Spy Plane : Put it in Chinese Museum
Guest
Posts: n/a
These guys say china isn't expansionist cause China says their not. I love it!
Hitler was just lookin for living space. I guess he wasn't expansionist either.
The Soviet Union was just looking for defensive space between them and Germany...
Keep it up Neville!
Cheers
Wino
Hitler was just lookin for living space. I guess he wasn't expansionist either.
The Soviet Union was just looking for defensive space between them and Germany...
Keep it up Neville!
Cheers
Wino
Guest
Posts: n/a
Kifis and Icarus.
I have read some of the posts on this thread, not all of them. I agree that the Americans are not angels but the free world still owe them much more than to the Chines. I rather live under the ‘American Oppression’ for the rest of my life than 1 minute in the ‘Chines Paradise’.
Icarus
Your profile shows that you live in the Gulf. Ask your Kuwaiti friends how it was under Sadam Husain, it is about the same under the Chines. If it wasn’t to the USA and the UK you would not be able to type your comments, you might not be alive.
It is very easy to rubbish everyone as a free man, impossible when you are behind bars or dead!
I have read some of the posts on this thread, not all of them. I agree that the Americans are not angels but the free world still owe them much more than to the Chines. I rather live under the ‘American Oppression’ for the rest of my life than 1 minute in the ‘Chines Paradise’.
Icarus
Your profile shows that you live in the Gulf. Ask your Kuwaiti friends how it was under Sadam Husain, it is about the same under the Chines. If it wasn’t to the USA and the UK you would not be able to type your comments, you might not be alive.
It is very easy to rubbish everyone as a free man, impossible when you are behind bars or dead!
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK Smith and Wino,
Apart from what it sees as 'Rebel Provinces' where has China been expansionist? It hasn't even managed any decent Coca-Cola type Imperialism or proxy wars.
The Korean War doesn't count, unless you also say that the USA was wanting to expand into North Korea, and Chinese ambitions in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Tibet and Mongolia are a given.
I'm not defending China's appalling human rights record, nor the mismanagement and stupidity which killed millions during the Great Leap Forward. I'm not defending Mao, who's right up there with Tito, Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler for killing huge proportions of his own people.
But Communist China is not an expansionist power. Never has been. Sorry!
The tensions between the USA and China are nothing to do with Chinese expansionism or human rights, either. America quite rightly fears China's huge economic potential, which makes it potentially the only possible threat to US economic/industrial dominance. I say potential, 'cos the Chinese have so far managed to keep themselves firmly in the economic stone-age, and they'll remain there until major economic reforms kick in, and until experimental development zones become the norm, and not just a glorified shop window. Three cheers for orthodox Leninism, I say, it'll keep them in their place!
Apart from what it sees as 'Rebel Provinces' where has China been expansionist? It hasn't even managed any decent Coca-Cola type Imperialism or proxy wars.
The Korean War doesn't count, unless you also say that the USA was wanting to expand into North Korea, and Chinese ambitions in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Tibet and Mongolia are a given.
I'm not defending China's appalling human rights record, nor the mismanagement and stupidity which killed millions during the Great Leap Forward. I'm not defending Mao, who's right up there with Tito, Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler for killing huge proportions of his own people.
But Communist China is not an expansionist power. Never has been. Sorry!
The tensions between the USA and China are nothing to do with Chinese expansionism or human rights, either. America quite rightly fears China's huge economic potential, which makes it potentially the only possible threat to US economic/industrial dominance. I say potential, 'cos the Chinese have so far managed to keep themselves firmly in the economic stone-age, and they'll remain there until major economic reforms kick in, and until experimental development zones become the norm, and not just a glorified shop window. Three cheers for orthodox Leninism, I say, it'll keep them in their place!
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK Smith and Wino,
Apart from what it sees as 'Rebel Provinces' where has China been expansionist? It hasn't even managed any decent Coca-Cola type Imperialism or proxy wars.
The Korean War doesn't count, unless you also say that the USA was wanting to expand into North Korea, and Chinese ambitions in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Tibet and Mongolia are a given.
I'm not defending China's appalling human rights record, nor the mismanagement and stupidity which killed millions during the Great Leap Forward. I'm not defending Mao, who's right up there with Tito, Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler for killing huge proportions of his own people.
But Communist China is not an expansionist power. Never has been. Sorry!
The tensions between the USA and China are nothing to do with Chinese expansionism or human rights, either. America quite rightly fears China's huge economic potential, which makes it potentially the only possible threat to US economic/industrial dominance. I say potential, 'cos the Chinese have so far managed to keep themselves firmly in the economic stone-age, and they'll remain there until major economic reforms kick in, and until experimental development zones become the norm, and not just a glorified shop window. Three cheers for orthodox Leninism, I say, it'll keep them in their place!
Apart from what it sees as 'Rebel Provinces' where has China been expansionist? It hasn't even managed any decent Coca-Cola type Imperialism or proxy wars.
The Korean War doesn't count, unless you also say that the USA was wanting to expand into North Korea, and Chinese ambitions in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Tibet and Mongolia are a given.
I'm not defending China's appalling human rights record, nor the mismanagement and stupidity which killed millions during the Great Leap Forward. I'm not defending Mao, who's right up there with Tito, Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler for killing huge proportions of his own people.
But Communist China is not an expansionist power. Never has been. Sorry!
The tensions between the USA and China are nothing to do with Chinese expansionism or human rights, either. America quite rightly fears China's huge economic potential, which makes it potentially the only possible threat to US economic/industrial dominance. I say potential, 'cos the Chinese have so far managed to keep themselves firmly in the economic stone-age, and they'll remain there until major economic reforms kick in, and until experimental development zones become the norm, and not just a glorified shop window. Three cheers for orthodox Leninism, I say, it'll keep them in their place!
Guest
Posts: n/a
DIESEL8 Yes, the British know very well about Egyptian feelings.
Britain houses one of the best collections of Mummies and Daddies
outside of the Cairo Museum. Perhaps even more vocal are the Greeks.
GOOD EVENING LATVIA! You do surprise me. Not much to say! Perhaps we
are broadly in agreement! BTW nice to know you can control yourself.
<Regarding your torrent on the starving Ethiopians and the press being given
5-star treatment, you're absolutely wrong>.
Wrong? You mean those nasty journos and starstudded celebrities were not
telling the truth? I am dismayed.
Have to agree JACKCO, bit too high brow for a lot of people. But what
this is all leading up to is of course Taiwan, isn't it? Tibet seems to
be one of those peculiarities of history, much like the Falklands.
Britain houses one of the best collections of Mummies and Daddies
outside of the Cairo Museum. Perhaps even more vocal are the Greeks.
GOOD EVENING LATVIA! You do surprise me. Not much to say! Perhaps we
are broadly in agreement! BTW nice to know you can control yourself.
<Regarding your torrent on the starving Ethiopians and the press being given
5-star treatment, you're absolutely wrong>.
Wrong? You mean those nasty journos and starstudded celebrities were not
telling the truth? I am dismayed.
Have to agree JACKCO, bit too high brow for a lot of people. But what
this is all leading up to is of course Taiwan, isn't it? Tibet seems to
be one of those peculiarities of history, much like the Falklands.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My point really was not about Mummies or daddies (lol).
The point being is that no country, well very few at least, has not done something in the past that is questionable in a moral sense. Since KIFIS appears to be from Australia, we need not mention the plight of the aboriginees.
As far as the US needing China as a trading partner, I am not sure that is entirely true. yes, we do a huge amount of trade with China, we have a trade deficit with them as a matter of fact. But that means we are buying more than they are, no major surprise there, I do believe our GNP is a little above Chinas. But let stop and think for a minute. If the US did not trade with China, what would happen. Most of what we buy in China we could certainly obtain elsewhere or manufacture, at a higher cost admittedly, by ourselves.
I believe a more important reason, is to keep the Chinese economy somewhat stable or perhaps even to subvert those dastards into a capitalist society. If you have doubt as to the validity of this argument, please explain to me what would happen should the US cease trade with China??
The point being is that no country, well very few at least, has not done something in the past that is questionable in a moral sense. Since KIFIS appears to be from Australia, we need not mention the plight of the aboriginees.
As far as the US needing China as a trading partner, I am not sure that is entirely true. yes, we do a huge amount of trade with China, we have a trade deficit with them as a matter of fact. But that means we are buying more than they are, no major surprise there, I do believe our GNP is a little above Chinas. But let stop and think for a minute. If the US did not trade with China, what would happen. Most of what we buy in China we could certainly obtain elsewhere or manufacture, at a higher cost admittedly, by ourselves.
I believe a more important reason, is to keep the Chinese economy somewhat stable or perhaps even to subvert those dastards into a capitalist society. If you have doubt as to the validity of this argument, please explain to me what would happen should the US cease trade with China??
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't make the mistake of confusing China today (world leader in making rubber chickens, cuddly toys and rip-off sports goods) with what China could be in 10-20 years time. Look back at Japan, or Germany, in 1950.
China's vast population, low wage rates and resources make it potentially an economic power-house. Only politics is holding it back, and only a fool would ignore that potential.
At the risk of being accused of Yank-bashing, I'd say that complacency, over-simplification and under-estimating the opposition may be endemic in certain sections of US society, and neither characteristic is wise, or helpful.
Still waiting for examples of Chinese 'expansionism', BTW!
China's vast population, low wage rates and resources make it potentially an economic power-house. Only politics is holding it back, and only a fool would ignore that potential.
At the risk of being accused of Yank-bashing, I'd say that complacency, over-simplification and under-estimating the opposition may be endemic in certain sections of US society, and neither characteristic is wise, or helpful.
Still waiting for examples of Chinese 'expansionism', BTW!
Guest
Posts: n/a
How to visit the Chinese Aviation Museum
If you are planning to be in Beijing in the not too distant future and you want to visit the Chinese Aviation Museum to take a look at the EP-3 then here’s the form.
Catch a taxi from the city centre for the one hour drive through the suburbs and into the north side farmlands. The museum is on the same road as the one that runs to the Ming Tombs. Ask the taxi driver to wait for you at the museum gate ( this won’t cost much and your transport back is assured ) . Plan to take 2 hours for a leisurely stroll through the main building and adjacent areas. The museum stands on an abandoned airfield and the main exhibition building is actually a massive cave dug into the hillside. This cave was previously used as a bombproof hangar during the bad old days of the cold war. The aircraft on display are many and varied. Some I had never seen before and many I could not identify. You will see all the Mks of Migs, the F8 is there as are dozens and dozens of Chinese, Russian and western types. There are pre-WW 11 trainers, DC3, C46, P51, P40, F86, LA9, IL10, DC8, IL12, TU124, B6, IL28, TU4, TU2, F7, helicopters, radar installations, aerial bombs, rockets, guns etc etc etc.
The cave is arranged with a central corridor and the aircraft are positioned on each side of the corridor. The larger bombers and transports are outside within the adjoining complex. If you like aeroplanes then it’s a great day out. I’ve been there on a number of occasions and I plan to go again. Hopefully I will see that EP-3 !!
KIFIS
P.S. The museum is not listed in any tourist guidebooks. There is a small fee for admission. Make sure your taxi driver understands that it is the “ Aviation Museum “ you want because there are a number of other museums within the city.
If you are planning to be in Beijing in the not too distant future and you want to visit the Chinese Aviation Museum to take a look at the EP-3 then here’s the form.
Catch a taxi from the city centre for the one hour drive through the suburbs and into the north side farmlands. The museum is on the same road as the one that runs to the Ming Tombs. Ask the taxi driver to wait for you at the museum gate ( this won’t cost much and your transport back is assured ) . Plan to take 2 hours for a leisurely stroll through the main building and adjacent areas. The museum stands on an abandoned airfield and the main exhibition building is actually a massive cave dug into the hillside. This cave was previously used as a bombproof hangar during the bad old days of the cold war. The aircraft on display are many and varied. Some I had never seen before and many I could not identify. You will see all the Mks of Migs, the F8 is there as are dozens and dozens of Chinese, Russian and western types. There are pre-WW 11 trainers, DC3, C46, P51, P40, F86, LA9, IL10, DC8, IL12, TU124, B6, IL28, TU4, TU2, F7, helicopters, radar installations, aerial bombs, rockets, guns etc etc etc.
The cave is arranged with a central corridor and the aircraft are positioned on each side of the corridor. The larger bombers and transports are outside within the adjoining complex. If you like aeroplanes then it’s a great day out. I’ve been there on a number of occasions and I plan to go again. Hopefully I will see that EP-3 !!
KIFIS
P.S. The museum is not listed in any tourist guidebooks. There is a small fee for admission. Make sure your taxi driver understands that it is the “ Aviation Museum “ you want because there are a number of other museums within the city.
Guest
Posts: n/a
China invaded, conquered and occupied Vietnam in 221BC, 111BC, AD43, the 13th Century and in 1407. The Chinese did not leave voluntarily. In 1979 China attacked Vietnam in an unsuccessful attempt to expand their border to the South. Armed Chinese attempts to occupy the Spratley Islands (Vietnamese territory) are ongoing.
Tibet was a fully independent country from 1911 (when the Chinese left) until Communist China invaded in 1950, not long before they attacked into North Korea. A Tibetan uprising in 1959 was crushed and extremely repressive measures were instituted against the populace. Anti-Chinese demonstrations resumed in the 1980's and were violently put down. Chinese martial law was imposed in 1989.
Wonder which "legitimate part of China" is next to be reclaimed.
Given motive, opportunity and means all countries have expansionist tendencies. That's how countries evolved from tribal enclaves. Nations that were once Empires know that best of all. The trick is for countries to act like grown-up members of the world community and act in accordance with recognized International Law.
[This message has been edited by StbdD (edited 26 April 2001).]
Tibet was a fully independent country from 1911 (when the Chinese left) until Communist China invaded in 1950, not long before they attacked into North Korea. A Tibetan uprising in 1959 was crushed and extremely repressive measures were instituted against the populace. Anti-Chinese demonstrations resumed in the 1980's and were violently put down. Chinese martial law was imposed in 1989.
Wonder which "legitimate part of China" is next to be reclaimed.
Given motive, opportunity and means all countries have expansionist tendencies. That's how countries evolved from tribal enclaves. Nations that were once Empires know that best of all. The trick is for countries to act like grown-up members of the world community and act in accordance with recognized International Law.
[This message has been edited by StbdD (edited 26 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Your analysis of China's 'invasion' of Vietnam in '79 leaves much to be desired. Suffice it to say (here) that territorial expansion wasn't the motivating factor, though pre-emptively striking Vietnam's military capability may have been. Earlier ding-dongs with Vietnam pre-date modern China and are thus.... entertaining but totally irrelevant. 1407!
The Spratleys are claimed by everyone, China's claims are no louder than those of the other nations concerned. Also it's about mineral resources, not territorial expansion.
Tibet was independant from 1911 to when? I make that 39 years. Are we surprised that China sees Tibet as being legitimately theirs? China did not, incidentally 'attack into' North Korea, to which it was allied in that conflict, its forces attacked into the south, but again, Chinese expansion was not the aim or purpose.
Taiwan, incidentally, doesn't even see itself as being independant, and many Taiwanese want re-unification, once the pesky mainlanders have got rid of Communism.
So I say again. Where's the evidence of Red Chinese expansionism?
You say, incidentally, that "Given motive, opportunity and means all countries have expansionist tendencies."
Don't see the USA as being 'expansionist'. Wanting economic and cultural dominance, yes, sure, but grabbing for territory? Come off it!
The Spratleys are claimed by everyone, China's claims are no louder than those of the other nations concerned. Also it's about mineral resources, not territorial expansion.
Tibet was independant from 1911 to when? I make that 39 years. Are we surprised that China sees Tibet as being legitimately theirs? China did not, incidentally 'attack into' North Korea, to which it was allied in that conflict, its forces attacked into the south, but again, Chinese expansion was not the aim or purpose.
Taiwan, incidentally, doesn't even see itself as being independant, and many Taiwanese want re-unification, once the pesky mainlanders have got rid of Communism.
So I say again. Where's the evidence of Red Chinese expansionism?
You say, incidentally, that "Given motive, opportunity and means all countries have expansionist tendencies."
Don't see the USA as being 'expansionist'. Wanting economic and cultural dominance, yes, sure, but grabbing for territory? Come off it!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The spratleys "its about mineral resources, not terretorial expansion"
Semantics. One of Japans reasons for entering into war was natural resources (lack of) Young men on all sides of the battle died for it. Aggression has more than one face.
"Taiwan doesn't even see itself as being independant"
No kidding? Go ahead and say "independance" and find out if China is just joking about that being a trigger for war. The fact is, it is independant.
"Wanting economic and culteral dominance"
Perhaps I should concede this point, not without comment though. Wanting dominance is a world away from achieving it. Buisness is buisness, if you build it they will come, where you build it is up to the comsumer. McDonalds may have paid to open the store in downtown London, but I guarantee it aint the U.S. tourists that keep the doors open. Its a two way road (even if you drive on the wrong side of it in the U.K.)Saw a commercial for BBC America today. Was number god awfull for Take off at LAX today, a whole lot ahead were U.S. carriers flying busses. Europe is making inroads in here, I applaud you for it.
Semantics. One of Japans reasons for entering into war was natural resources (lack of) Young men on all sides of the battle died for it. Aggression has more than one face.
"Taiwan doesn't even see itself as being independant"
No kidding? Go ahead and say "independance" and find out if China is just joking about that being a trigger for war. The fact is, it is independant.
"Wanting economic and culteral dominance"
Perhaps I should concede this point, not without comment though. Wanting dominance is a world away from achieving it. Buisness is buisness, if you build it they will come, where you build it is up to the comsumer. McDonalds may have paid to open the store in downtown London, but I guarantee it aint the U.S. tourists that keep the doors open. Its a two way road (even if you drive on the wrong side of it in the U.K.)Saw a commercial for BBC America today. Was number god awfull for Take off at LAX today, a whole lot ahead were U.S. carriers flying busses. Europe is making inroads in here, I applaud you for it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jacko
Evolution strikes again. Two days ago the position was "China has never been expansionist." Several historical examples contradicted this so the position now seems to be that "modern China" is not expansionist. OK
Expansionism is in the eye of the beholder.
China attacked Vietnam in 1979. Why they did so is open to interpretation. However, I suggest that a "Territorial Expansion" attack looks remarkably similar to a garden-variety "Mineral Resources" attack to the victims. Hopefully the conquerors in such cases post hand-bills or something to let those ignorant common folk know that they aren't being assimilated, only subjugated and ripped-off.
Since "The Spratleys are claimed by everyone", perhaps a vote should be taken of the Islanders to settle the issue? On second thought, since the islanders all think they are Vietnamese perhaps that wouldn't work.... Suffice it to say that China is trying to occupy the islands by force of arms and intimidation for whatever reason. Still expansionist actions regardless of the supposed intentions.
Regarding Tibet, just how long does a country have to be independent before it can't be forcibly reoccupied and subjugated?? All Countries with former colonies should be informed ASAP of this new rule as I'm sure they would be interested! Particularly if they only want to make money and steal resources again, not just be expansionist of course.
"Taiwan, incidently, doesn't even see itself to be independant." Not sure what you meant by that. They consider themselves to be the only rightful government of China so they have no-one to be independent of. In their view the mainland government is the "rebel province". That makes for an interesting test for your Tibet style "legitimate claim" theory.
As to your confusion regarding China's attack into Korea maybe I can clarify. The Yalu River forms the boundary between China and Korea. The Chinese were on the North bank, the UN forces were on the South bank. The Chinese attacked South across the river. The Chinese attacked into Korea.
I stand by my statement re expansionist tendencies. I can only suggest you give further consideration to the word "motive" as used in my statement (it also implies opportunity cost and risk vs. gain). Perhaps a longer view of history as well. The US started with only thirteen States...
[This message has been edited by StbdD (edited 27 April 2001).]
Evolution strikes again. Two days ago the position was "China has never been expansionist." Several historical examples contradicted this so the position now seems to be that "modern China" is not expansionist. OK
Expansionism is in the eye of the beholder.
China attacked Vietnam in 1979. Why they did so is open to interpretation. However, I suggest that a "Territorial Expansion" attack looks remarkably similar to a garden-variety "Mineral Resources" attack to the victims. Hopefully the conquerors in such cases post hand-bills or something to let those ignorant common folk know that they aren't being assimilated, only subjugated and ripped-off.
Since "The Spratleys are claimed by everyone", perhaps a vote should be taken of the Islanders to settle the issue? On second thought, since the islanders all think they are Vietnamese perhaps that wouldn't work.... Suffice it to say that China is trying to occupy the islands by force of arms and intimidation for whatever reason. Still expansionist actions regardless of the supposed intentions.
Regarding Tibet, just how long does a country have to be independent before it can't be forcibly reoccupied and subjugated?? All Countries with former colonies should be informed ASAP of this new rule as I'm sure they would be interested! Particularly if they only want to make money and steal resources again, not just be expansionist of course.
"Taiwan, incidently, doesn't even see itself to be independant." Not sure what you meant by that. They consider themselves to be the only rightful government of China so they have no-one to be independent of. In their view the mainland government is the "rebel province". That makes for an interesting test for your Tibet style "legitimate claim" theory.
As to your confusion regarding China's attack into Korea maybe I can clarify. The Yalu River forms the boundary between China and Korea. The Chinese were on the North bank, the UN forces were on the South bank. The Chinese attacked South across the river. The Chinese attacked into Korea.
I stand by my statement re expansionist tendencies. I can only suggest you give further consideration to the word "motive" as used in my statement (it also implies opportunity cost and risk vs. gain). Perhaps a longer view of history as well. The US started with only thirteen States...
[This message has been edited by StbdD (edited 27 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
STBD,
For starters, I have never been remotely interested in talking about pre-revolutionary Imperial China. The issue is whether China is (as many are averring) an expansionist power today.
My original post read:
"But at the same time, let's not confuse China today with Stalinist Russia. China is not, generally speaking, expansionist (though it does obviously want to reintegrate what it sees as the renegade province of Taiwan, and it does want control of the Spratleys - like most other countries in the area). But it is not a major threat to its immediate neighbours."
My next post: "But Communist China is not an expansionist power. Never has been. Sorry!"
I did say that: "China has never been expansionist, except in terms of its ambitions in what it sees as legitimate parts of China, such as Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.", but only after making a point about different forms of 'communism' after which the reasonable reader should have realised that the reference was to Communist China, and not to the Ming dynasty!
I don't support China's view on Tibet, Taiwan or the Spratleys - I'm all for self determination in all cases. But this is not about expansionism, it's about maintaining what China sees as its territorial integrity and identity. All I'm saying is that supposedly 'expansionist' China's ambitions have been remarkably limited - to what can be seen (and which are seen by China) as being long-standing and historic parts of the nation.
To try to explain my objection to using the term expansionism can perhaps benefeit by reference to the war in the Balkans. This wasn't about Serb expansionism - it was about Serb resistance to the devolution of parts of the nation - though in this case, the entity of Yugoslavia was extremely short-lived and an artificial creation, making it a poor example to cite alongside China.
Westy-coasty
There is the world of difference between disputes over places like the Spratleys (or the Falklands, or South Georgia, or the Antarctic) where mineral rights are the motivating factor, and where 'expansion' is not. You make a very interesting and thought-provoking point about Japan's motives in WWII, but (I believe) are over-simplifying the issue. The whole culture in pre-War Japan encouraged expansionist adventurism, and had previously resulted in the Wars with Russia and China.
Taiwan doesn't consider itself as independent from China - it regards itself as a temporarily separated (legitimate) part. Mainland China thinks the exact opposite. Whatever else this is (and I must stress that I'm entirely behind democratic, pro-Western Taiwan) it isn't about expansion, it's about re-unification!
Hitler was expansionist once he went beyond the Sudetenland into non-German Czechoslovakia - but to call the recovery of the Rhineland, the Saar or even the Anschluss with Germany 'expansionism' is perhaps to stretch a point. For me to make that point illustrates how far we've descended into semantics. The fundamental point is that trying to paint China Today as an international ogre, a great danger to its neighbours and to world peace, indistinguishable from Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia is fundamentally mistaken.
It's a tyrannical place, with a poor record on human rights, but it's reforming slowly and the threat it poses (especially to the USA) is economic. Please have the honesty to admit it, and let's be less hypocritical and admit that what happened to the EP-3E (NOT to the crew) was pretty much a 'fair cop'. This sort of recce mission is quite deliberately provocative and we must expect occasional over-reaction and anger.
If you want to get upset about expansionism and the illegal occupation of territory take a look at the land allocated to Israel under the 1947 Partition (the best half of what was then Palestine) and look at what they've since grabbed and illegally occupied by force of arms. Huge swathes of Palestine, Jordan and Egypt. And what the Eretz Israel lot claim as being rightfully theirs is even more frightening.
Getting back to the point of the thread - I'm sure that repairing and recovering the P-3 would be prohibitively expensive, so perhaps tensions could be defused by presenting the airframe to the museum (taking back the undamaged engines?) in exchange for a redundant J-8 airframe for the Smithsonian?
For starters, I have never been remotely interested in talking about pre-revolutionary Imperial China. The issue is whether China is (as many are averring) an expansionist power today.
My original post read:
"But at the same time, let's not confuse China today with Stalinist Russia. China is not, generally speaking, expansionist (though it does obviously want to reintegrate what it sees as the renegade province of Taiwan, and it does want control of the Spratleys - like most other countries in the area). But it is not a major threat to its immediate neighbours."
My next post: "But Communist China is not an expansionist power. Never has been. Sorry!"
I did say that: "China has never been expansionist, except in terms of its ambitions in what it sees as legitimate parts of China, such as Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.", but only after making a point about different forms of 'communism' after which the reasonable reader should have realised that the reference was to Communist China, and not to the Ming dynasty!
I don't support China's view on Tibet, Taiwan or the Spratleys - I'm all for self determination in all cases. But this is not about expansionism, it's about maintaining what China sees as its territorial integrity and identity. All I'm saying is that supposedly 'expansionist' China's ambitions have been remarkably limited - to what can be seen (and which are seen by China) as being long-standing and historic parts of the nation.
To try to explain my objection to using the term expansionism can perhaps benefeit by reference to the war in the Balkans. This wasn't about Serb expansionism - it was about Serb resistance to the devolution of parts of the nation - though in this case, the entity of Yugoslavia was extremely short-lived and an artificial creation, making it a poor example to cite alongside China.
Westy-coasty
There is the world of difference between disputes over places like the Spratleys (or the Falklands, or South Georgia, or the Antarctic) where mineral rights are the motivating factor, and where 'expansion' is not. You make a very interesting and thought-provoking point about Japan's motives in WWII, but (I believe) are over-simplifying the issue. The whole culture in pre-War Japan encouraged expansionist adventurism, and had previously resulted in the Wars with Russia and China.
Taiwan doesn't consider itself as independent from China - it regards itself as a temporarily separated (legitimate) part. Mainland China thinks the exact opposite. Whatever else this is (and I must stress that I'm entirely behind democratic, pro-Western Taiwan) it isn't about expansion, it's about re-unification!
Hitler was expansionist once he went beyond the Sudetenland into non-German Czechoslovakia - but to call the recovery of the Rhineland, the Saar or even the Anschluss with Germany 'expansionism' is perhaps to stretch a point. For me to make that point illustrates how far we've descended into semantics. The fundamental point is that trying to paint China Today as an international ogre, a great danger to its neighbours and to world peace, indistinguishable from Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia is fundamentally mistaken.
It's a tyrannical place, with a poor record on human rights, but it's reforming slowly and the threat it poses (especially to the USA) is economic. Please have the honesty to admit it, and let's be less hypocritical and admit that what happened to the EP-3E (NOT to the crew) was pretty much a 'fair cop'. This sort of recce mission is quite deliberately provocative and we must expect occasional over-reaction and anger.
If you want to get upset about expansionism and the illegal occupation of territory take a look at the land allocated to Israel under the 1947 Partition (the best half of what was then Palestine) and look at what they've since grabbed and illegally occupied by force of arms. Huge swathes of Palestine, Jordan and Egypt. And what the Eretz Israel lot claim as being rightfully theirs is even more frightening.
Getting back to the point of the thread - I'm sure that repairing and recovering the P-3 would be prohibitively expensive, so perhaps tensions could be defused by presenting the airframe to the museum (taking back the undamaged engines?) in exchange for a redundant J-8 airframe for the Smithsonian?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jacko
When you speak of reunification, it is a pie in the sky concept talked about seriously in the cocktail circuit only. The notion in govt circles to embrace a "One China" policy is as a deterent to the mainland invading. A great concept, that is coddled publicly however set aside in its actions. The gulf between the two is more than water, during my time there I along with others were endowed with an anticlimatic feeling of ambivilance on the concept of reconciliation. Talk about it, persue it perhaps, but we as a country have an agenda that is not compatable. This is not to say that the mainland is far from their thoughts. How could it be?
Nothing but good come from from spell check Mr. administrator
When you speak of reunification, it is a pie in the sky concept talked about seriously in the cocktail circuit only. The notion in govt circles to embrace a "One China" policy is as a deterent to the mainland invading. A great concept, that is coddled publicly however set aside in its actions. The gulf between the two is more than water, during my time there I along with others were endowed with an anticlimatic feeling of ambivilance on the concept of reconciliation. Talk about it, persue it perhaps, but we as a country have an agenda that is not compatable. This is not to say that the mainland is far from their thoughts. How could it be?
Nothing but good come from from spell check Mr. administrator
Guest
Posts: n/a
JACKCO said earlier:
<Secondly, let's acknowledge that Wang Wei flew far closer to the EP-3E
than was prudent ......... While it's interesting to speculate that he
flew too close to intimidate the EP-3 crew, or to show them his E-Mail address>
Reading through the Peruvian missionary cockup, it was interesting to read
the very informative post by BEFORE LANDING CHECK LIST, on page 2
The bit that interests me is quoted below, and although it is on the
Peruvian thread I think the stated procedure also has relevance to the P3.
<QUOTE
What is supposed to happen is the FAP a/c will fly along side the
suspect with a hand written sign to change radio freqs. If no response
from the suspect the FAP a/c will accomplish the ICAO intercept procedures.
UNQUOTE>
Now if it is 'standard' practise to fly *that* close so that you can read
messages with the mark one eyeball, then it brings in to question if
Wang Wei did anything other than what was the international norm. A lot
has been said about an email address - is this a jouro's fanciful interpretation
of a valid written request for the P3 to tune to a particular radio
freq?
Just an observation, as this 'e-mail thing' has not been proven one way or
another to my knowledge. And until proven otherwise, I am treating it as
just a typical story invented by the media who have latched on to a good
story line and who are unaware of the rules of intercepted engagements.
<Secondly, let's acknowledge that Wang Wei flew far closer to the EP-3E
than was prudent ......... While it's interesting to speculate that he
flew too close to intimidate the EP-3 crew, or to show them his E-Mail address>
Reading through the Peruvian missionary cockup, it was interesting to read
the very informative post by BEFORE LANDING CHECK LIST, on page 2
The bit that interests me is quoted below, and although it is on the
Peruvian thread I think the stated procedure also has relevance to the P3.
<QUOTE
What is supposed to happen is the FAP a/c will fly along side the
suspect with a hand written sign to change radio freqs. If no response
from the suspect the FAP a/c will accomplish the ICAO intercept procedures.
UNQUOTE>
Now if it is 'standard' practise to fly *that* close so that you can read
messages with the mark one eyeball, then it brings in to question if
Wang Wei did anything other than what was the international norm. A lot
has been said about an email address - is this a jouro's fanciful interpretation
of a valid written request for the P3 to tune to a particular radio
freq?
Just an observation, as this 'e-mail thing' has not been proven one way or
another to my knowledge. And until proven otherwise, I am treating it as
just a typical story invented by the media who have latched on to a good
story line and who are unaware of the rules of intercepted engagements.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In the 1970's and 80's, the Soviet Union would send TU-95's down the east coast of the US on their way to visit Uncle Fidel in Cuba. US and Candian intercept pilots developped an unofficial protocol with the Soviets. They Did trade paint on a couple occaisions when US airspace was violated, but no lives were lost on either side(to my knowledge). In contrast, the Chinese pilot was relatively untrained and very unprofessional. He must of gotten his training from "Top Gun". The flights should and will continue if for no other reason than as a freedom of navigation exercise.
Just my 2 cents
Steve
Just my 2 cents
Steve
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't believe that holding up radio freqs on bits of paper is standard.
The E-address story came from US EP_3E community sources, who'd read the piece of paper. It's also the official line by the US DoD.
There's a film clip at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1260109.stm
The E-address story came from US EP_3E community sources, who'd read the piece of paper. It's also the official line by the US DoD.
There's a film clip at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1260109.stm
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is a susposed translation of a recent article that appeared in the Taiwan Daily Gazette:
In a heroic dogfight fought over international waters off mainland China coast, a 60s era American-built Lockheed Electra propeller airliner with 24 US Navy passengers/observers aboard chewed up one of China's best state-of-the-art supersonic fighter aircraft. The Americans, utilizing the infrequently seen combat tactic of straight and level flight, often accomplished by relying solely on autopilot, engaged the unfortunate single seat combat jet and knocked it out of the air using only one of its four formidable rotating air mass propellers. After the action, the crew and passengers/observers dropped in on China's Hainan Island Resort, for some much deserved R&R as guests of the Chinese government.
One Wing Lo!
In a heroic dogfight fought over international waters off mainland China coast, a 60s era American-built Lockheed Electra propeller airliner with 24 US Navy passengers/observers aboard chewed up one of China's best state-of-the-art supersonic fighter aircraft. The Americans, utilizing the infrequently seen combat tactic of straight and level flight, often accomplished by relying solely on autopilot, engaged the unfortunate single seat combat jet and knocked it out of the air using only one of its four formidable rotating air mass propellers. After the action, the crew and passengers/observers dropped in on China's Hainan Island Resort, for some much deserved R&R as guests of the Chinese government.
One Wing Lo!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree: It’s a lot of rubbish.-!!
Bottoms Up
I fully agree with you about the so-called “E-mail”. From the very beginning I have been suspicious about this and always considered it “ hamburger news “ for domestic consumption. Something thought up by the American media ( read USA DoD ) that is easy digestible by the gullible man in the street.
I call on the high tech USA Department of Defence intelligence service to tell how they could read the letters and figures of an e-mail address written on a crumpled piece of paper that was photographed through a number of layers of glass. It’s a whole lot of rubbish (and America has the cheek to talk of Chinese brain washing).
KIFIS
Bottoms Up
I fully agree with you about the so-called “E-mail”. From the very beginning I have been suspicious about this and always considered it “ hamburger news “ for domestic consumption. Something thought up by the American media ( read USA DoD ) that is easy digestible by the gullible man in the street.
I call on the high tech USA Department of Defence intelligence service to tell how they could read the letters and figures of an e-mail address written on a crumpled piece of paper that was photographed through a number of layers of glass. It’s a whole lot of rubbish (and America has the cheek to talk of Chinese brain washing).
KIFIS