 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bush--A little credit please?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: mousethief Date: 13 Apr 01 - 02:14 AM What are you doing agreeing with us? Trying to "Spaw" us? Maybe you should re-think this one. Truth of the matter, MAV, is that you really don't know what I believe. I tried to tell you this once but you rudely told me I was wrong. I believe what I believe on a number of issues. On some things I am considered by those left-of-center to be a flaming Fascist. On others I am considered by those right-of-center to be a marxist, or worse. In fact I don't believe in the platform of any party in this country, nor am I a member of any party. I don't march to any party line. Your use of the term "us" here makes me think you do. There you go again, NAMECALLING and lecturing others on.... "Politeness"? We can both play the "imagine YOU telling someone they're being rude!" game until the cows came home. Fact is you have alienated a huge number of people on this list by your brusque manner and rudeness. I have not. In the few cases where I really got under somebody's collar, I have done what I could to find out where I goofed up, and apologized. On the other hand I have given up ever expecting you to apologize for the things you have done which I found unspeakably rude and offensive, even though I have pointed them out and asked for an apology. You continue to be rude to me at every turn, even in threads where you are talking about treating me with respect and expecting the same in return and all that rot. Apparently a leopard CAN'T change its spots. Don't expect me to hold my heart in my hands waiting for you to be nice. I wipe my feet. 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. What? Which word here is bothering you? I could define them all for you, but that's a horrible waste of time for me, and quite dull. I suggest you go to an online dictionary like www.m-w.com and look them up yourself. . 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. HUH? These words are even smaller. Where did you go to school? Oh, by the way, I stand corrected; I had somewhere picked up the idea it was 23 men and 1 woman, whereas it was 21 men and 3 women. Thus the above should read "boys and girls". 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. Looks like most of the raping and drilling in the last eight years has been in the White House. Again your usual (boring) tactic of not answering the issue, but dragging in something totally unrelated. Apparently my going through your posts point-by-point impresses you (you said I was getting less offensive and more argumentative); but it's all the same old shinola so it hardly seems worth the time to go through it point-by-point. Still, if that's what it takes, I'll do my part. You arch-conservatives are too funny. You want to lump everybody to your left into a huge cesspool, and complain if we don't give your side any credit, while all the while not giving our side any credit at all, and saying asinine things like "anything the democrats do must be wrong." So much so that when we (the people to your left) agree with you on ANYTHING it takes your vocabulary away. We're obviously not as narrow-minded as you are, and it nearly blows you away to discover it. Bonus question: How many Democrats broke ranks in the last vote in the Senate? How many Republicans? Answer: far more D's than R's. Who's following the party line? Who has marching orders? Bush's getting anything passed in a 50-50 Senate is proof positive that the Democrats are less party-conscious than the Republicans. Spin that. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: DougR Date: 13 Apr 01 - 12:11 AM Naemanson: I have an idea! Why don't YOU share the "secret document" with us? I'd really like to read it. I'm fairly confident that if such a document existed, Tom Brokow, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings et al,would all agree to keep it secret, right? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: GUEST,Its a telegram, from Canada! Date: 12 Apr 01 - 11:00 PM Man oh man,you silly silly amercans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Naemanson Date: 12 Apr 01 - 10:43 PM This just in! Our diligent reporters have uncovered a secret document from the Republican Party headquarters. It provides details showing that the whole Chinese-Spy plane collision incident is linked to the Clinton administration. The pilot was hired by the same Asian organization that provided funds to the 1996 Democratic campaign. The note with the document shows that the Republican Party does not intend to release it because of the outcome of the incident. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Greg F. Date: 12 Apr 01 - 10:25 PM True, you won't find a politician- or at least a moderatly successful one- of any political stripe who isn't an opportunist. I don't think that horse is quite dead yet, but OK, let's not go there.;-) Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Troll Date: 12 Apr 01 - 09:46 PM Greg, I believe it's called a colatteral benefit. I would be greatly surprised if Bush and Co. did NOT take advantage of it. When fortune drops a windfall in your lap,you are a fool if you don't take advantage of it. Thats a good rule for politicians, businessmen and anyone else whose eyes dialate. As far as whether Clinton and crew were guilty of all that they were accused of,I don't want to go there. That horse has been flogged to death. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: JedMarum Date: 12 Apr 01 - 09:46 PM Spaw - I think you would have heard the same thing, had the Clinton admin handled the matter in the same way. Both Dems and Repubs have been pretty positive about the results. There is bitching going on, only at the extremes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Apr 01 - 09:35 PM Why not play the game here differently? I know this is impossible and the rationalizations will fly fast and furiously, but, uh................. Suppose........just for laughs you understand,......that this incident took place last year and had been handled in the same way by the Clinton administration. Would we be hearing the same things from both parties that we are now? Would Trent Lott give Willie a call and say, "Nice job" or would he be calling for hearings? Just curious........................................ Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Greg F. Date: 12 Apr 01 - 09:31 PM Troll, I didn't say I BELIEVED it, only that it was no more far-fetched than some of the right-wing garbage that's actually been bandied about. :-) I'm actually no fan of Clinton's or of the "New Democrats" a.k.a. moderate Republicans. As far as the benefit being "undefinable", have you missed the reports that since the "incident" congressmen are falling over one another in the rush to support the sale to Taiwan?- seems pretty concrete ta me. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Troll Date: 12 Apr 01 - 09:18 PM Greg, the idea that the whole thing was staged to give Bush some kind of undefinable advantage is a little far out, even for a confirmed Clintonista like you. I do not believe that the pilot exists who could engineer a mid-air collision with such precision that his own plane was not too badly damaged to make a safe landing. While it's fun (I guess) to speculate on such things, actually POSTING them is another matter. But, a good laugh is always in order, so thanks for that at least. Sean So Clinton kept the economy aloft during his administration? But the Liberals claim that he was unable to get many of his programs passed because of a Republican dominated Congress. Amazing that he could do the one but not the other. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: MAV Date: 12 Apr 01 - 08:55 PM Uncle Jerque, would it be TOO hard to just be polite? There you go again, NAMECALLING and lecturing others on.... "Politeness"? All the conservatives must be reading people like you and thinking, "Please stop being on my side!"
Yeah, he said almost the same exact thing to me.
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.
What?
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.
HUH?
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.
Unbelievable.
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.
Of course he will, it happened under his watch. He put in place a competent everything.
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.
You don't suppose he "very sorried" the democRATs too, do you?
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.
Looks like most of the raping and drilling in the last eight years has been in the White House. I think if you check, most of the paving can be found in the BLUE AREAS of the 2000 election map!!!
There's my 2 bits' worth. Flame away.
What are you doing agreeing with us? Trying to "Spaw" us? Maybe you should re-think this one.
mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Naemanson Date: 12 Apr 01 - 08:05 PM Well, as I see it the colision was an accident. I refuse to speculate on who might have been at fault but I can guarantee a pilot does not ram another plane in mid air on purpose! I grant the Shrub enough credit to recognize that Colin Powell and the permanent civil servants that make up the State department pulled his butt out of the fire. I grant the Shrub's handlers enough credit that they managed to stay out of the way while the career diplomats got the job done. And they managed to keep the Resident of the White House from stuumbling all over himself. And any credit I grant him is revoked in the light of his budget and the reduction of funding for some of the most important programs we have going, such as the alternative energy research, and the foolish attack on the education system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: DougR Date: 12 Apr 01 - 07:48 PM Guest P&P, I do not believe that the aforesaid Chinese former restaurant owner from Arkansas was exonorated as you suggest. Seems to me he struck a plea bargain, and sang his little heart out. Or do I have him mixed up with another of Clinton's cronies? If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will inform me. I think his name was Charlie Tree or something like that. Bush is damned whatever he does by the Sharks on the Mudcat. Even if he did something extradordinarily outstanding, they would never give him credit for it. I'm sure it worries him mightly. Whatever, the troops are back on U. S. soil and the sky did not fall on us. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: kendall Date: 12 Apr 01 - 07:40 PM Doug, I went back and re read my post, but, I fail to see how you concluded that I was apologizing for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.They had their reasons, thats all I said.I did not say they were justified according to OUR way of thinking. I dont recall that they, or anyone else complained when we declared war on Spain so we could grab its bases around the world.We had our time of imperialism too. |
|
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.
|
|
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,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 - 06:45 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 - 06:42 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 - 06:38 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 - 06:30 PM Geez, thanks for stirring the waters, Greg! |
|
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,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: 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,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 - 06:00 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,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: 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,Matt_R Date: 12 Apr 01 - 03:55 PM Bush rules, especially "Machinehead". |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:03 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:18 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: 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: 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: 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: 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. |