The "China" Crises

[250]

no, because i am afraid they might get hurt...

[Accord]

.........*sign*

------------------
Long live H22A1!!!!!

[Jimbo]

Interesting so far, don't have time to do a detailed post, dang school work. Anyway,
250, you still didn't answer or prove some of the things alot of us have posted.
Posts:
""My reply, we would do an escort and make sure the Chicom aircraft was outside of the border/airspace, and would not hit there plane. "
remember:
"I" would do an escout, not "we"

also, if chinese MILITARY plane spy on your country and got discovered, I WOULD fly in one direction until escouted out, NOT SUDDENLY TURN to the left, and attempt to do somethign hostile.

if someone did do dumb staff, it was the spyplane, just how do you crash into someone if both are flying parallaly?? I give you a plane, and you see it yourself, if you will drive it and crash into a plane in front of you."

The WE is correct, you do not understand but CANADA (which is a freaking country too) and US are assigned sectors and do the intercep missions. WE (the Canadians and US) have been doing intercepts for years, and we did have some rough time in the 1970's where we lost alot of aircraft and people (on both sides). Eventually a treaty was worked out between us (Canada and US), and USSR(which is now Russia), and the tragedys have been averted.
Did the plane suddenly swerve left like you claim? If so, then the Chinise Pilot should have been in ample distance to avoid the aircraft if it does perform sudden manuevers. Why? Well flying is difficult, much more than driving, air currents, gusts, hell, the pilot could have spilt a cup and went to pick it up. Point is if your too freaking close, your too freaking close. Also, the aircraft (the P-3) can only theoreticly go hostile by: 1. droping a torpedo (go read jane's weapons if you want more details), 2. a crew member opened a window and took a shot at the fighter with there service pistol, 3. they penatrated into China's Airspace. Going hostile is not making a turn.

Next part:
"Hmm, well looks likes the 24 people are not spies. There Aircraft was well marked, and was not in hostile territory, or doing things they can't do. So where is the grounds to hold them? They are not spies, but normal sailors doing there job.

ohhhhh, i see, so what were they doing out there? a 24 family members having a holiday trip out there? so freaking close to South China Sea, taking pictures? I see, hmm, not spy, not spy, not really."

Sigh... you don't understand, there are rules and regulations on warfare, the Geneva Convention regulates them. What it does is prevent the warfare from being too much undo suffering. It also points out that if the person is not conceling what they are, they can't be a spy. They are on reconnaissance, which means they are gathering information, and will bring it back. By your definition, then any part of the military that does this is spying, and subject to being sentenced by the country of origins laws. The men and women of that plane were in uniform, and the plane was marked. So, if they are not spies, (please prove and I mean prove, get me an international treaty that shows me that doing reconnaissance is spying, please), what grounds for holding them all? The only one's who might need more of a detailed stay would be the flight crew, and any members who might have seen anything. Also, China should stop stalling the investigation, the more time elapsed from an accident the less amount of data that can be recovered, and the less likely anything can be done to prevent one.

Next part:
"Similarly, the following are not considered spies: soldiers or
civilians, carrying out their mission openly, charged with the delivery
of despatches destined either for their own army or for that of the
enemy.

hmmm, lets see, carry out mission OPENLY? ohhh well, pretty open are you? have you informed Chinese government that you will fly your planes around its border every so often? well, no

the truth was, the dudes were on a mission of obtain information, and they did it secretly. unfortunate for them, they were discovered. but that doesn't mean you weren't spying. a discovered spy is still a spy, that doesnt make him a "soldier who" all of a sudden "penatrated hostile zone"."

Actually, China's government does know that we fly these missions, and we have logged complaints that their interceptors were getting way to close. Next, part about announcing your mission. Umm? Are you really saying that all military manuevers by all sides must be made in advance and given out all the time? That is not how warfare operates. 250, you seem to understand some of the principals of war, you should understand that using suprise tactics is not considered illegal, and in fact is considered a good way to gain the upper hand. How are they spies again? The men and women of the P-3 were on a mission to collect information, and no you can not call it spying when you gather information in uniform. Also, the dispatching of messengers is not in the argument we are discussing. That deals with when you send someone over on a flag of truce you will not mistreat the messanger. Also, you were not to detain the messengers even if they did see something or hear something you didn't want them too. That is an honor thing.

Next part:
"You can't justify shooting down an aircraft that you openly tried to do a hostile manuever on. Not only that, but the aircraft was not in China's airspace, so if you were escourting the P-3, you need to do it at a safe distance, not at freaking spitswaping distance.

let me make this clear, it was AMERICAN plane made the turn, not chinese pilot.



look, man, the left wing, left motor, and plane head, in this order, the plane crashes. think about it, from this kinda direction, it left only two possible answers. one is chinese pilot deliberately drove into your plane from left wing. doing so would result the pilot a certain death, because he is in front and would should crash himself when his plane hits Spyplane from BELOW.

the second option is american plane made a sudden, big turn towards chinese plane, the chinese pilot barely managed to avoid, but not miss the manuver, because his own wing crashed into the spyplane.
"

Okay, go and look up about "THUMPING", it explains more about a manuever that Soviet pilots were doing to our EC's back in the cold war. What that manuever is, is for the pilot to come from behind, fly under at close range, and then suddenely pop up in front of the Big EC aircraft. What that would do is cause the bigger EC to be caught in the backwash of the smaller jet, and cause it to twist sometimes. Capt (? unsure if that is correct rank) Wang, had been documented as one of several Chinise pilots who are doing this manuever, also, he is credited with actually pulling it off so close he burned the cockpit winshield of another EC aircraft. Past performances speak alot in determing if the pilot did it. Wang made a mistake of misjudging how close he was to the aircraft, and hit the outboard engine, then causing more of the damage.
Also, it is stated that Cpt Wang made 2 previous "buzzes" or thumps and was coming in for his THIRD!!! Dang it! That is what I'm pissed about, you don't get it. If you are pushing your luck and you win, don't do it again. You, 250, have never had to go and tell someone that there husband is dead, and he could have not died if someone hadn't done something dumb. I am sorry if I sound harsh, but it was a dumb thing to do. Yes it sucks that he (CPT Wang) died, and I am sorry that he died, I won't accept or apoligize that we caused the accident. You are also trying to get me to believe that the P-3 cruising at 300 Knots, suddenly made such a quick turn that it crashed into the J-8?
The fighter, even if only cruising at 300 Knots could have avoided the sudden movement if it had not been to close. More then likely we have the case of hot-dogin gone bad. Btw, China is not the only country that has the lack of brain cells in there pilots, it's how the countries leaders help reign in and get there pilots back into flying safe.

Next part:
"about "escout from a safe distance" what the hell? what is a safe distance? before anything happens, any distance is safe. and do you mean, chinese should endure the constant taunts from american military, and still remain a "respectful" and "safe" distance??? how dare you spit down other people's right?? and by what right do you have to justify the constant spying missions on near china sea???

regardless you were not in china sea (it is not determined yet) your motivation was harmful to chinese people and chinese rights."

Safe distance means a distance that if the vehicle you are following has to do any type of manuever, you will not impeed there way, or not be able to get out of there way if you need to. The right to conduct intellegence gathering is the right that all countries have. I can discuss later if you really want to know why we are doing it. And just for the record, since you claim China is not guilty of ever doing recon missions (off to Jane's information again... jeeze these limey's sure know how to run the gum-shoe operations)
http://www.janes.com/security/intern...0410_1_n.shtml
please scroll down and read up on China's doing in the South China Seas.

Next post:
"the convention: Preamble:
Recognizing the desirability of establishing through this Convention, with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans, the equitable and efficient utilization of their resources, the conservation of their living resources, and the study, protection and preservation of the marine environment

look at the word: "PEACEFUL USE" "PEACEFUL USE" "PEACEFUL USE" "PEACEFUL USE"
US plane was on military mission, which was a secret remained unknown. let not discuss if THIS mission was hostile, but US had increasingly sending planes spying China, if not spy, THEN WHAT WERE THEY DOING???

if spy, then it is NOT PEACEFUL AT ALL! US broke the law, and face it!"

A military plane, is still peaceful, even if you don't like what they are doing. There is no declaired war between the US and China, therefore interception and respect of boarders of 12 NM, is respected. In international waters, anyone can fly or sail or drive what they want to anywhere they want to, and as long as they are safe about it, they can do it. Military missions do not mean that it is un-peaceful. As if we went by your definition, then China sending out its Navy and Airforce on missions are unlawful then too. Point is that most nations (there are only a few that don't like the treaty), have agreeded that 12 NM is the limit to your right of sea and airspace. Peaceful use, and yes flying a dang bomber with 6 bazillion bombs of your coast, as long as it is greater than 12 NM is allowable and peaceful. Also, the word promote is used in peaceful, the conventioners were smart enought to realise that warships/planes will be using the international territory. International is that, any nation can use it. China's claim to a great distance is wrong. There is no treaty stating that a nation can not fly a warplane or warship up and down an area, in international waters. There are even specific treaties to protect neutral ports and countries, and how waring parties are to treat the neutral areas. 250, you tried to spin the statement, I need a document stating that we can't fly in international waters.

Next:
"that big ol' quote from a biased source."

I am sorry 250, but I did not want to get into a ideology debate. We are talking on whether or not China has a right to hold the US service men and women.
I went out and got sources that are not biased. Jane's Information is a very credible source of information, as is the BBC, and the Washington Post. I enclosed some NORAD and some information (not anything I will get in trouble over) from U.S. and Ally operations (and to an extent ex-antaginest) to give you an idea on why and how we do intercepts to show that we do do them, and how we generally (soviets and US/Canada) didn't go killing each other. Posting an ideology statement, is not needed in a discussion of how the accident happened, and how or what treaties are in the effect here. What that does is show that you want to play the emotion card, and move away from facts, and more into feelings. I can do the same, but I realy don't feel like it now. I will say that by creating an incident is not good for China in the long run. It is solidifying congress and the president against Red China, and that can lead to selling alot of equipment to Taiwan (and others), and possible introduction of more servicemen and women to the pacific. Playing China up as the country that is peachy keen and is just the victim of the bullying US is not true. Sure the US isn't perfect, but neither is China, and we can debate the pro's and con's of each country later, and there style of government, laws, and enforcement, but that is moving away from the issue.

Btw 250, alot of the links I gave to you, you wouldn't be able to use directly in China now. The new internet laws went into effect, and one of the parts is that you can't display news that isn't screened or given out by China's government. Theoretically, China's citizens will be able to by-pass it by connecting to a clean site, then going to a route around to get the information. Sort of like A connects to internet provider in china, A can't go to CNN, but if A connects in china, then goes to an approved site, and that site he/she goes too, has CNN as a link up, then they will get to it. I have never figured out why some governments hate the spread of news....

Sheesh... and I thought I was gonna keep it brief....

"I don't know what your destiny will be, but one thing I know:
the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who will have sought and found how to serve." unknown

[Sentinel04]

Originally posted by Moridin: The use of the word clergy was probably wrong. What I meant was why are there no female priests? Is this the teaching of the church that only men are qualified to teach the gospel? Gays and Lesbians are shunned by the church. I live, shop, and socialize in the heart of the gay & lesbian area of the Twin Cities. Every single one of them (some good friends) have been shunned by their churches and just recently a gay/lesbian church opened in this area with a Gay Pastor! There is also the 'preachings' of people like Jerry Falwell, who tried to claim that one of the teletubbies was actually a gay icon! Give me a break!!!! As for the 'heretics' being killed. They were killed in the name of christianity. Have you ever read the quote by a general in the army under Contantine. He had just conquered a town in present day Italy and he ordered all the 'heretics' killed. When asked by a soldier how they were to distinguish the 'heretics' from the christians, he replied by saying "kill them all for God will know his own". Joan of Arc ring a bell. A reverent follower of God and a great military strategist and leader. She was burned at the stake, b/c the church feared her and claimed her a 'heretic'. How about abortion doctors that are killed because they are doing their job? How about the fight in Northern Ireland, or in Isreal, or maybe you should look at Kosovo? I don't see too many atheists and agnostics running around killing each other, do you? Organized religion is a sham. It is a way for a few people to control those beneath them. It plays to people's fears, flaws, and weaknesses. Mind you I am not bashing religion, just organized religion. Even though I am an atheist, I do admit that I follow some principles of bible and teachings of Jesus. I just don't let it consume my life. Enough said. I am leaving this debate now as it is 'unwinnable' and could turn nasty as these topics always do

I'm sorry this kind of hting is happening to your friends, but not all the christian churches are like that.


------------------


You're not lost if you don't care where you are.

[caleb]

wow I got to sleep for a couple hours and this discussion has changed from "the china crisis" to christians vs. athiest.Lets get back to the important issues like getting my first reply from memnoch and ALABAMA MAAAAAAAAAN!

------------------
RULE #1:I am always right
RULE #2:See rule #1

[Sentinel04]

Originally posted by caleb: wow I got to sleep for a couple hours and this discussion has changed from "the china crisis" to christians vs. athiest.Lets get back to the important issues like getting my first reply from memnoch and ALABAMA MAAAAAAAAAN!

Alabama Man ROCKS!!!

What exactly did he say to his wife?

------------------


You're not lost if you don't care where you are.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Rikard: Originally posted by Yorick: No. Crisis is what you meant. Whoops

Unless you feel that there is more than one crisis, in which case 'crises' is right

[Donut]

Originally posted by Grunt Master: I mean it: NO PEEKING." I suppose we should just ask China twice a year,

I don't like to be pedantic, but shouldn't that be 'NO BEIJING'


------------------

Save Chip - Don't let Sarah win!
Official Titterer of the Laughing Hyenas
Heading for Cardiff

Originally posted by Donut: Originally posted by Rikard: Originally posted by Yorick: No. Crisis is what you meant. Whoops Unless you feel that there is more than one crisis, in which case 'crises' is right

Ehm yeah that's what i meant (did I?)


------------------

[250]

man, i am tired of this

Jimbo:
in short, US doesn't want to admit what he did is wrong.

that is fine, then lets see if he can get his man back.

I ve always believed, two nation's people must understand eachother in order to place any trust or get anything done. and the very foundation of understanding is mutual respect. with respect, comes the solution of every problem.

so, to respect others, Chinese must think the way as their opposite think, place themselves into US's position and consider what they would to. Same thing for the US. Lets face it, Chinese send military plane to US border, and do what? obviously not holiday. then must be spying. is it not harmful to the US people? yes, it is. a harmful act is never a peaceful, so chinese broke the convention. and if Chinese plane crash into US plane, what would US do? to say US would calmly accept Chinese' actions and not on a uproar is what? a lie. US will surely demand apology, and maybe certain amount of payment. correct?

and just how would US people feel if China arrogantly walk away? Us's people's pride will be hurt, and worse, they will not want to trust China.

In chinese, there is an old saying :" if you dotn want it happen to you, dont give it to others." just think as the way the other side of the debate thinks, consider yourself a chinese, how would you feel in this incident? would you really so innocent as to believe all chinese would sit and celebrate on corpse of their serviceman? I guess no

in your response, you pointed out numerous things such as: those links are no longer accessible in China... how do you know? HOW do you know? some US media told you? some one from China told you? that is an very biased remark, mind you

also, you said my quote is very biased, why not argue with it? what was so biased about it? to me, every bit of it makes sense. perfect sense.

China had already done EVERYTHING possible to treat 24 US invadors with care and respect. the US men lived in very nice houses, eat very good food. They could check Email, watch TV. Ironically, they are really like in a holiday trip. but where is the man they killed? still not yet found. if you are a chinese soldier happen to guard those US men, and see them living comfortably (materially at least) how would you think? if you are a people of this nation, how would you think?

what more do you require from a country that had done NOTHING to you in the past 50 years? your spy missio IS harmful, say it a thousand times. it IS harmful, even according to convention, it should not be allowed. it is a taun to chinese people's right. and chinese did nothing bt just simply want an apology. that is so hard? is US demand everyone to kneel before him and be his slave? this is not possible!

so one last time, I bid you to think, as a rational man. look at the incident from the perspective of a long history. consider both people's feeling. consider what you would feel should you be in that position.

until then, I am done with you