some reason into this piss-fest. Here, darren, take this blanket. That bullshit wasn't nearly enough to cover your ass...

By: tobyslater

tobyslater — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:30:02 -0800

Darren: your message was headed "Dear China" and by the way I found it incredibly tasteless. While none of us agrees with Tiannenmen, the USA isn't exactly squeaky clean itself... Dubya's done as much in a few months to bring the States into disrepute as most presidents achieve in their entire term. I now understand that if there's any chance of anyone attacking your nation whatsoever (hell, if they're even *near* a country that once attacked) then we should make sure they're well-monitored. I think we should keep an eye on French Polynesia and maybe also Australia; who knows what those crazy surf dudes will get up to. And where's the Amazon PayPage for that Star Wars initiative again? Better plunge a few pennies into the kitty for next time those Chinese spy planes start buzzing over Santa Monica...

By: margaretlam

margaretlam — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:35:15 -0800

This is a national security issue with China in the same way that it's a security issue for you if you've got the same people parked across the street from your house every day. So what that's public property that they're on. This spying thing between China and the U.S. has been going on for quite some time now, it is only reccently that it's making headlines. Just before this crash, I've read (in chinese news papers) that at least two people on seperate occasions have been detained by the government, because they're suspected to have sold information to the states. In fact, just last week, a chinese man was sworn into citizenship in the states, in hopes of having his wife and child released from China (he's the one in question of course, holding his family is to put pressure on him to return). As mentioned before, the crash has become a distraction from the real concern here, two countries have been spending their resources to spy on each other. The Taiwanese are grateful to have a big brother backing them up, but mainland China is furious because someone who doesn't have enough understanding of the relationship between Tawiwan and Mainland China is sticking their nose into their business. Perspective does matter. If it didn't, we wouldn't need the united nations, we'll just have an international CIA.

By: norm

norm — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:36:23 -0800

The question of what is international and what is China's airspace is not resolved by the Law of the Sea convention or related documents. China has claimed virtually all of the South China Sea and running surveillance through it could be considered a provocation whether we were over land or not. That being said, it's absolutely ridiculous to claim that there is a justification for the holding of our crew. Just because the media is biased doesn't mean the US is always wrong. They can have the plane; keeping the crew is an unnecessary and outrageous act that can only destroy relations and ensure our continued support for forces that are hostile to China's interests.

By: darren

darren — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:37:15 -0800

toby, your naivete is joyous. Do you truly believe that allies such as the U.S., Britain and Australia don't gather intelligence on each other? And as for Chinese spy planes over Santa Monica, they don't need them. They regularly troll "fishing boats" just outside our 12-mile territorial limit, and use sensitive gear atop their Washington embassy. They gather the exact same radio traffic as the P-3 was collecting over international waters. If you're going to comment about intelligence gathering, at least learn something about it first.

By: dutchbint

dutchbint — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:37:31 -0800

hear hear, toby. frankly, i am thoroughly sickened by this misplaced notion of 'american supremacy' some people have demonstrated in this thread. the racist comments are totally out of order. americans, stop worrying about losing face - it's virtually impossible when your head is lodged firmly up your arse.

By: john

john — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:37:32 -0800

"Well he got this new globe for Christmas. He's found a lot of new countries."
- Robert J. Dole, when asked by Conan O'Brian that some people were concerned that GWB doesn't has a good grasp about current affairs

I am the Quote-King hear me "Roar!"

By: daver

daver — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:43:17 -0800

I may be way off base, but don't the Chinese regularly accuse us of interfering in their sovereign affairs? Why would you expect them to stick to the rules for a country that, in their opinion, hasn't been playing fair in the past...

By: fusinski

fusinski — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:44:05 -0800

Not to defend darren, because I'm not doing that by any means... but my God, you can't possibly be comparing Australia and China, toby, can you? PLEASE tell me I read that wrong.
I believe you are forgetting that China stole a bunch of military technology from us, and they have the greatest capacity for destruction out of any developed country in the world. Couple that with the fact that they are very anti-human rights, and we have every right to be suspicious of China.
You crazy kids are out here defending commies, for God's sake. And I don't think comparing ANYTHING Dubya has done to the Tiannenmen incident is remotely comparible in any way, shape or form. I don't even care if you didn't mean to compare them. Just putting those things in the same sentence is disgusting.

By: dutchbint

dutchbint — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:53:25 -0800

fusinski, i don't think toby was comparing what bush has done to tiananmen. he was just pointing out that the usa isn't exactly squeaky clean either, and pointing out the need for some perspective here. i'm sure the usa has "borrowed" some military technology through the years - show me a country that hasn't at least tried to do that. no one here is 'defending commies' - this seems to always be americans' last resort when having a discussion about politics with europeans. we're just a bunch of misguided lefties to you, aren't we. just because someone is not on your side, doesn't necessarily mean they're on the other team's side. some people are actually trying to see both sides of the story here - instead of blindly calling for blood.

By: fusinski

fusinski — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:56:06 -0800

Well since you want to nitpick my post, I can nitpick yours too. I don't think anybody here has called for blood. Now was that the point of your post? No. And the single comment about "defending commies" wasn't the point of mine either. Get over it.

By: iceberg273

iceberg273 — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:57:32 -0800

(1) [I'd site someone here, but I don't want a lot of the comments posted above associated with my name. There are some things that I won't even cut and paste.] Don't make fun of Chinese pilots' flying abilities too loudly. Sometimes American pilots run into each other. Flying a plane is a complicated mental task. Sometimes errors happen. I know I've made errors when driving my car - a much less complicated task than flying wingtip to wingtip at 700 km/h.
Argue against an American apology on political/national policy grounds all you want, but please don't claim that Americans shouldn't apologize because "they" [the Chinese] are stupid.
(2) Consider that both sides may be using propaganda.
(3) they [the Chinese] have the greatest capacity for destruction out of any developed country in the world.
Are you sure?
(4) One last thing: remember what America does to people who we suspect of spying for China.

By: dutchbint

dutchbint — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:02:05 -0800

oh yeah, i forgot, fusinski. of course there's always the option of becoming abusive and rude when you can't come up with any decent arguments. i'm sorry - i refuse to take sides in this little problem you guys seem to be having. mainly because you seem to expect people to side with the usa for what reason exactly? because it's the usa? because the other side are 'commies'? sorry, not good enough. i see 2 countries being equally stubborn and sidling closer to creating a major international incident - and who is wrong or right is a fairly academic issue once things get out of hand.

By: Neb

Neb — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:06:51 -0800

We're letting Darren's racist 'Dear China' letter get us a little off topic here, aren't we? I think it's pretty easy to figure out why the Chinese are as upset as they are. That plane has the capability to hack into any data or communication network in the world. It's a spy plane, obviously listening in on Chinese communications. I just wish they'd post what they find in that plane on the internet. That'd make for some interesting reading.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:07:21 -0800

Send in the marines. Get our people. Then nuke the island.

By: th3ph17

th3ph17 — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:08:12 -0800

i'm a misguided lefty. Grrrrr. Rabid liberal here who believes in viewing things logically. Grrrr! be very very afraid. and all, lets try to be nice and polite and logical and avoid saying stupid things, because people who are more objective, like dutchbint will have no problem ripping your arguement into little tiny closed-minded shreds. Little racial slurs only make you look stupid, and complete acceptance of the American View makes you look naive. go dutchbint. and iceberg...i already tried to point out that flying aircraft is a difficult thing...those who listened did, and the rest...well. you know.

By: anapestic

anapestic — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:24:40 -0800

I don't think any of the Americans here would claim that America's actions are right simply because it's America. What we're mostly saying is that we still don't see any evidence of anything to apologize for. Some of you would like us to apologize simply because we're American. That's not logical, nor is any assumption that we're more likely to be in the wrong just because we're American. And iceberg, if you want to compare the records of countries dealing with supposed spies, go right ahead. Especially if the best you can offer is the Wen Ho Lee case. After all the guy did admit to downloading sensitive information, some of which could not be recovered. And the rule of law did work, although it should have worked more quickly. I'm not always proud to be an American. But if there's one country that I'm not afraid of America being compared to, it's China. Yes, we should try to see China's view of the incident as well. I wonder how many voices there are in China urging them to consider our view.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:31:13 -0800

My country! Right? or Wong?

By: jbushnell

jbushnell — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:31:52 -0800

Fuisinski--
You've muddled Tobyslater's points. He said (roughly):
--the USA's human rights record isn't squeaky clean
and (separate point) --Dubya's done some things to bring the states into disrepute.

Now that I look back, you seem aware that you've muddled them, but you don't care: "I don't even care if you didn't mean to compare them. Just putting those things in the same sentence is disgusting."

Now, surely you can see that that's... that that doesn't...

[throws up hands in despair]

By: iceberg273

iceberg273 — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:40:00 -0800

Anapestic: And iceberg, if you want to compare the records of countries dealing with supposed spies, go right ahead.
I was just suggesting that detaining the crew of this plane for a little while in this case is probably comparable to detaining Wen Ho Lee for 10 months in that case. In both cases, the individual(s) are at least tangentially responsible for compromising a nation's security. It might be advisable, therefore, wait a bit and let cooler heads prevail. As you noted, the rule of law should work, even if it doesn't work as quickly as we'd like.
My point (4) was a little misleading in reference to this, and that's my fault. Sorry. I would in no way want to start making comparisons between countries. My only point was that these national security issues take time, even in America. Because national security is at stake, I suppose.
How many voices in China are encouraging them to consider our view? Probably not many. So this gives America a chance to show them what kind of diplomacy a "free" country is capable of, eh?

By: dutchbint

dutchbint — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:47:12 -0800

i think most people (except for some gung ho nutters) would just like to see this situation defused quickly and painlessly. at the moment, the fastest and easiest way seems to be the usa apologising. an apology doesn't cost much. maybe bush will lose some credibility because of it....no, hang on, what credibility? the usa apologising and resolving this threatening situation in a peaceful and grown-up way would probably do the usa's and bush's image a world of good. time to stop talking big, time to start acting big. that's just my tuppence.

By: jasonshellen

jasonshellen — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 16:00:27 -0800

Oh come on now. Let's not quite throw our hands up in disgust yet. There is lots more to be debated. Let me take the pulse of the thread so far... Lefties have been identified, called commie sympathizers, and charged with putting things in the wrong context. Right wingers have been identified, called overly patriotic, and have been charged with lack of understanding (ie. if the shoe was on the other foot). Racists have been identified and continue to bait MeFi. Postroad has been identified, is playing Devil's Advocate (methinks) and is actually quite the comedian. An old quote of his regarding a different matter... Iraq moves troops close to Syrian border and announces it is a military exercise. The U.S. moves Patriot missile outfit to Israel with some troops and announces it is a military exercise. My trainer told me that sometimes you can overdo the exercising. Number of troops currently on their way home from China regardless of who is right or wrong : 0.

By: aflakete

aflakete — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 17:08:31 -0800

Here is some background on why this might have happened to begin with, and why the Chinese have reacted as they have. I've also read somewhere that the Chinese military is jockeying for position in the rapidly changing Chinese political theatre, and there are conflicting opinions within the leadership.
Myself, I wouldn't trust the governments on either side.

By: lagado

lagado — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 17:18:25 -0800

Too bad these threads grow so big so quickly these days. All I can say at this late stage is: please keep the racist language out of it. Also I'd like to point out that freerepublic.com is having a very measured debate about this issue right now. Funny thing is they all agree with each other!

By: Postroad

Postroad — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 17:20:34 -0800

Dear Aflakete: it is wise not to trust any government. But everyone has to have one, somewhere, somehow, or who is there to pay taxes to.

By: owillis

owillis — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 17:43:58 -0800

The Chinese are trying to push GWB by asking for this "apology". Gimme a break. We've danced this dance a million times. We spy on you. You spy on us. We catch your guys. Send him home. Couple months later you find one of ours. Send him home. No harm. No foul. The game continues. Last thing we need is some silly apology that China can hold over our head down the road. Yes, the whole thing is bigger than those 24 people, GWB and Jiang Zemin. (for the folks bashing GWB over this, fughedabouttit - this situation would be the same under my man, BillC)

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 18:21:43 -0800

Jasonshellen, your elevator reference is funny in that culturally, Asians, or at least lots I meet in NYC, seem to have no conception of saying "pardon me," or "excuse me" occurs in public places. It's quite striking.

By: lagado

lagado — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 19:53:45 -0800

I thought that was just New Yorkers in general

By: lia

lia — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 21:44:02 -0800

So did I, lagado.

It must be so nice to be able to make sweeping racial generalizations like ParisParamus does. Oh, but it's only about asians anyway, they're fair game; it's okay to say they're stupid or rude.

anapestic, reading through the thread, I think you are wrong -- lots of Americans expect America to be right simply because it is America, land of the free, home of the brave, and all that. People in the US get their panties in knots over China's poor human rights record, which get plenty of airtime and newspaper space, but like this earlier thread points out, there are no public discussions of your country's poor human rights record, which is pretty poor, especially for a nation that constantly trumpets itself as a leader in democracy and equality. In that regard, it's sort of the pot calling the kettle black. (Of course, now I'm going to get called a commie bastard for pointing that out)

owillis, if the situation was the other way around, would you be saying "GWB is trying to push China by asking for this "apology?" I mean, really.

By: valintin23

valintin23 — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 22:00:49 -0800

owillis: BillC had a lot more practice at apologizing, and we know he can at least pronounce the word. Maybe GWB could offer them some apologetics. Start a new trend in faith based foreign policy.

By: owillis

owillis — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 23:36:16 -0800

lia: yes, yes I would. I'm far from the standard "my country, right or wrong" sort of thought that gets bandied around. I call a spade a spade.

By: MarkC

MarkC — Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:50:38 -0800

instead, how about China apologizes to the US for sending a rickshaw driver up in the air at the helm of a multi-million dollar aircraft who then proceeds to run/drift/left-turn-at-alberquerque into our aircraft? Rickshaw driver? Are these the same rickshaw drivers America employ to man their submarines?

By: revbrian

revbrian — Thu, 05 Apr 2001 05:20:40 -0800

[Jasonshellen, your elevator reference is funny in that culturally, Asians, or at least lots I meet in NYC, seem to have no conception of saying "pardon me," or "excuse me" occurs in public places. It's quite striking.] I'm sorry that your experience differs so radically from mine. I work for a company in Pennsylvania owned by the Japanese and have found them polite to the point of annoyance.

By: darren

darren — Thu, 05 Apr 2001 05:46:41 -0800

We're letting Darren's racist 'Dear China' letter get us a little off topic here, aren't we? Neb, how was my tongue-in-cheek letter racist? Define racism for me before you sling the term around. Then show me how my comments were racist.

By: revbrian

revbrian — Thu, 05 Apr 2001 06:14:26 -0800

You know, we can always tell the Chinese government what we think directly.

By: holgate

holgate — Thu, 05 Apr 2001 07:06:58 -0800

Steve Bell, as ever, makes a picture say a thousand words.

By: lagado

lagado — Thu, 05 Apr 2001 07:12:19 -0800

We are sooooo, so sorry that ... etc etc show me how my comments were racist. You're right, Darren. They weren't racist, just stupid.

By: darren

darren — Thu, 05 Apr 2001 07:24:47 -0800

Sorry, lagado. The problem with insulting the Chinese government is an hour later, you want to do it again. :-)

By: bondcliff

bondcliff — Thu, 05 Apr 2001 10:31:17 -0800

darren, you are my new personal hero. It is so refreshing to find a bit of humor mixed in with a bunch of nonesense written by people who seem to have nothing to prove other than how well read they are. Some of us can tell the difference between racism and humor. I just hope, since there are 24 of them, they qualify for some free eggroll.

By: Dreama

Dreama — Thu, 05 Apr 2001 10:49:40 -0800

Hear, hear, Bondcliff. (Except for the egg roll bit.)