 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bush--A little credit please?
|
|
|
Subject: Bush--A little credit please? From: Big Red Date: 11 Apr 01 - 08:38 PM Hours have passed since the news. Can any of the Bush haters bend enough to give at least a passing credit for a job well done by Bush and the Administration in getting our soldiers home without a crisis? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Troll Date: 11 Apr 01 - 08:45 PM Never happen Big Red. But a nice thought anyway. All the Monday morning quarterbacks are squating in the wings, waiting for the chance to tell us all how it SHOULD have been done or why it was unnecessary or why we should never have been there in the first place. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: jets Date: 11 Apr 01 - 09:08 PM Bush deserves credit for keeping low key and letting those in the know do the talking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Sorcha Date: 11 Apr 01 - 09:15 PM For what? Putting off an apology as long as he could? When he didn't seem to understand why it was necessary? When you're wrong, you're wrong. US was seemingly at fault. What could it possibly have hurt to "apologize" days ago? Would have gotten out boys home a hell of a lot sooner if he was big enough to do what needed to be done...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: jets Date: 11 Apr 01 - 09:20 PM O Boy here we go again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Amergin Date: 11 Apr 01 - 09:35 PM It's not that, Scorch. The reason was that no one put an apology in front of him to read.....he is just plain lost with out the proper guidance he requires... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Paul G. Date: 11 Apr 01 - 09:42 PM I have a theory...the whole thing was a deception intended to distract us while most of the money for environmental protection activities was stripped out of the budget. Watch out for the next major international crisis...the day before it's miraculously resolved the drilling will start in Alaska... Paul (in Florida imagining the Everglades drained and paved) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Ebbie Date: 11 Apr 01 - 09:57 PM OK, I'll give him and his administration credit- for being consistent. Tonight's paper: The Bush administration is asking Congress to remove from the Endangered Species Act a provision that allows environmental groups and others to sue the Interior Department to get rare plants and animals listed as endangered. The budget provision would still permit citizen lawsuits but effectively render them meaningless by placing severe limits on what the agency can do or spend to comply with them, according to Interior spokesman, Mark Pfeifle. ...The Interior Secretary would decide what gets spent on lawsuits and have power over the listing of species. "This leaves the discretion with ...a Secretary of the Interior who, I point out, through a long career has taken every opportunity to debunk the Endangered Species Act (and) speak against it and at one point even suggest that it was unconstitutional." (Defenders of Wildlife President Rodger)Schlickeisen said...
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Sorcha Date: 11 Apr 01 - 10:15 PM Amergin, in a sense, that is exactly what I meant. The man is only a mouthpiece, and does only what his Advisors consensus tells him to do.
Do you suppose he can even read a TelePrompter? I guess, what I meant was, why did his Honorable Advisors not tell him days ago to just apologize, get it over with, bite the bullet, and get our boys home? To hell with the damn plane!
What's an Apology? Sincere or otherwise, it's just words. Governments use words to suit themselves all the time, as in the words that China says are an apology and Bush says are not.......but our boys are coming home, finally. Days after they should have because of the obtuseness/stupidity of the US Gov..... If you really want a lesson in obtuseness, read some of Elizbeth I speeches and commentaries. She was a Master of the Art........(that is Liz Tudor, not Liz Windsor). I call her Master because her contemporaries called her the She King.......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Bert Date: 11 Apr 01 - 10:29 PM OK, he gets credit for doing 'something'. Whether it was well done, or the right thing or whether the timing was right or should the spy plane have been there in the first place, or whether they should have had some means of destroying it on the ground or, or, or. He did something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Sorcha Date: 11 Apr 01 - 10:35 PM Too late, and too little, because at this point, he had not choice......what else could he/they do? Allow them to be executed? I don't think so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: GUEST,Uncle Jaque Date: 11 Apr 01 - 10:40 PM Soooo, Sorcha: Just whose propaganda have we been copiously sucking up here, Komrade? Dan Ratherski, Brian GumBall, Opra.... "When you're wrong, you're wrong. US was seemingly at fault." That's pretty much the Party line all right; the Chairman is no doubt proud of you. Have you ever seen one of those P-3 ORION recconisance planes (NOT a "Spy" plane when it is operating in international airspace, by the way)? We have a Naval base nearby in Brunswick, Maine and the old turboprop birds can be frequently seen lumbering sedately along. To claim that a US pilot could even intentionally "swerve" into a fighter fet faster than even a Pilot-Trainee in an obsolete interceptor could take evasive action is as absurd as the proposition that said EP-3 Pilot would be INSANE enough to even attempt to ram another aircraft in flight! One of the Taiwan Newspapers claimed shortly after the incedent that they monitor radio transmissions between US bases and aircraft, and that after the accident the damaged EP-3 attempted to return to it's base (they can fly one of those things on one engine, and they had at least two apparantly still running). They were instructed by the surviving Chicom F-8 to proceed instead to Hianan Island, and a burst of machine-gun rounds sufficed to convince the US Captain that he meant business. They essentially "invaded Chinese airspace" at gunpoint as PRISONERS OF WAR! This report was of course quickly squelched, but I think after the hostages are safely on US soil the truth will come out. Do you ever READ anything other than what your handlers spoon feed you, or do you just watch TV? Just wondering. You might be interested to know that much more credit for the ChiCom capitulation (they settled for much less than they originally demanded) than the Politicians, Diplomats, or Military is being given to a quickly spreading general BOYCOTT of Chinese goods by American Consumers fed up with China's arrogance and aggression in holding our US Servicepeople hostage. It seems that Wally-Mart and other high rollers in the international economics game started taking it in the shorts and called off thier Komrades behind the Great Wall before it really got out of hand. I'm proud to have been not only a participant in this imprompteau"Citizen's Initiative", but one of the local instigators as well. You're welcome! For God and Country: "Uncle Jaque" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Greg F. Date: 11 Apr 01 - 10:53 PM Gee, and the "Nationalist" Chinese press on Taiwan would have no reason to lie, right? Please. And Ol' Mr. Walton as a Chinese Communist sympathizer & 'fellow traveller'? Whooo, boy. Grip on reality here is tenuous at best. This never was a "chrisis". "Our Boys (and "Girls") were never in any real danger, and I'm tired of the whining when military personnel are called on do do what can always turn out be part of their duty; these incidents are commonplace enough, and there is a scripted diplomatic game that is ALWAYS played. This is the usual tempest in a pisspot stirred up by the media at the behest of the "Old China Hands" that still can't come to terms with the fact that we "Lost" China- like it was "ours" to lose in the first place.{can you spell "Hubris"?} Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: JedMarum Date: 11 Apr 01 - 11:33 PM Yes Bush and his admin has done well, so far. I am concerned about how much security info is lost, and the status of the aircraft and its equip. No apology was given, nor would one have been appropriate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Sorcha Date: 11 Apr 01 - 11:35 PM Thanks, Greg. And, Oncle Jacques, if I am wrong, all it takes is a few words to say "I'm sorry".......why couldn't my elected government do the same? Not "big" enough? What does "sorry" ever hurt, or really mean, especially politically? Political Apoligies mean NOTHING.......ever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Big Mick Date: 11 Apr 01 - 11:43 PM I love ya, Sorcha, but IMHO you are wrong on this one. And Uncle Jacque, you are guilty of that which you accuse Sorcha of. Yours is simply the other side of the propaganda coin. The simple fact is that we had nothing to apologize for and we didn't. We did use diplomatic language to accomplish the release. The Chinese have long played "chicken" and a pilot payed for it with his life. Both sides agree that this happened in International airspace. We had nothing to apologize for. As far as giving Dubya credit, I will give him this much. He had enough sense to realize that he was in over his head, and got out of the way and let the diplomats take over. I have the feeling that his solo walk down the drive for his first statement was orchestrated by the hawkish, reactionary elements of his cabinet. It took them about 24 hours to realize how foolish this was. Thank God that Colin Powell and others were able to prevail and get to the business of getting our service people released. So I will credit him for backing off his machoman crap and letting those with a little depth take care of business. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: katlaughing Date: 11 Apr 01 - 11:58 PM Paul G...I hear ya...that's exactly part of what he's doing and it is going to be a huge loss if he gets away with it. I'd rather we have a huge battle over it and save the environment than not. Perhaps we can tie up Congress with THAT issue for four years as they did Clinton with the asinine and obfuscatory Starr Inquisition, at least it would be for something worthwhile! No brownie points from me...not when he's trying to decimate our "home" behind our backs. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: toadfrog Date: 12 Apr 01 - 12:01 AM Yes. Let us give Bush "credit" for not doing something really dumb and getting us into a war. Some of the people in his administration just might have done exactly that. But that appears to be his greatest (positive) achievement to date, and I'm not impressed. Sure. It would not have been a good idea to "apologize" for flying airplanes over the South China Sea, because that would mean we had no right to do that. But where on God's earth did Our President get that bit about the airplane being our "sovereign territory"? Boy, that was dumb! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Sorcha Date: 12 Apr 01 - 12:18 AM I love you too, Mick, and yes, it happened in Itl Airspace, but what would it have cost us to "apologise" in diplomatic language to get our boys home sooner?
We ended up using "diplomatic language" in the end to get them home (to hell with the plane!) so what would it have hurt to use it a little sooner?
China is not the only or first to ever declare a more than usual border limit.....(3 miles)so why make such big moolah over this one?
I too, have tremendous respect for Colin Powell (and respect him even more for refusing to run for Pres), but what exactly is going on here? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Lonesome EJ Date: 12 Apr 01 - 12:27 AM Sorcha, I thought China was claiming a 300 mile territorial limit. This is what a friend told me whose company is laying sub-ocean cable in the Pacific Rim. They had to go thousands of miles out of their way to avoid the claimed waters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Sorcha Date: 12 Apr 01 - 12:50 AM LEJ, I had forgotten the exact limit China was claiming, only that it was more than the usual 3 mile limit.......300 miles would give the US posession of slightly more than Cuba, no? (grin, but not a joke)and a whole lot of Canada, too. We could try this on, and see what the Quebecquois say about being annexed........
300 miles from the 49th Parallel puts US just where? Close to Hudson's Bay? Aww, crap. We still don't get Great Slave Lake, or the Norhwest Territories..... Munroe, where are you when we need you? (sarcasm, with tongue deeply embedded in cheek) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Troll Date: 12 Apr 01 - 12:50 AM The international agreed-upon limit is 12 miles. China claims 200 miles.An apology for being where we had every right to be would be seen as tacit agreement to the 200 mile claim. Regardless of the circumstances and any future repudiation of the apology it would set a precident that could cause lots of problems later. As far as "sovereign territory" goes, I believe that there is an international agreement that any plane in distress can land anywhere it needs to and that it shall be treated as sovereign territory and all assistance to get it home safely shall be rendered. I'll try to find the reference but it has been 10 days. China's premier has had to deal with his countrymen and the hawkish Peoples Liberation Army. In order to maintain his power base, he had to do a lot of careful juggling and diplomatic face-saving. These things take time. You will note that there were no massive demonstrations like there were when the Embassy was bombed. No one wanted a crisis. Bush managed to curb his natural impatience and the deal finally went through. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Big Red Date: 12 Apr 01 - 01:14 AM It sounds so easy. Just apologize. It means nothing. Read your history folks. Chamberlin gave in to Hitler. The U.S. ignored Japan's invasion of China, Truman's Sec. of War said South Korea was outside our defense zone. We know the results. When the USSR threatned us with missles in Cuba, Kennedy showed the only thing despot's understand--strength. We can and did show our power and our restraint. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Amergin Date: 12 Apr 01 - 01:15 AM Well, I keep waiting for the incident to occur that will bring millions of Chinese soldiers marching our streets and dragging families from their homes to line ditches with their bloodstained bodies.....or rather the 10000+ degree heatwave.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: mousethief Date: 12 Apr 01 - 03:03 AM Uncle Jerque, would it be TOO hard to just be polite? Why all the derision and spite spewed out over Sorcha? Are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to squirt venom over anybody who dares disagree with you? Jeez. All the conservatives must be reading people like you and thinking, "Please stop being on my side!" Turning to the Incident: 1. It is not a "spy plane" and it drives me nuts when the press has been calling it such. If they can't tell the difference between spying and surveillance, they should get jobs at the local Cinemaplex or something. 2. The final non-apologetic apology that secured the release of our boys and girl was a masterful piece of diplomatic baloney. Three cheers to whoever in the Bush administration thought it up. 3. I'm not sure it could have been done TOO much earlier. The whole thing needed to cool off a bit, and the Chinese needed to calm down enough to see exactly what they stood to lose (hint: where does the lion's share of dollars fleeing the USA go? hint2: it isn't Europe) before they could accept the non-apologetic apology without feeling they were losing face. 4. What all this has to do with Bush, however, is beyond me. None of this has his handwriting. Sure, he put in place a competent State Department. But how much of that was Daddy's doing? The world will never know. Just being who he is, Bush Lite will never really get credit for stuff he deserves credit for. You may say it's not fair; I say he made his bed and must lie in it. 5. Was the tail wagging the dog? Well, it's true Bush has been doing the best he can, in the short time he's had, to put the thumbscrews on the environmentalists. He really didn't need a crisis like this to do it, though. Who is standing up to him at home? The democrats are rolling over and playing lame. If we have any wild space left in this country in 4 years, it certainly won't be because Bush hasn't tried to (allow his Corporate sponsors to) rape, pave, or drill it. There's my 2 bits' worth. Flame away. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: RichM Date: 12 Apr 01 - 03:15 AM Seems to me Bush had his own domestic pressures, as did the Chinese. Except in Bush's case, the American public seemingly will not stand for soldiers to be killed or imprisoned in the line of duty. And the Chinese knew this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: mousethief Date: 12 Apr 01 - 03:23 AM the American public seemingly will not stand for soldiers to be killed or imprisoned in the line of duty. Certainly not during peacetime, and by a "most favored nation" trading partner. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: kendall Date: 12 Apr 01 - 07:03 AM What would it cost to apologize? consider this, saving face is of the utmost importance to asians. Thats why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.We have never understood that mind set, and, we have paid dearly for our ignorance. How would we feel if a Chinese "surveillance" plane was operating within our declared limit? and had been doing so in spite of frequent protests by our government. Credit to Bush? remember Howdy Doody? his movements were visible to us, but, we all knew he was being manipulated by a puppeteer off camera. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Wotcha Date: 12 Apr 01 - 11:20 AM The South China Sea is a huge flash spot. The Spratly Islands stand over oil reserves -- Vietnam, China, Indonesia and the Phillipines all want a piece of the action: some of these nations station soldiers on stilt buildings to claim sovereignty. It'll take some hothead (like an ill-disciplined F8 pilot) to spark that powder keg. The US is pretty aggressive about its Freedom of Navigation program around the world: surveillance is likely to be one of the methods it uses to monitor the sea lanes. Sometimes planes and ships bump (remember the Black Sea incident with the Soviets?). There are a lot of bullies out there who would like to shut out the free movement of civilian vessels (the robber barons of Germany spring to mind as a group of trade thugs who got their just deserts eventually: hence the burning of the Rhine festival every year). Using military vessels to secure these sea lanes/airspace, the US ensures the rest of the world can trade (rah, rah, rah!). Our service men and women are back: rejoice. They are not soldiers, but they are airmen, marines, and sailors who did their duty. For once, our government did its duty and got them back with minimum of fuss and grandstanding by the politicos. Meanwhile, I'll celebrate my freedom these service members bought me by going down the pub and singing some chanteys tonight. Hooah! Cheers, Brian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: mousethief Date: 12 Apr 01 - 11:22 AM Kendall, I don't understand. What did we do to Japan that made them bomb Pearl Harbor? Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: UB Ed Date: 12 Apr 01 - 11:38 AM I understand this was the first draft of the apology:
The United States of America apologizes to the People's Republic of China for allowing our slow, lumbering reconnaissance plane to be hit by your poorly trained, hot-dogging fighter pilot, while flying in international airspace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: kendall Date: 12 Apr 01 - 12:11 PM Alex...there was a long list of provocations. The US insisted that Japan pull out of SE Asia. Japan has no natural resouces of its own, and, without oil and rubber it would remain a backwater nation in this time period. FDR cut off all shipments of scrap metal to Japan. When none of these things worked, FDR froze all Japanese assets in America. That was what tore the rag off the bush. The leaders knew from the start that they could not win a war with the US, but, saving face was the important thing. As the Irish say "I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees." Does anyone believe that the Japanese woke up one day with nothing to do, so they started a war to relieve the boredom? The other side of the story is not taught in our schools. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: mousethief Date: 12 Apr 01 - 12:18 PM UB Ed, great apology! Gave me a chuckle, anyway. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Whistle Stop Date: 12 Apr 01 - 01:16 PM Kendall, you're right, and I'm glad that someone out there actually seems to know that. However, the Japanese had more pragmatic ideas than just saving face; they actually hoped for a negotiated settlement that would leave them as the predominant Asian power (in "the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, as they called it), finally rid of the shackles of American and European imperialism. If the Japanese had not been so brutal in trying to achieve their aims (especially in China and southeast Asia), there might be more people today who recognized the legitimacy of a lot of what they were seeking. Unfortunately, even though some of their goals were praiseworthy, they were unspeakably brutal, and had to be stopped. Back to the original topic, I am not a Bush supporter, but it appears to me that his administration probably handled this appropriately. Finding a way to make the language in formal communications work for both sides is what diplomats do; it took a bit of doing in this case, but they accomplished it. As for the amount of time that went by while our people were held hostage (I know people have been avoiding that word, but that's what it is), and speaking as an ex-military man myself, I don't think any real harm was done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: DougR Date: 12 Apr 01 - 03:53 PM Kendall, as I recall, we got a significant amount of the scrap metal the U. S. had sold to Japan prior to the freeze, back on December 7, 1941. Kendall Morse a apologist for what the Japanese did on that day that will live in infamy? Unbelievable. :>) Alex that was an excellent summation of the situation, I think. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: GUEST,Matt_R Date: 12 Apr 01 - 03:55 PM Bush rules, especially "Machinehead". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Troll Date: 12 Apr 01 - 05:36 PM The Japanese bombed our fleet in Pearl Harbor so that the US would have no way to stop them from taking over the rest of the Pacific Rim. They had already taken Manchuria (renamed Manchukuo) and China. They destroyed had the British military power in the Pacific. The only obstacle left was the US Fleet. They made two major miscalculations; one, the carriers were not in the harbor and, two, the ability of the US to respond industrially was grossly underestimated. So, Kendall and Whistlestop, if a country doesn't get it's way and doesn't have many natural resources and no one will sell them what they want, then military adventurism and invasion of other countries is acceptable. What a NOVEL idea! troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: GUEST,SeanM Date: 12 Apr 01 - 05:50 PM Actually, Troll, as far as the Japanese were apparently concerned, the attack was a success. Aircraft carriers weren't widely accepted as premier attack forces as they are today, and at the beginning of hostilities were 'support' carriers for the big guns on battleships and the like - which they very definitely DID get. Spot on about the response though. From my readings it really sounds like the Japanese command vastly underestimated both the response of the American people, and the ability (and will) of the Navy to salvage as much as they did from Pearl Harbor. As to giving Bush "credit" though... I'll give him credit for this the moment that Clinton gets full credit for keeping the economy aloft during his administration. I'd say both have as little to do with who sits in the Comfy Chair as does the rainfall in Brazil with how many beans I ate last night. His continuous attack on environmental issues should prove interesting. After decades of exclusion, the corporations are finally getting their chance to see if unbridled development and exploitation will or will not cause massive harm to the environment... M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 12 Apr 01 - 06:00 PM If you are ever in a car accident when some other driver hits your car, do YOU apologize to him? "Gee, I'm sorry I was driving straight as an arrow and you ran into me..." I don't THINK so!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: GUEST,SeanMagain Date: 12 Apr 01 - 06:08 PM Another element... has anyone considered that there might be *GASP* SHARED blame in this matter? Is it just possible that the Chinese pilot was hotdogging as he apparently enjoyed doing, that the American pilot either intentionally or not dipped a bit to rattle him, and from there the accident occured? Or that the vagaries of windcurrent forced two close flying aircraft together? Maybe there is a real answer as to "who was on first" in this case, but right now the rattling of sabers is STILL obscuring any hope at the truth. M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 12 Apr 01 - 06:14 PM I think your right in that it probably WAS a shared blame. I think Bush was right in showing concern for the lost of life but that there was no reason to apologize for the accident. I also think it was China's right to examine the fallen plane and keep it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: GUEST,SeanM Date: 12 Apr 01 - 06:20 PM Amen to that... one (and ONLY one) newscaster that I've seen locally has been reminding folks that in a similar situation, when we had a downed Soviet plane we returned it to them - in crates. As it is, the crew managed to transmit that they'd supposedly destroyed all classified materials on board before landing. Given that they had some time and that CM destruction is a BIG topic in the military, I'd believe that they got most if not all of it. All China has is rubble and a bigass prop plane. And if China needs help and 'American Know How' in the prop plane industry, then things are a lot worse off for them than anyone has guessed... M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Greg F. Date: 12 Apr 01 - 06:23 PM Considering all the Conservative sturm und drang about the perfidious Chinese, is it any less fanciful to suggest that this whole incident, including the collision, was staged and scripted by Dumbya's handlers to insure passage of the huge and unnecessary boondoggle sale of arms & technology to Taiwan? Cui bono? the U.S. arms manufacturers. Maybe not so far fetched, after all; certainly less so than some of the charges made against the Clintons. Just something to think about.... Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 12 Apr 01 - 06:30 PM Geez, thanks for stirring the waters, Greg! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: mousethief Date: 12 Apr 01 - 06:38 PM (and ONLY one) newscaster that I've seen locally has been reminding folks that in a similar situation, when we had a downed Soviet plane we returned it to them - in crates. Apples and oranges. This one is the result of an emergency downing, and the Soviet plane was a defection. If the 24 air crew defected to Red China, it would be a completely different thing. The Soviet pilot stole his plane, and presented it to us. We might have been required to return it as stolen goods, but we chose not to; that point is fuzzy. As it is, however, in the current case, vessels in distress are not even BOARDABLE, let alone confiscatable, under international law. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 12 Apr 01 - 06:42 PM Please! If the situation had been reversed and a plane loaded with state-of-the-art technology ended up on American soil do you honestly believe the U.S. government wouldn't take a look-see inside? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: mousethief Date: 12 Apr 01 - 06:45 PM I didn't realize that was the question. I thought the question was whether or not the US had the high moral ground in demanding the Chinese leave the plane alone and give it back, based on international law. Clearly they do. If the shoe were on the other foot, I doubt the US would act any more nobly. But that's not the question. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 12 Apr 01 - 06:50 PM You're right, of course. Unfortunately it appears that the US and China disagree on "international law" at least in terms of territorial limits... Anyway, enough said on the subject. Thank God we have our service men and women back home. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: mousethief Date: 12 Apr 01 - 06:54 PM Amen to that! Yes for some reason China thinks it should get 200 miles while every other civilized country claims 12. Which is of course what is behind the whole incident. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: GUEST,Peace and Prosperity Date: 12 Apr 01 - 07:19 PM Agrees with the general consensus here and is very glad we did not end up at war with China! Have some serious doubts about accounts of the actual incident as there is so much speculation, however it is a fact that the P3 was on auto pilot, that the F8 made a HOTSHOOT pass beneath a Wing and that there was an accident. If all it took to get the P3 crew home was the words 'we are sorry' then that should have been the very first thing that was done! So I give no credit to the W H for it's late action, rather want to know why it took so long? I read with some relish that there is a Chinese Retaurant owner who begun his immigrant life in the USA in Arkansas and who became the butt end of many false accusations by Rush Bumraw and Co respectively, and this man could have saved our butts with just a few carefully selected meetings which would have resulted in a quiet resolution of the incident, no apologies needed since every one involved knew and agreed on the facts. But no the Republcian Ditto Heads who do not think for themselves could not do this without the required guidance of the Old Bores of Washington, Lott et al. What are they now? Discredited and shown for what they really are a bunch of racist right wing loonies. I think of Margaret Thatcher with some pain and rarely agree with her claims and ideas but I do agree with one thing she recently said. 'China is a problem' Again one word is all it takes and here it is. Tibet. This nation was annexed and invaded with little or no press reporting, perhaps the lack of juicy natural resources had a great deal to do with the silence, but what really scares the bejeebers out of me is that Corporate America is the source of this kind of selective 'Rights Wars'. See Desert Storm for clarification! In a way it is almost certain that sooner or later the USA may have to restrain these kinds of annexations and I am willing to bet the Spratleys would be the flash point, however if China continues to open up it may never happen as prosperity will fill China with all that they need and a fat cat is always a happy one.
|