PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Spy Plane : Put it in Chinese Museum (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/550-spy-plane-put-chinese-museum.html)

Roc 24th Apr 2001 01:42

Guys, Nobody will win this argument. America, to many Ppruners, is close to the embodiment of evil, and all other countries are bastions of civility, racial harmony, and good will to all. It seems many here weren't paying attention in their history classes, I seem to remember quite a few small incidents brought about by our "enlightened Breatheren" across the pond,
the Top Ten list to include:
World War 1, couple of million dead
World war 2, Ditto times 2
the Crusades
the Irish famines
The Holocaust, of which many of our French "Buddies" helped along with, so much for racial harmony
Kosovo
Bosnia, to be more current
Aren't the Communists still a party in France, and Italy..so much for enlightenment

Also, Maybe the US should pull out of all the military treaties and pacts we have, and I'll see the French use our satellites, GPS, and Intel, like the EP-3 was collecting, to fight their opponents...NOT
If we stopped buying Mercedes and BMW's the companies may go Bankrupt...Ditto with Airbus..

Stop your whining and jealousy, I don't see hoards of people lining up on your shores trying to get in...Although aren't the Turks having problems in Germany...Algerians in France? There goes the racists again! Face it, the US isn't perfect, but go ask the Eastern Europeans, or the North Koreans who they wish were their partners 50 odd years ago! PorcoRosso, you should take a walk to the Normandy cemetary and thank out loud those heroes, who gave their lives to free your pathetic soul. I'm done...this website is sad...I'm suppossed to fly a C-141 mission to Germany soon, think I'll reschedule.

PorcoRosso 24th Apr 2001 02:15

ROC

No I am not a military pilot, and I never pretended I was one, that's why am not going in technical speculations about EP3 & F8. And because I don't give any sort of technical reason, I can't be blamed of ignorance,
I think you confused my post with someone else's
Yes I have been to the US Cemetery in Normandy, probably more often than you, always with great respect for US soldiers, I have also been to the german cemeteries as well.
Yes, some french helped the german to find the jews during WWII, My grandfather couldn't, as he was in a camp at this period ....
and No, I am not communist of some sort
Yes there is a communist party in France,and many others, not only 2 ! actually the transportation minister is "red", I guess this is normal in democracy to accept every opinion (I am not voting for them) And there is probably a communist party in USA an well (at least there was one in the 60's)
If you read my posts again, you won't see any anti-american idea, just criticism.
BTW, I am going in USA next week.
You don't need to be sad, ROC, I don't hate USA even after all the crap said about France, Face the fact, nobody's perfect ! C'est la vie

For those who think PorcoRosso is a communist hero, I suggest you rent the DVD or VideoTape of this excellent japanese cartoon, if you love flying, you will like it !

If G.Bush JR is reading this thread : don't press THE button !


Guru 24th Apr 2001 03:18

Hi everyone,

I don't expect to be taken very seriously as I'm just a wannabee. But since I'm Chinese and it looks to me that there is no other of my fellow countryman taking part in this discussion I would like to offer my two pennies' worth.

An analogy I would apply to this incident is that if one dangles a chicken over a crocodile pit for long enough sooner or later it's going to jump up and bite, even if it means risking losing a tooth or two. That can be because it wants the chicken, or it could also be because it thinks the chicken is a threat.

The croc has now taken a bite, lost a tooth in the process and at the same time the person whom for whatever reason was holding the chicken was also scratched. Who's to be blamed? It's a bit like the chicken and egg question which has led to a vicious cycle.

Maybe it's just me but I don't take this incident as seriously as some of your posts imply you do. A country would be silly not to fight for its own interests. And to me international affairs is no different from say the corporate world in that everyone tries to push as close to the limits as one can without actually breaking any laws.
Whether the Chinese government just wanted to protest against the spying or did they actually meant for the plane to fall(!) into their hands will probably never be known. But I believe the collision itself was an accident. The facts seem to be that there is no conclusive prove as to who should receive how much blame so in a way it's a better than normal opportunity to take advantage of what's on offer if one can manage to pull it off.

I have always thought that the most appropriate thing to do was to return the crewmember immediately but there might be reasons for not doing so, reasons that could be good enough for any military to do the same.

Finally, I remember someone mentioning a long time ago on this thread that if China doesn't want people to intercept their radio communications they should use digital rather than analogue systems. I'm wondering if that person has the relevant expertise to back that up.

bunyip 24th Apr 2001 03:18

This thread must be hell for the moderators. Sanity is departing fast.
Sure I criticise the US. I also criticise my own country, and others, if I see something I think is wrong. Most people accept it as well-meant, and argue with me reasonably if they wish, but people from the US cannot take any criticism at all without lashing out. And a lot of the criticism is true. Instead of getting offended, try looking at it with an open mind. Maybe you will agree and be able to do something about it.
And nobody is asking the US to pull back and cut off ties with the rest of the world. If it was even possible it would hurt the US more than it would most other countries.
I say again, that the US has contributed more to the world's progress than it has hurt. The world would indeed be a very different place if the USA did not exist. So soothe your ruffled feathers. Most of us mean well.
I hope that the leaders of the world's only super power have a more balanced and patient approach to China and the rest of the world's hot spots than some of those who post here.

Diesel8 24th Apr 2001 06:53

I for one do think americans can take criticism, but like most, they are a proud people and do not take it lying down.

Sure, there is room for improvement in the US, as there is in most other countries. I certainly could start slagging every nation in the world, some certainly are worse than others, but all have their faults. What I think americans are getting so tired of, is the fact that all the mistakes we make are brought up, but the good things mostly forgotten.

Yes, we are spying on China, and we will continue to do so. The US has enemies, that would gladly reduce the country to as ash heap, but we are not going to allow them to do so. No, I am not being paranoid and I think you will agree that certain countries does not particularily like the US. We are merely ensuring the safety of the nation and the american people. Just like the RAF is involved in "intelligence gathering missions", to keep an eye on certain nations that might be intent on harming the british people. If it were a perfect world, why would the British have submarines armed with nuclear warheads, after all, it is a peaceloving nation. We all know it is not a perfect world, mostly because there still are a few rogue nations who threatens world peace. They can almost be counted on one hand, once they accept that we live in a brave new world, we can truly consider disarmament, not until then. Now, I am not saying they should swear allegiance to the US. But they must stop their posturing, the likes of Hussein comes to mind. Certainly in the eyes of the civilized world, he has no redeeming qualities.

So, instead of pointing fingers at the US, what do you suggest we do as far as these rogue nations are concerned. Sit back and wait or should we keep a close eye on them, while trying to negotiate a closer relationship?

I suppose a good analogy with regards to the US and some people opinions of their actions, could be described as this: You like beating your wife. I would certainly not allow you to do that, if I could stop it. You are not going to like me very much, but I am still going to do it. In the meantime, all that is reported in the news is not the fact that I did a good deed, merley the fact that the grass on my lawn is a little to long.

United States is not perfect, but we do supply a stabilizing presence in the world, without which it would be a far worse place.
The US will not embrace an isolationist attitude, we cannot afford to, history have shown us that lesson.

KIFIS 24th Apr 2001 11:46

LatviaCalling,

That paragraph of yours ending with the sentence " Had to get that one in " does not do you credit. In my country we would call that " hitting below the belt ". You are forcing me (and possibly others) to agree with Bottoms Up about " Lowlife ". Please apologise to my colleague and retain our respect.

KIFIS

Paterbrat 24th Apr 2001 13:50

Guru having admitted to being Chinese I found your thread refreshingly sensible compared to some of the more hysterical offerings both for and against the origional suggestion put forward by mr KIFIS.

KIFIS get real, you really are echoing the Chinese line "I think you should appologise....." to LatviaCalling.

You and your little band of supporters should all go to your museum in China, and stay there if you like it so much. Who knows the way things are going the plane may well end up there as a heroic monument to the struggle against the Imperialist runnning dogs

aloneincommand 24th Apr 2001 17:20

OK guys, it all started because Kifis wanted the P-3 in the museum, I say, go ahead put it in display together with a photo of Wang, as somobody said, if the P-3 had been so important it would have been scorted, besides, for a secret mission, it look more like a Presidential tour, with more people than was really needed.
Talking about coincidences, the USA needed a pretext to sell weapons to Taiwan, it looks like they got it.
From the pilot's point of view, I think the Captain of the P-3 did his job, put everybody on the ground alive. I just wonder if he had decided to ditch and somebody was hurt or even killed,what would the repercussions be?
As usual his decision has been and will be judge by people who, on the ground, can take all the time to judge the right maneuver- and even call the communist party and ask for their opinion-. After all decision making is the best part of a Pilots job, isn't it?
Cheers everybody.

bearcat88 24th Apr 2001 18:14

After painfully reading through six pages of what amounts to a game of "Pinkos" vrs "Patriots" I think that the original point was lost. Simple facts were that a nimble fighter rubbed noses with a slug of a P-3 in international waters. The fighter lost and now the Chinese have an old airplane to parade as proof of American imperialism. In my mind a overly aggressive fighter pilot removes self from gene pool ... first time that has ever happened. And without sounding too hypocritical over his death, I am aware that it could easily have been any one of us in our past lives but, through some act of divine intervention, we survived our own acts of impetuousness. However, that is just my opinion I suppose.
What does seem to be more evident however is that a new cold war is rising in the east and more people will get killed in the name of vanity, machoism, patiotism and economics. Reminiscent of the 60's through late 80's I suppose with undoubdtedly different results forecast. Kiris seems to be one of those individuals who heap blame on the Americans for the woes of the world while praising the peace-loving and benevolent sons of Mao. It is people like him who really bring the pot to a boil and the rest of us should be more wary before being drawn into discussion based upon empty political rhetoric.
I wish you all (even the misguided Kiris) safe skies and long lives.

bearcat88 24th Apr 2001 18:20

Just an amendment to my last ... I did of course mean "KIFIS' vice "KIRIS".
88

PorcoRosso 24th Apr 2001 21:33

Diesel8

I think you are the balanced type, your post and guru's are the most clever, I totally agree with you ...and it doesn't turn you in communist !

Bearcat88

You don't need to be caricatural to make your point ; I don't think KIFIS or myself are so-called "sons of Mao".
I don't need to highlight the fact that Mao wasn't really openminded;

try to differ from him ...

BTW, one of my favourite movie is "Saving Private Ryan" ...Nothing wrong with that ?

------------------
[email protected]
"Flying is not dangerous, crashing is"

bunyip 24th Apr 2001 22:42

Someone mentioned a Chinese warship in the area of the collision. I have not seen any metnion of this anywhere else. Does anyone have details?

Bottoms Up! 25th Apr 2001 02:35

LATVIA
<Take a look at yourself.> Well I am taking a look at myself. What a
handsome devil, not a bit like Pocco Rossi, but then he is a frog ;)
A highly intelligent one at that! Jingoistic? Moi! Tell me LC, are any
of the facts which I have posted previously, wrong?

<It seems to me that some of you America-bashers are saying, "We like
Americans. Many of our friends are Americans. We live or visit in the United
AMERICA!'".......>

I cannot speak for others attitudes, but as far as I am concerned I will
refer anyone so interested back to Jolly Tall's post (repeated here for
convenience) which I perceive to be a fair and accurate description of
the views of many non-americans.

............. Jolly Tall posted 06 April 2001 19:33 ................

There has been a great deal of critical comment here on the behaviour of
the US in world affairs over the past few decades. But that does not
necessarily equate to anti-American sentiment re its citizens. As a
British citizen (or subject!) I could happily accept critical opinion of
UK policy over the past 20 or so years from any nationality, without
taking it personally. It is quite feasible to feel endearment towards a
geographical entity and its people, yet still feel revolted by its
international behaviour. A countries' administration and its citizens
are not one and the same thing. (end of quote)

As to the Kansas farmer not being aware of Holland etc. I have no
problems with that. As for that same Kansas farmer electing his
government, again no problem. But if that same farmer does not research
what, why and to whom he is giving his vote then he must accept any
criticism which rebounds on his choice of candidate/government, whose
actions are carried out in the farmer's name. So next time he just might
engage brain before voting.

The Kansas farmer is personally shocked and amazed that he is not seen
as a good guy. He is, but it is his/her government's actions which are
rebounding on him. He knows no better, he has voted for the 'promised'
cut in taxes, lower this, lower that. He hasn't a clue where Latvia is.
And more to the point couldn't care less, as long as HE is ok.

<I admit I got the IL76 and the AN124 confused, but if you read my
posts, you will also see that I posted a correction.>

The Captain of the Vincennes posted a correction too, but in that case
the outcome was a bit more serious and just a little too late.

Link Trainers? We had one at the flying school. It did not get used very
often, as we had proper toys to play with, such as Tiger Moths and
Austers. Was flying a Cub last year, so I think I know what one is.

And BTW, I have been to the Normandy beaches and war graves.

Diesel8 has it right, as does Guru. Though hidden in Diesel8's post is
the true bottom line (DC8 wrote):
<We are merely ensuring the safety of the nation and the american people.>

ALONEINCOMMAND

<From the pilot's point of view, I think the Captain of the P-3 did his
job, put everybody on the ground alive.>

Most certainly, a nice piece of flying. As any one of us would try to
emulate if put in an identical crippled aircraft scenario. So well done.

TAXSMAN
< Why would any intelligent human put more trust into the rantings of a
communist propaganda machine than the free press of the world?>

There was a time, long ago, when what you say would be true, but then
people began to think for themselves. This was assisted in good measure
by the world's press being allowed in restricted war zones to see for
themselves and thus counter the deliberate mis-information put out by a
censored home media. Ok there have probably been many 'controlled'
situations, but when CNN does a live broadcast from Baghdad of a cruise
missile slamming into a neighbouring hotel with that much loved phrase
'precision pin point accuracy', no one can deny it was not another oscar
winning performance.

British propaganda in W.W.II widely stated that 'Germans Eat Babies'. The
Ministry of Propaganda produced thousands of posters which featured a
bloody thirsty Storm Trooper with a squealing baby pinned on his bayonet.

During the Iraq conflict American propaganda, fed by the advertising
company of the Kuwaiti Embassy in the US said that Iraqi soldiers seized
incubators from the hospital in Kuwait City and killed off the babies in
them before transporting the equipment back to Baghdad. The daughter of
the Kuwaiti Ambassador later admitted this to be mis-information aimed
at stirring up anti Iraqi feelings in America and europe.

So Taxsman: the world's free press were right, were they?

LATVIA

The US might give grain to Ethiopia, but charged the airline for all
the Boeing aircraft they sold Africa's largest operator. At the height
of the Ethiopian famine Boeing 767s were flying in the world's press
(dining in five star luxury en route) to film the starving and the dead.

BUNYIP

Regarding that last part of your earlier post, I see nothing there which
necessitates an apology from you. re LATVIA:
< but I can't imagine what you call "the wheat thing" has anything to do
with the EP-3 incident over international waters off China?>

As has already been pointed out, this accident is not taken as a single
isolated issue. The P3 incident is but a pin prick and representative of the
wider picture. Guru has it spot on. If you dangle a chicken over a
crocodile pool, one day it will bite.

Arms inspectors - someone in both P3 threads mentioned Arms Inspectors.
You mean those drunken UN p*ssheads in the Bahraini hotels frequented
by hundreds of transiting airline staff who watched in disgust the
behaviour of those UN representatives.

And don't forget that Iraq was only practising what the Americans preach.
That much maligned British TV Channel (4) showed a programme where the
US Government has long blocked **legitimate** UN appointed weapons
inspectors from making inspection of US weapons sites. And why?
Because the UN Team appointed by the United Nations to conduct these
inspections contain Ukrainian personnel. So when the Iraqis played the
same game of picking and choosing the make up of a UN inspection team,
the hypocritical Americans cried foul. So much for all nations abiding
by the same set of rules.

China is my no means an ideal state and neither are many other countries.
So is it right to turn a blind eye in the interests of furthering one's
own economy/national cause? If you condemn one, you condemn them all. Or
do you?

Does the west care about the Kurds? No way. As long as the Americans and
British can use Turkish airfields and base American listening posts in
that country they couldn't gave a damn about Turkey's Human Rights issue,
which is equal to anything the Chinese have to show. In fact the
american arms industry plies the Turkish Armed Forces with F16s & Blackhawk
helicopters to assist in the weekly slaughter of the Kurds. Yet not too
far away the righteous christian nations are involved in the former
Yugoslavia, setting up ethnic enclaves to protect the indigenous population.
What hypocrisy!

So Latvia, yes this thread has evolved into something other than what
you may have intended. However the contents of this subject and the
other you started are all indirectly linked, of which a P3 being
involved in a tragic accident is just the tip of the one and the same
iceberg. Have a good day!

L1011 25th Apr 2001 11:39

In the midst of all the hysterical China bashing, everyone seems to have forgotten one relevant fact. China in all its 5000+ year history has never been expansionist. In fact usually the opposite, turning inwards periodically, as many Americans think the US should do. (The only exception to this is Tibet, a tragedy that bears little relevance to this bunfight.)

Conversely, the Chinese are extremely wary of foreigners coming to their shores. The last time this happened British (and American) companies came to sell opium despite the protests of the Chinese government. These paragons of international trade were accompanied by an Army that proceeded to occupy Beijing and burn the imperial summer palace, a 2000 year old structure and its reportedly exquisite gardens. All in the name of Free Trade.

Can you blame the Chinese for being paranoid?

For the record I am not Chinese or Communist. Merely a despairing parent who wonders what sort of world his children will live in.

KIFIS 25th Apr 2001 14:51

You Americans are not going to like this

Back in 1914 an American antique dealer somehow managed to obtain two of China’s most valued cultural relics. These were two magnificient life size sculptured stone
war horses from a group of six that were erected in 649 AD to guard the tomb of Emperor Tai Zhong (Li Shi Ming). The horses were stolen from the tomb and then found their way into American hands. They are now a prized exhibit at the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania in Philaedelphia. The Chinese consider the horses as stolen property and for years have been asking for the return of what they term their “ national treasures “. The Americans refuse because they claim to have a signed receipt. The Chinese say the receipt is invalid because it is signed by a thief. I understand the Americans have recently offered to give back the horses in return for two original terracotta soldiers. The Chinese say no to this. I first heard the story from a Chinese girl who was a tour guide at the Xian City Museum. We were standing in front of a replica of the stolen horse named “ Sa Lu Zi “ (all six have names) and as she told the story she became visibly angry. I knew exactly how she felt, the bullying has been going on for a long time. I later had the story confirmed.

I wonder how many Americans know of the stolen Chinese relics that are so proudly displayed in that Pennsylvania Museum ? Rave on about the wicked Chinese holding your EP-3 spyplane but keep quiet about the sneaky dealings that surrounds Emperor Tai Zhong’s stolen horses. CNN take note.

L1011

A well thought out summary of exactly how I feel too. I didn't start this thread as an American bashing exercise. I am just asking for a "fair go" for the people of China. They are just like you and I except life is a little more difficult for them.

KIFIS

Geddy 25th Apr 2001 15:13

Really what a load of crap!
KIFIS is suffering from that unique Chinese foolishness of seemingly truly believing a totally unbelievable line delivered by the government, fueled by a xenophibic attitude.

It is interesting to see China enter a dangerous phase where no one believes in communism anymore and the only thing left to latch onto is nationalism (just like Serbia hey?) and slide into chaos. Haven't gone far in 5000 years have they....

Wang wouldn't have made it in any other airforce and now he is turned into a "hero" for his foolishness. What a dunce.

Jackonicko 25th Apr 2001 17:03

L1011

Onto a loser if you expect some of the 'country-right-or-wrong' rednecks here to appreciate subtleties about China's political history. They are probably incapable of differentiating between a Democrat and a Communist, let alone between a Marxist-type Communist, an old-style Soviet Stalinist (expansionist up to and including Brezhnev, I'd say, and still expansionist by inclination in places like North Korea) and a Chinese-style orthodox-Leninist/Confucian communist.

But you're right. 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.

Diesel8 25th Apr 2001 17:10

KIFIS,

I wonder if the British know how much the Egyptians wants their relics back that the British Empire took from several pyramids.

smith 25th Apr 2001 17:12

L1011 and jackonicko:

Oh my Gawd! You two guys obviously didn't pay attention to the History teacher in secondary school. China was never an expansionist? My arse!! I hope you two are pilots and know your aeroplanes better than you know Chinese history.

LatviaCalling 25th Apr 2001 22:51

Bottoms Up!

Oh, come on, Bottoms Up! How can you compare me with the captain of the Vincennes in my misidentification of two Russian cargo planes sitting off in the woods from Riga Airport. I was sitting in the window seat of a BA 737, and no, I did not smash the window and unleash my American-made bazooka to destroy them.

Regarding your torrent on the starving Ethiopians and the press being given 5-star treatment, you're absolutely wrong.

You don't carry a 5-star hotel in a tent when you go and report on villages that are starving. You bring your tent and bug repellent with you, but not a guy in white tails and tuxedo to serve you smoked salmon after you've seen the human disaster. I've been there and other places. I know how it is.

Have you been there?

As far as flying to the capital, I don't see any reason for not going in business class if your company is paying for it, but just try landing a 767 in a village.

KIFIS

Regarding your post of American plundering of Chinese relics, this is not intended to be British-bashing, but if you really want to get ahold of some questionable relics, try the British Museum.

Again, this is not a bash against anyone. Those were the times.

But by the way, why is Tibet under such a strict Chinese rule with the politics of China being to disperse the Tibetians and import ethnic Chinese so there would be no Tibetian majority and therefore not a problem? Who gave China the right to take over Tibet in the first place?

The Russians tried the dispopulation in the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) and almost succeeded until Communism, the savior of the world, crumbled and collapsed.


Wino 25th Apr 2001 23:05

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

AC-DC 25th Apr 2001 23:59

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!

Jackonicko 26th Apr 2001 01:14

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!

Jackonicko 26th Apr 2001 01:22

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!

LatviaCalling 26th Apr 2001 01:31

What this whole thread seems to be about finally is that, "I'm not America-bashing, but..."


Bottoms Up! 26th Apr 2001 01:54

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.

Diesel8 26th Apr 2001 05:25

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??

Jackonicko 26th Apr 2001 14:01

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!

KIFIS 26th Apr 2001 14:43

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.

StbdD 26th Apr 2001 21:27

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).]

Jackonicko 27th Apr 2001 03:19

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!

West Coast 27th Apr 2001 10:48

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.

StbdD 27th Apr 2001 12:15

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).]

Jackonicko 27th Apr 2001 16:45

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?

West Coast 27th Apr 2001 20:22

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

Bottoms Up! 28th Apr 2001 01:31

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.

Capn Lucky 28th Apr 2001 02:02

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

Jackonicko 28th Apr 2001 04:59

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

Cream Crackered 28th Apr 2001 10:51

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!



KIFIS 28th Apr 2001 17:04

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:39.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.