Okay everybody lets stop bashing each other. Also, look at it from a Chinese perspective - they get a plane that has been spying on them - tell me any government that wouldn't go looking for information on board!

Also, China isn't as bad as everybody is saying. Having spent a lot of time in China I can say that Chinese 'communism' is a fallacy: internally the country is as capitalist as the US is (everybody wants to get rich don't they), it's just a bit more beaureaucratic.

The Chinese are no mugs, they know they are morally in the right (if anyone is indeed in the 'right' in this situation), and they know entry into the WTO is at stake if they don't play ball. So, the a/c and crew will come back (the a/c will naturally have been thoroughly examined) and things will go on as usual.

I think we should stop victimising the Chinese also. Lets not build them up into a bunch of megalomaniacs okay! They want to be a world power and they will become the second superpower, but that's it. The official Communist Party Line is diluting every time one of the old officials die, and once they start making megabucks as part of the WTO, you will see it becoming more and more openly Capitalist.

Another point, the plane being 'The Sovereign Property' of the US is laughable. It is on Chinese territory now, and it is a SPY PLANE, so they are perfectly entitled to do what the hell they want to it if they believe it is in the interests of national security, which it is. The plane WILL eventually be returned.

We can have US navy shadowing chinese sub out of us coast. Intentionally ramm it against the seabed. Then hold the chinese crew hostage and dismantle the chinese sub.


It's only fair.

Aviatsiya

I had a great laugh reading your drivel ridden rhetorical 'analysis' of my opinion, so therefore I shall reply to your rant. Firstly, I will state that I have no obligation to disclose my friends name only other than to say that he's a real person, a former member of the US Navy, a medical corpsman, he -was- on an amphibious.helicopter assault ship, and -did- recover the bodies in question of the IranAir shootdown. If you have half a brain, then you'd go do some research on your own to find which ships of this type exactly this was (by name) were in the area at the time and let YOU do the walking to find out more. It's very easy to figure out if you have the aptitude to attempt such. I'm absolutely NOT going to disclose his name as the source information shared is sensitive and I dont want him to get in trouble. Who are you to demand it?

If you are attempting to sway a credibility argument designed to 'plant seeds of doubt', think again! This is a -legitmate- source and the name remains undisclosed for many reasons, one major one being it would risk his life. Just ask the Captain's of the Vincennes' wife who had her car blown up in San Diego shortly after this incident.

So if you are such the 'humanitarian' you have flattered and ingratiated yourself to be and claim you are, then come down from your lofty horse titled "Sanctimonious" and deal with that reality.

Care to understand that? Hmmm?

The information shared with me is quite illustrative of the tactics used by the regieme in Iran as a means of using -anything- (like using teenage boys thrown to the Iran-Iraq front to explode land mines or fielded without chemical warfare defense ensembles versus Iraqi mustard and nerve gas agent fired. How 'humanitarian" of them?) The Iranian government demonstrated time and time again their penchant to use suicide methods and means to wreak terroristi attacks and therefore the things witnessed by my friend come as no surprise.

Do you care to do some analysis of what they did?
Are you a history scholar specialized in Contemporary Middle Eastern studies?
Do you have credible sources to refute these things shared here?

Or are your sources the vast and wondrous media you so shrilly attempt to use as your very own "counter-point" and then completely fall flat on your face with?

You completely shot your own argument to hell, whether you know it or not.

To wit: You blame the media of being too "American friendly" in many ways, yet you are quick to "run to the media" as your source to spew your views of "fact" on the IranAir incident and then utter the word "bullshit" on the other end to serve your own self-serving view of the world.

Simply amazing.
Which one is it Aviatsiya?
Behoove us!

Ever try "critical thought" to arrive at a sensible approach to new and potentially devastating information? Or is it you simply cannot cope nor deal with it because the information runs completely counter to your own (quite obvious) biases arrived at via the half-truth ridden media you so wonderfully excoriated in one sentence and then ran back to in another.

Why, the ability to understand the perspective from witnesses, according to your 'logique'...."Shoot them"! Would be appropriate? -The facts be dammned-.
The number one problem you have in this is the witnesses account given would far too disturb your twisted world view, so you attack it without providing sources to show otherwise. Makes great rhetoric, to look like a complete ass.

And lastly on this point, I invite you to go out, research and prove this "theory" my friend witnessed and shared with as wrong. I invite you to have the unmitigated gall to tell my friend that he didnt see what he saw.

As to the spinmachine you attempted to start up on the "Media":

There is no question over whose media is more correct than the other's, that's YOUR issue, not mine. On this issue discussed, I trust various news outlets secondly and -internal- sources firstly who were actually -there- pulling bodies out of the water and answered the "general quarters" warning, than listening to some half-baked crackpot self-appointed cynic like yourself wrapping yourself with the " bullshit" card because the information posed doesnt fit your pathetic view of the world.

Lastly, war is hell and people die. Even in peace-time. Have you ever thought that possibly -If- that hot-shot 'cowboy'-of-a-pilot wasnt attempting such close maneuvers to the EP-3, with wake turbulence so very much an issue and a possibility, that this incident would NOT have happened and he'd be having a beer and his dinner right now.

But sadly, loons like yourself seek to play the obvious role of the victim being the aggressor in this scenario and fail to understand the US pilot was calling in a mayday after it became apparrent he was going to be shot at! Then the Chinese pilot collided into him! I suppose if the US crew was shot out of the sky, you'd be having a barbeque outside your house over that one..wouldnt you!?

It was -the Chinese pilot's- *agressively lousy airmanship* that cost him his life. Not the other way around.

Lastly, could you ever see yourself as a reporter (aka 'mouthpiece') for Xinhua?

...Just curious.


MAC

Fairly interesting programme on in the UK tonight, covers the issue we're debating. It's on RealPlayer.

Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsnight

It also covers Slave reparations.

Click on "latest programme" on the RHS.

Cheers

>No country would tolerate that in international airspace or not.

Uh, what are you talking about? Recon flights fly over (or near- in this case) all major countries by other countries- the recon flight in question was a REGULARLY run recon flight. And its only slightly illegal to force down a foreign military flight over international airspace.

>Why would China tolerate a spyplane to cross its border?

Simple answer: it didn't cross its border. As I said before- it was a routine recon flight on a routine flight path.

>Why isn't Australia, France, Japan, Brazil, Germany, etc, etc, etc spying on China?

Also because they have neither the money nor the technology- the USA isn't selling the EP-3 goodies to ANYONE.

>Let my cousin (and the rest of our airmen) go. Don't play with their lives.

Exactly. It is mind boggling to me how ANYONE (except for the Chinese members of our forum) can defend this... there are 24 servicemen and women being held hostage by our largest enemy, 14 of which from my area, and Americans can DEFEND this?! I would be ashamed to consider myself an American if I took that stance. And my condolences to you and your family.

>There is no proof that the Chinese have boarded the aircraft at all. Pure speculation on your behalf there.

Wrong. It was released that the Chinese immediately boarded the aircraft upon its landing. And you don't think DIA (and CIA too) has a satellite over the island 24/7? Of course- they know exactly what is going on. And what kind of idiot would think that after the Red Chinese have in their hot little hands technology that NO ONE ON EARTH has except for America, that they won't take a peek?
On a side note, Adm. Criag Quigley said that ''a piece of American property is a piece of American territory that under international law . . . is considered the property of the parent country that should not be subject to search or seizure or confiscation without the specific invitation of the owning nation."


>Let's just, hypothetically, say that China is a communist nation.

Let's just, factually, say that China is a communist nation. They are classified as a 'communist state' by the CIA and are run by the communists. Its as close to communism you can get and as far from capitalism/democracy as you can get.


Like I said before, the US Pacific Fleet should be positioning themselves and step up to DEFCON 3. The US Pacific Fleet itself could take on the PRC. "After a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 72 hours, the United States has no choice but to take the offensive and recall our ambassador, or threaten to do so," Rear Adm. Eugene Carroll said. "The Chinese ambassador should be summoned and apprised of the consequences of failure to respond." They keep our men and women hostage much longer and they'll sure be sorry. Bush isn't going to be soft on them like Clinton was.

For those that don't know, recalling your nation's ambassador from a country is the first step (in a long line of steps) towards war. Personally, I don't think it'll go that far though.

I think the problem is the leadership. The majority of the average citizens may not want violence, but it can happen. Just how many Muslims and Israelis really want World War III to start in the Middle East? We've advanced a little bit since one king could insult another and the insulted king could retaliate with 20,000 troops in his enemy's capital.

Personally, I'm for world peace. My grandchildren could one day see colonies on Mars and other planetoids. Maybe that's a bit far in the future, but one day, Earth will be one nation. The spread of the Internet will ensure that.

The lowest common denominator rears its ugly head. Ignorance knows no national boundaries.

That aside, some people justify China's actions by stating that the US plane was a spy plane operating near China. So what? The plane was in international airspace and had every right to be where it was. As an American, I fully accept that the US government does some incredibly stuppid things. This is not one of them. We have a commitment to protect our allies in Asia as well as Europe. Some people may say the US just does this for its own benefit but let's face it, this protection has provided nearly 60 years of unprecented peace and economic prosperity (both in Europe and Asia). That fact is unquestionable.

In order to sustain this Pax Americana, the US military must monitor any and all potential threats. China is simply the largest of these threats anywhere in the world today. They have replaced the Soviet Union as potentially the single most destabilizing factor in world affairs. By China I don't mean the laptop assembly worker in Guanghou (sp?) of course, I mean the Chinese military (the people in charge). They want the South China Sea for themselves and left to their own devices would squash Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam to do so. Taiwan would just become a footnote in history.

So next time you criticize this terrible US policy of flying in international airspace think about the awesome responsibility that the US has. Whether you're from Greece, Singapore or anywhere else you also benefit from the economic freedom to choose your own destiny that is made possible by US-led stability. The US isn't always right, but in the larger scheme of things, I think its track record is enviable. Ask any Asian if they'd like the US military to leave the region and I think that person would just crap their pants. Trust me on this, China is very bad news indeed.

The chineese are stealing the technology, why the heck do you guys think their just sitting there and not giving the plane up!

Excellent point WINGMAN, you are quite right!

I've got to say that. I may have had my past disagreements with you (G), but you have hit this issue spot on and I doff my cap to you. The paradoxical truths you laid out are undeniable and absolutely on the mark.

The Chinese had best not attempt to hold a "trial" for the 24 US servicepeople from that aircraft. Wednesday's edition of "The Times" of London reports an alarming lead that the PRC may be indeed pursing a trial of these people.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-109461,00.html

If this happens. There -will- be hell to pay.



Regards
MAC

>First of all, how did you know that the professors are NOT spies ? are you him ? who are you ? JUST a STUPID SINGAPOREAN Boy !! ! And why ''to arrest China-born American citizens.NOW THAT IS AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW!'' ??? So can i do anything in Singapore i like and don't get arrested ? Can I come to singapore to kill you and then said ' HA! you can't arrest me, I am an American Citizen!''

Now, I don't agree with GUNDU much, but I agree with him here. The PRC was holding a 5-year-old boy in the exact manner described above. Hardly a spy or criminal. I'll try to remember where I read that earlier today.

And as for FlyerC_B757's post, I think he is right on. One only has to look at the PRC's past to know, quite frankly, that they are a ''hostile country'' and ''smart, as well as devious.'' Maybe their people aren't hostile, but the PLA and Politburo sure as hell are, and they're the ones that make all the decisions.

Long live Singapore !!

The country that kicks you out if you have AIDS !!, the country the bans gum !!

Before you attack China think about all the things you leader bans you from doing.

China may have some big problems but look at the huge progree they have made in the past years.

Singapore kicks people with AIDS out of the country?Hah!! Not a single word of both Oxygen and hkgspotter1 is correct.

You want to know why we ban gum?It is because people were sticking it on train doors,escalators and lift doors,effectively stopping the use of them.WE ONLY BAN THE SALE,NOT THE CONSUMPTION.You can buy gum from Malaysia if you want,and you can eat it here.The customs officers don't give a hoot about it.


GUNDU

Dont start a trash talking fight in here... it is fully irrelavant. In GUNDU's country's defense, My dad used to fly NW 747s to Singapore, and had nothing but great things to say about that place. That is one of the cleanest and best countries around.

Face it, the PLA and Chinese government (I am not blaming the Chinese people for this, they are the ones that are being oppressed) blow. They have numerous human rights abuses and attrocities. Freedom is of no value over there to the government, only power. I have been worrying about something ever since Bubba started buddying up to the Chinese government..which just cannot be trusted.

MAC_Veteran

I invite you to research the downing of the Iran Air Airbus a little further.

First off, I invite you to go to your local bookshop and order this title:

Trail of the Octopus by Donald Goddard.

I guarantee you that you will not be able to find this book in any American bookstore....and hell...it is a book written by an American on issues such as the Iran Air Airbus and the Lockerbie bombing.

Do you research and you will find that this book was unofficially "banned" by the American government; whereby pressure was put on the publisher by the powers that be in Washington to stop all publication and distribution of the book in America.

But you already knew this right?

RIGHT!!

So don't tell me that the American press is free and is able to report the facts!!!

In fact, to save you the trouble:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/octopus.html

The books ISBN is 074751562X

In fact, here is the catalogue as is in the Western Australian library system:

http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/search/agoddard/agoddard/1,54,161,B/frameset&F=agoddard+donald&3,,3

And on this Iran Air 655.

A documentary was aired here in Australia last year on this very issue.

It was a British production, and you know what? They had actual footage of the bodies being dragged from the water. If the Iranians were playing games, can you then explain to me why citizens in Dubai (the destination of the flight) have not seen their loved ones since? I suppose you are going to say that Iran had killed these innocent people only to put their bodies on the aircraft, which then deliberately got shot down? Puhleeeze!

The name of the documentary is "Friend or Foe" and was shown on your PBS network. Hunt down a copy and watch it. You will find it intellectually stimulating, with interviews of actual Vincennes crew members (and from memory the 2IC of the ship).

There is also another documentary (again from Britain) called "The Maltese Cross". You might want to check that one out as well.

Oh yeah...all of the people interviewed in these documentaries are REAL people, and were there on the scene, and therefore will be as credible as you are ever going to get (i.e. they have gone on film and have been totally willing to give their name). However, none of them seem to back up your "friends" claims. (it is interesting to note that the captain of the Vincennes refused to be interviewed in any of these two docos).

You may think I am an Aussie who knows jack shit about nothing, but don't try to tell me that the American government is as open as what you trying to claim. They are just as bad as the Chinese in covering things up when it comes to the media!

As to the facts on this case at hand.

I have not said who was at fault. I have not blamed the Chinese. I have not blamed the Americans. Because I am smarter than to believe what the media says is "truth" and am willing to do my OWN research to reach my own conclusions. However, you, as well as others, are only too willing to only listen to what the American media says, and refuse to admit that maybe, just maybe, they are wrong!!

And I love the fact you obviously think I am an anti-Yank....Xinhua mouthpiece indeed!!! You have absolutely no idea do you?

N766AS

You never fail to amaze me!!

You still do not get what a communist country is. China the closest you will get to a communist country? WRONG!!! How about we give the title of "the country which is closest to a communist country" to North Korea, which is pretty much a Stalinist state, yet still a long way from a communist state! Maybe your precious CIA should learn the difference between communism, stalinism, marxism, lenin-marxism, jung-ilsm, etc before labelling nations as this or that.

I am just surprised you haven't dribbled on about the Military Code of Justice, or whatever the hell it is called  

But N766AS, let me ask you this.

When America bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was this a "declaration of war" on behalf of America? After all, your country bombed "sovereign" territory of China.

Or was that, as in this case, a horrible accident?

Gundu

How does China break INTERNATIONAL LAW by arresting a Chinese-born American citizen?

Going by your argument on that point, Singapore was wrong in the arrest and punishment of an American teenager who was caught vandalising cars and property. You remember the case I take it?

INTERNATIONAL LAW my foot!

N766AS

While you try to remember where you read that article on the detention of the 5-year old boy, maybe you could also dig up the article which placed Vladimir Putin in the Russian Mafia (as you so claimed)  

And to everyone who has missed a point I made.

If China does turn over this aircraft back to the Americans, does this mean that America will turn over the inviolable property of the Soviet Union in the MiG-25s and MiG-29s and other various aircraft which were obtained through dubious means (whether they be via defections or other), and the technological data and production which came as a result of this?

Don't think so, right?

And again to those people who love to cry "Anti-American" at me in this type of post, have you stopped to think that maybe you are setting yourselves up for this type of denounciation by your mere words????

Get rid of the nationalistic bullshit attitudes, get out of the clowds and get back to earth....it is a lovely place to visit. You should try it sometime  

Again I am flabbergasted by the fact that most members of the forum feel that China is behaving improperly here. They have seized SUSPECTED spy equipment, seized SUSPECTED spies, and are investigating the matter further, as any nation would do. They are not torturing the suspects etc.

If they discover that the plane was indeed spying on China, and that those on board are spies, they are perfectly entitled to put them in front of their justice system. Again, what country wouldn't deal with spies in this way?

Let the Chinese take what measures they deem necessary before criticising them. If the alleged spies come to any harm, then the US has a justified case against China, but as things stand China has acted properly, not taking any chances in the interests of THEIR national security.

And again people, don't make China into some big bad Communist enemy, it just highlights the ignorance of many people here. Why should they have to toe the US line? - they are acting in their nation's interests and as far as I can make out have not done anything contravening international law so far, (and by this I refer to the fact that this is a suspected 'SPY PLANE' carrying suspected SPIES, not a passenger jet full of tourists!).

Only if these people are tortured or given unfair trials will the US have cause for complaint, and as none of this has happened thus far, I don't see why the US has any cause for complaint.

COMIC RELIEF, COURTESY OF THE TIMES

Looks like Brissie/Aviatsiya is using two names...pick one and CALM DOWN...also Brissie/aviatsiya...whats wrong with being nationalistic?? There is NOTHING WRONG with it...the only problem I see is that this is the wrong place to express such emotions...

Greg

Yeah right Gundu.

Back to the EP-3, have you guys seen the pics ?? THe whole nose cone is missing the props on the left wing are damaged and the underside of the wing is damaged. Looks like some body was playing bumper cars !!

USAFHummer

From now on I will be using the Aviatsiya name.

And me calm down?

Puhleeeze.

I came into this thread way down the line, long after we have read people's words calling for war against China, calling China evil, etc.etc.etc.

Where are your words asking these people to calm down.

Or is it that you might just see some wisdom in what I write?

If someone makes a comment I will make them back that comment up with facts.

People don't like me for that? GET OVER IT

Also, I love my country. People know that. My country has it's faults, but nationalism is the root of all that is evil in this day and age.....need I mention World War 2??? Nationalistic people need to get off their pedestal's for a moment and just think that maybe they AREN'T the best or most important or be all and end all of every nation on this earth.

N202PA

The common liberal ideology is, however, trying to change this very slowly, whether people realize it or not. This is a perfect example of that. You might not like what MAC is saying, but frankly, as long as it doesn't break any forum rules, etc., who are you to complain to the administration about it?

Where have I complained to admin about MAC's posts?

I have queried, and quite rightly so, comments which he made which I believe to be false.

If I complained about *your* posts because I disagreed with them and tried to have them removed, perhaps you'd like it less.

I couldn't give a fat rat's clacker whether you complain about my posts. I for one, do no agree with removing any of the comments on this thread, because they will stand as a lasting testament to how misguided some people really in the BIG WIDE WORLD!

The only thing such actions can bring about is a politically correct state where no one can say *anything* because it offends someone else.

Oh...so you believe it is ok to call blacks "niggers" or Asians "chinks" or Germans "krauts" or Aboriginals "Abos or Coons" or homosexuals "faggots".

These are all examples of how "political correctness" has changed the way people think, speak and write (as least in those people with a heart and soul).

Political correctness, as you put it, is not about ensuring you don't offend people, but at least have the humanity to have consideration towards others.

But you can continue with your ways if you like. You will be less of a person for them.

Hkgspotter

Don't for one moment think that China is without fault.

I seem to remember when I crossed the border from Hong Kong on my way to Guangzhou a couple of years ago, that I was forced by the Chinese border police to submit to having one of their HIV tests. A test that would prove absolutely nothing. What if one was to have HIV, as determined by their "magical" tests? There are denied entry. This is exactly the same as what you have accused Singapore of doing is it not?

Again, what country wouldn't deal with spies in this way? - Ryanb741, you forgot one but very important thing: "if the spy was seized during his spy mission on this country territory/sea/airspace". EP-3 was in international airspace at the moment of collision. Or do you believe the forced landing is a "spy mission"? It's not a common international practice, to attack spy planes/ships in international air/water - or to seize after forced landing after collision. Or why not to say "China attacked American aircraft in order to seize it"? Sounds terribly stupid too - but much more close to what happened.

Wingman, I'll just repeat what MAC_Veteran said: you have hit this issue spot on and I doff my cap to you.

Brissie, you are correct that China is not Communist, neither is any other country. In fact, there has never been a communist country. China, the USSR, N. Korea, and Cuba are all totalitarian states. They're not Marxist, Leninist or Stalinist. Well, since Stalin was probably the biggest murdering scumbag of the 20th C., they might be Stalinist. Everyone knows what communism is right? The root of the word is commune. In very simplistic terms, it's one for all and all for one. China is all for the very very few. The people live in squalor with no freedom of expression, no due process, no freedom to choose their leadership etc. The leadership on the other hand live like kings. This is not communism, it is the very opposite.

Now, to the person who claims that China has every right to hold the Americans hostage because they are spies and were caught syping on China, I would have to agree with the analysts that say flying in international airspace in a US-flagged military surveillance plane in broad daylight is stretching the term. If you think what China did and is now doing is lawful, would you agree that the US could likewise bump any and all aircraft, subs, ships anywhere near the US coast and then just seize the poeple on board and all property? Think about what you're saying man, you're talking about a return to the 17th Century and nationalistic bloodshed, everything we've just been able to overcome for the first time in history following WWII. Why, the US would be perfectly within its rights to seize all Chinese transport vessels and claim that because they were listening to US communications on their radio, they must be spies. Insane.

I think this is the first time that Wingman, I AND Mac_Veteran are all in agreement. An EP-3 flying in international waters with USN markings is NOT a spy plane, nor has it done anything illegal. The aircraft was well within LEGAL operation parameters. The crew and aircraft should be returned immediately. One would hope that cooler heads will prevail in Beijing and they will understand that they need to cease and disist their ILLEGAL actions. The last I heard was that the crew has yet to be returned but we have been able to talk to them. Supposedly they were able to scuttle some of the classified equipment but not all of it. IMHO, the Chinese are playing with fire. The more they play around with the EP-3 the more likely the U.S. is to give Taiwan all the military equipment they want.

Wingman, a small correction: USSR,... were socialism countries. Socialism means public property on production tools. Including the smallest production and services (cafes, groceries,... - they all were state-owned). There was kind of private production too but it was "individual" - you could work for yourself but had no right to hire. What we mean here by "communist country" is a state led by Communist Party with no free elections. That is what China right now is.

BTW, "I think this is the first time that Wingman, I AND Mac_Veteran are all in agreement." is for me too...  

Economic Progress-yes.

But civility- the answer is a resounding no. Being a frequent visitor into china for business reason. China is by far one of the worst anarchy there is internally. People's life can be bought off very cheaply. Corruption is at scale unheard in man kind history. When you have son of the beijing mayor operating the biggest brothel in the world at beijing, you have a problem.

On my last trip to shanghai, everywhere I went i can see people getting into verbal and physical confrontation.

China is a lawless country and its people are extremly agressive and hostile.

I'm sorry you are "flabbergasted" that I and others feel China is behaving very poorly. Perhaps you should try having family members being detained against their will by the Chinese government. Perhaps you should go through the worry and anguish that some of my family members are going through right now.

These people are not "spies". They are not with the CIA. They are military servicemen operating in international waters under the flag of the United States.

It may be of your opinion that China should be able to investigate and hold OUR crew members hostage for as long as they want. After all, it's not YOUR family members being held.

I have a question: I keep hearing China wants an apology. An apology for WHAT exactly? For them having crappy pilots? For flying in international waters? For having to make an emergency landing?

Please, I'd like one of the "friends of China" to explain what the U.S. should be apologizing for.

P.S. My cousin is one of the "axe men". I'm pretty sure he did his duty and destroyed everything on that plane. God bless him and everyone over there.

According to CNN reports, all that needed to be destroyed, was.

Meanwhile, the Chinese president has departed on a tour of Latin America.

The US Ambassador to China has been called in for a thorough "dressing down" by Beijing authorities.

The Chinese have repeated their request for a formal apology from the US.

The Chinese fighter&pilot are still missing.

CNN is reporting that the crew of the EP-3E Aries II was able to destroy all of the classified computers and data collectors that they were trained to do before the aircraft was boarded by the Chinese.

As for China asking for an apology, I would also like to know why the United States needs to apologizes? They did nothing wrong. OUR airplane was run into by one of THEIR fighters. Sec of Def Colin Powell has said that the United States is sorry for China's loss, but that the countries must move on and end this standoff.

I highly doubt that the Chinese government cares about the downed pilot. If they had truly wanted to find him, they would have accepted the United States Navy's offer of helping the rescue mission directly after the incident occurd.

Hey Mac. I was wondering if you could give a run down of the US military bases that are in region, and what type of equipment they have there? I know that Okinawa has F-15Cs. What else is in the "theater".

Not surprised that the Commies are doing this considering what they did in the past - blocking aid to Taiwanese earthquake victims despite how much Taiwan has helped them in the past when they had theirs, trying to isolate Taiwan diplomatically, and on. If you want to deal with them, you need to learn how to play their game, something that Bill Clinton apparently couldn't do.

Travelin Man, I am sorry you have a family member embroiled in all of this and I pray he will be back with his loved ones soon.

However, this doesn't change the facts.

Regardless of where the a/c was flying originally, it landed in Chinese territory with a crew full of trained surveillance experts who had been spying on China.
China therefore seized the opportunity to examine the information the US crew had gathered about China, as it may undermine Chinese security.

US Navy personnel they may be, but they have been fully trained in the art of espionage, and they knew the risks they were taking.

What people need to realise is that this whole thing will blow over once China has verified what information there is to be gathered, and the crew will return home. But whilst there is a chance that the crew may have information which undermines Chinese security, is China in the wrong to want to find out what this information is?

Please don't take the line that the US is the innocent party in all of this. At the end of the day, international security is a messy business, and the crew just happened to be caught this time, that's all.

Do you think the US would have acted any differently if they had captured a Chinese or Russian plane with sensitive information on board?

Stop making excuse for chinese.

1. According to international law, China does not have right to inspect any ship/plane when it has to dock due to emergency reasons. China should have waited for the American crew to be present and search the plane.
By not doing so, china is violating international law.

2. Chinese is doing the exact same thing with their sub. So how would you feel, if US deliberatly ram a chinese sub into surface and hold the entire crew hostage.

Chiawei, I'm not making excuses for the Chinese, I'm just trying to be impartial.

Firstly, the exact cause of the incident has yet to be established. I do however think it is unlikely that any pilot would deliberately ram another, if only because of concerns for his own life, so my guess is the whole thing was an accident.

Secondly, International Law says Jack sh*t about what protocol is when a S-P-Y plane lands on your territory for emergency repairs.

Please put your political feelings to one side and look at the incident for what it really is.

For those that are interested, I have been doing business in China for many years now, primarily Govt departments such as the Public Security Bureau, PLA and to a lesser degree the MSS. I first began travelling to China in about 1992 and have been there 20 - 30 times (I forget exactly) since then.

For a long time, I've heard different people predicting that China will take Taiwan by force. We've also heard that China have threatened sending an ICBM to Los Angeles if the US try and defend Taiwan, plus a whole lot of other possible scenarios. I've never really been one to believe that China would try and take Taiwan by force, for various reasons. Among them, I’ve felt the Chinese don’t have what it takes. They are highly disorganised. (The best description of China that I’ve heard of is ‘A circus without a ringmaster’ . Also, the PLA has spent so much of their time over the years pursuing business ventures, and they have taken their eye off the ball. Also, things take such a long time to happen, because everything is centrally controlled, and it takes time for decisions to pass up and down the political structure. China also has much to lose, such as entry to the WTO and billions of dollars worth of trade with the US.

However, I when I was last in China (early March), I noticed things changing, and I mean changing significantly and quickly. Prior to this trip, I was last there about this time last year. More has changed in the last year than in the 8 or so years that I’ve been travelling there. The construction of new buildings and infrastructure is mind-boggling. The military is now banned from entering into business ventures, and they are exiting out of many that they have already formed. In the last 5 year plan, Zhu Rongji was forcasting GDP to double by 2010. They’ve also just increased (official) military spending significantly (40% I seem to recall). As has already been pointed out, Jiang Zemin promised to re-unite China with Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. 2 down, 1 to go. He would certainly lose face if he didn’t fulfil his promise.

China got a lot to be revengeful for. It has been treated very poorly by many countries. The Japanese invaded it and committed serious atrocities. The brits seemed to have a large number of their citizens hooked on opium at one time. Although they took Tibet by force, the perception on the street is ‘why is it OK for the US to have a civil war and use force to unite a country and not us’. I’m not saying that this is entirely the same thing, but perception is reality to the chinese citizens. Remember that the only information that the population has to base their opinions on is what is provided by the state.

It is also really interesting to note the changing attitude of many people in China toward the US. At one time, the US was seen as an extremely formidable force. Now, China is detecting a weaker enemy. A case in point is the bombing of the USS Cole. Remember back to when the US Embassies in Africa were bombed? The US retaliated swiftly by sending cruise missiles in to Sudan and Afghanistan. But, what have they done about the Cole bombing? Nothing. So, China will be using the issue of the EP3 to see if the US are still as strong as they once were.

Taking everything into consideration, I do believe there will be a major military conflict between the US and China by about 2005 / 2006, and I think Taiwan will be the catalyst. Based on what Chris ways, they probably won’t get very far. But, they will certainly give it a go (in my opinion).

Anyhow, more food for thought…

Cheers
B744

Also, never underestimate Chinese patriotism. The first class taken by Chinese children at school is entitled 'I am Chinese', and covers all the atrocities committed by the Japanese, China's glorious history, and the events of the Revolution. However, I don't believe that there will be a major conflict because within a decade a lot of the PRP cronies will have died off. Once the Chinese see how profitable a free market economy can be, they will 'adapt' their stance. The Chinese are very good at seizing an opportunity.

>When America bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was this a "declaration of war" on behalf of America?

I really can't tell you what was going through your beloved Bill Clinton's mind.

>While you try to remember where you read that article on the detention of the 5-year old boy, maybe you could also dig up the article which placed Vladimir Putin in the Russian Mafia (as you so claimed)

I don't think that's what I said- I didn't say he was IN the Russian mafia, I said he had ties to the mafia and -hmmm- a 'conflict of interest'.

>They have seized SUSPECTED spy equipment, seized SUSPECTED spies, and are investigating the matter further, as any nation would do.

Tell me why this hasn't happened yet, then. They've been running these types of flights for decades.

>THe whole nose cone is missing the props on the left wing are damaged and the underside of the wing is damaged.

Yes, the nose cone IS gone! Guess what is in the nose cone? SOPHISTICATED RADAR EQUIPMENT. The ChiComs couldn't wait to get their dirty little paws on it.

>According to CNN reports, all that needed to be destroyed, was.

We can only hope and pray.

>What else is in the "theater".


I'm not MAC, but I can tell you that as far as the United States Navy goes, there is one carrier group (USS Kitty Hawk) in the South China Sea. There were more battleships and such, but they were recalled to San Diego (hmmm....) shortly after the attack on the EP-3.

>it landed in Chinese territory with a crew full of trained surveillance experts who had been spying on China.

Yes. And no. It was threatened to be fired on by the remaining Red fighter when it called mayday... the ChiCom forced the EP3 down into China. They pretty much had no choice but to put her down in the ocean. And it wasn't a 'spyplane', rather a recon flight. Just the normal recon flight- listening to comms between armed forces in Asia.

>Please don't take the line that the US is the innocent party in all of this.

How could the USN be guilty of anything, except poor protection of the EP-3? The Navy knew that over the past couple weeks, the ChiComs have been getting increasingly more agressive toward the routine recon flights and this time, they forced it down. If the EP3 had only had an F15 on its wing, two Red fighters would be lost in the ocean instead of one, and twenty-four servicemen and women would be safe from potential hostage takers.

>The first class taken by Chinese children at school

HAHAHA... their first dose of totalitarian brain-washing. It is sad to see a nation dupe all their own people. Sigh- if they only knew.



My prayers are still with the victims....

Hkgspotter, you clearly don't know about how to fly an aircraft or how different aircraft handle or are flown. The EP3 is an inherently stable platform. IT CANNOT GO AFTER A FIGHTER UNLESS THAT FIGHTERPILOT IS ASLEEP! There is not one person in the military aviation community who thinks or believes the EP3 "went after" the fighter! That is laughable. As I said earlier, it is up to the intercepting fighter to avoid conflict, and furthermore, the fighter fucked up if he can't fly formation. Even if the EP3 hit the fighter while trying to turn, that is also the Chinese pilots fault for failing to formate property and keep separation. This is the shit they teach in flight school. Think about it,you have a nimble fighter with good visibility out of the canopy on one hand, and you have a large cumbersome transport aircraft with relatively poor visibility on the other hand. How could the EP3 possibly take out the fighter!!!!

To those that say that the Chinese can do whatever they damn well please with OUR aircraft and OUR men, read this article about a little treaty we signed in the 20th century:


Treaties deny China right to enter aircraft
By Ben Barber
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


China has no legal right, under international agreements accepted by both China and the United States, to detain the crew or to enter the U.S. spy plane that was forced to land on Hainan Island, international legal scholars said yesterday.
Under one treaty signed by both nations, each is required to assist a damaged aircraft and thus, the spy plane could not be considered to have entered China illegally, analysts said.
"It seems the plane had the right to land under 'force majeure' " in order to deal with an incident beyond its control, such as damage from colliding with the Chinese chase plane," said Georgetown University law professor Anthony Clark Arend.
"Under the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, China and the United States are parties which 'undertake to provide such measures of assistance to aircraft in distress in its territory as it may find practicable,' " said Mr. Arend, citing the convention.
"One could argue that the Chicago convention only applies to civil and not military aircraft. But given the concept of force majeure it is not unreasonable to apply it to military planes because of distress.
"I think there is a right to land if it is in distress" said Mr. Arend, citing both the Chicago convention and the more recent Law of the Sea Treaty.
In another legal twist to the 3-day-old spy-plane standoff, China further claims it has the right to search the plane and detain the crew because it was conducting spying operations inside Chinese airspace.
This indicates China is reasserting its claim to much of the South China Sea — a claim that has already led to Chinese naval clashes with Vietnam and the Philippines, which are among six countries claiming portions of the sea.
Chinese President Jiang Zemin said the EP-3E spy plane violated international law and intruded into Chinese airspace with its emergency landing.
"The responsibility fully lies with the American side" for the collision with a Chinese jet, he said.
Washington and Beijing look certain to continue arguing over who was responsible for the aerial collision.
But Yale University law professor Ruth Wedgwood said the plane had a right to land safely and to remain immune from search.
"There is a traditional right of safe harbor in distress. So when the plane lands because of engine problems or hurricanes it's as if the plane isn't there. This goes back to the 19th century and earlier maritime law.
"And if they called in a distress, that's a super-duper case of no right to go into the plane, especially if they were responsible for the plane having to make a forced landing."
China asserts the large, propeller-driven Navy surveillance plane was damaged when it intentionally rammed one of two Chinese F-8 jets sent to intercept it.
U.S. officials say no such move was intended and the swifter, smaller Chinese fighter jet was required to give way before the slower heavier U.S. plane.
Interception flights are commonly carried out as countries send off planes to monitor foreign surveillance flights carried out in legal airspace at least 12 miles off shore.
In recent weeks, however, U.S. officials had complained that the Chinese pilots were crowding the U.S. planes.
Chinese officials and government-controlled news media have raised several objections to the plane's landing without permission as justification for taking control of the crew and aircraft.
They have claimed the plane entered Chinese airspace illegally without permission, that it conducted spying within Chinese airspace and that it was responsible for colliding with the Chinese jet, which was subsequently lost at sea.
Said George Washington University law professor Raj Bhala: "I understand the plane is part of the United States and they can't board it. If they have, they have already violated the sovereignty of the United States.
"But the Chinese don't see it this way. They are saying the aircraft came into our airspace and this is a military aircraft and it was conducting unauthorized operations in our airspace. So we have a right, almost self-defense, to question the crew and to board the plane and examine what's going on in the plane.
"They are not seeing this as happening in international water or seeing it as a sovereignty issue."
Key to the legality may be China's claim — disputed by the United States and China's neighbors — to millions of square miles of the South China Sea.
China insists that the whole area running more than 1,000 miles distant from China's coastline is traditional Chinese territory. It also stakes its claim to the sea on the basis of claims that it owns the Spratly Islands, clusters of reefs and atolls astride the main shipping lanes bringing oil tankers from the Persian Gulf to Japan and Northeast Asia.
However parts of the Spratlys are also claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei.
Since 1988 China has clashed with Vietnam and the Philippines over possession of the reefs.
U.S. officials say the plane was operating 60 miles off the coast of China's Hainan Island — far beyond the 12-mile territorial limit from which foreign ships and planes are subject to Chinese law under the Law of the Sea Treaty, which China has ratified.
The United States has not yet ratified the treaty but largely observes its rules.
Beijing has also claimed that the plane was conducting illegal activities by surveillance within the 200-mile economic zone off its shores granted by the Law of the Sea Treaty.
However experts said that collecting data and spying is not forbidden in the 200-mile zone.
The treaty explicitly allows for armed warships to travel through the zone, provided its activities are not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or security" of the country that has stewardship over the zone, according to the National Council for Science and the Environment.
Japan criticized China for having its warships and research vessels encroach on Japan's zone in August. China stopped short of promising that it would not happen again.
• Staff writer Carter Dougherty contributed to this article.


I'm thinking that the fed govt in China may be kinda stressed out because the local military guys may have cut into the cake, so to speak, before they were approved. Like the locals stormed the EP-3 before calling commie headquarters.

But who knows....

My continuing thoughts and prayers.....

At the end of the day it comes down to this:

The EP-3 is a spyplane and it was caught spying. You don't fly 24 crew emebers on one of those planes that far from the Chinese coast for fun. Those things have a high cost per hour to run.

The USA are not upset that they're men and plane were captured, they're embarressed that they got caught. Simple. The fact that they were caught thouse an "accident" muddies the waters a bit and also helps save the soul of America's liberalism by allowing them to play it off as "something that couldn't be helped".

The media (English lanaguage media), here keep on about the "poor" servicemen and the families in the USA.

I suggest that if these servicemen and families can not deal with this outcome then they should not have ever joined the milatry service. They are suposed to prepare you for this outcome in your training so quit the "poor them" thread.

Remember, with spying, you win some, you lose some. You try to minanize your risk of losing as much as possible but there is always a risk.

I think the Amerikans here need to stop with the talk like it's their God damn inalienable right not to be caught spying. It's not.

Sometimes you get caught. It happens. Then you need to do some spin doctoring to deflect the truth. Lady Liberty indeed.

---->Zanadou!  

(My first and only post in here.)

"There were more battleships and such, but they were recalled to San Diego (hmmm....) shortly after the attack on the EP-3. "

?????
The US Navy hasn't had any battleships since the Iowa Class' last short stint in the early 90s.

Ooooohhh... I am soooo sorry. I didn't know what exactly to refer to them as (battle groups? I don't know- I've searched through US PacCom's website looking at asset placement). I got a word wrong.
Give me a break. You know what I meant... All assets in and around China (with the exception of the USS Kitty Hawk group) have been recalled. But this sounds suspicious.

And that is the point I was going at.

Zanadou, that is an incredibly insensitive remark. I am sitting on the fence on this issue, but saying that we shouldn't feel for the families of the crew members is just terrible. How would you feel if it was your own son or brother?

Why do some people continue to hold the belief that the kind of flight this USN plane was on was somehow out of the ordinary?

The U.S., along with the British, French, Australians, Russians, Norwegians, Israelis, Indians and a whole host of other countries are continually flying surveillance flights...many thousand per year watching everything from shipping traffic to environmental events.

And where planes don't fly satellites try to pick up the balance.

Whether you like it or not, the net benefit of such flights is relative global stability.

There should be NO apology; there shall be NO apology.

To our friends in the EU: you benefit more than you will ever know by the work of these Americans and the members of your own intelligence services.

You managed to find an article on a treaty, and you have found articles in the past which go with your line.

How about producing for me the article which says that Putin has ties to the Russian mafia.

Surely it can't be that hard to do....right?

Until then, any thing you say will not be taken at face value, not by me anyway.

Brissie

Reading your "sources" and attempting to keep a straight face at the same time was a valiant effort here, so I will grant you this, they are the opinions uttered by a few authors (if only one) and as such given their rather low circulation one should wonder why, if the book was utter garbage to begin with, rather than this poorly authored and assembled (the words "rinky-tink" figures prominently) website attempting to prove some sort of conspiracy the evil US government hatched to blame Middle Eastern governments rather than this drug-deal gone wrong angle on PAA103.

So, in that vein, while you attempt to attack my friend and his veracity over what he saw, I shall begin to pick apart your rationale in your views. I have seen the PBS video (in addition to one narrated by Bill Kurtis on TLC Network not long ago either) and both did not cover the aspect of the conditions of bodies as closely my friend witnessed. They both said -nothing- concering the conditions of the bodies. If you read my original post, the IranAir A300 could have had a small (or even full) complement of passengers up top in addition to -quite already dead- ones below. So indeed, thost passengers from Dubai indeed were probably on the plane. But still how can you account for the bodies in the condition my friend described? Was he lying? I dont think so.

You have yet to refute the view that the Iranian F-14's flew off the A300's wingtips (or immediately behind to remain out of view of the passengers aboard as to not alarm them or arouse suspicions). It is obvious you have to become appraised on IFF codes and frequencies and how they can be interpreted by the 'fire control system' of an Aegis Missile Cruiser or any other type of radar imaging equipment. If you overload a target with enough "bogeys" the "friendly" or non-combatant in the area can very well be targeted.

This overloading of IFF codes can scramble a civilian "friendly" designator signal quite easily, especially if you have several of them in close proximity to "squawk" a very large signature that correctly identifies the F-14's but hides the A300.

These things can *most definitely* happen and to dismiss such and then again place all of your trust and faith in a video and a few spuriously written books, while trumpeting a "US government murder or coverup" charge is simply preposterous.

To ignore the -very high- possibility this was a complete setup by the Iranian government at a time when they were -actively- attacking reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers and various oil platforms in that region, the murk and mingle of a very tense battlefield reality, is, beyond comprehension.

The difference is, I trust what my friend saw, and I also trust my choice to not reveal his name, irregardless of the attempt to parrot and pillory that choice by virtue of contrasting it with the producers choices of whom they interviewed on TV, That shows your 'sensitivity' to how much this is a very different issue and gravity compared to the motivations later compiled and used to make a commercial program. So as to your challenge of the media, you need to examine the subject much more closely. You've trusted the sources you feel you can trust, versus mine who was actually there and revealed things that werent discussed at all on 2 video programs I watched (PBS and TLC). I watched the same programs you have (minus one you did see there -I will look for Maltese Cross, I have not seen that one.) So to then attempt me using my own "bias towards believing US media moreso" is hogwash. I'm watching the same stuff you are mate!

The fact is, the scene my friend saw -with his eyes- was quite contrary to what the -producers- made of the video in question. And I -believe him-. To which you cant really say anything nor refute what he saw because you really have -nothing- to say. You cant disprove me.

I had a bit of a chuckle in the attempt to accuse this of being a farce and then scream for or endorse a form of censorship because you or someone else disagreed with it. That's as 'brown-shirted' intolerant as one could ask for, dont get me started on my views of P.C. and it's storm-trooper mentality.
Note I use a heavy amount of inference to that era because I do believe it fits. It fits in fashion, tactics and politik. I believe it's quite fetid to see the levels the modern vocal left has wrought upon itself in -creating- enemies to it's causes rather than practicing things that live by the virtues of inclusion and encouraging discussion -they claim they are-. It seems that by employing these tactics, you create more harm for your causes than good. 'You attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar'. Think on that. I have seen ample evidence of intolerance by the left in this movement and have seen FAR more evidence they'd rather silence discussion because they have already -ordained themselves- as "correct" and above all "unchallengable".

Be it a twisted professor/academe's world view that motivates a "crusade" to "correct something to fit their view", to a certain beer-hall putsch in Munich many decades ago that broke more than a lot of beer-steins I might add..but a lot of bones and lives in the end. There's too much in common with the tactics both (past and present) have employed. It's simply amazing how the tactics people screamed for in the 1930s seem so much en-vogue by some today. Truly a scary thing.

Lastly, I would much rather trust someone whom I've known a long time personally and know their character, -knowing- his veracity versus publishers with various commercial interests of their own to make a buck, and above all, the ability to see the level of truth communicated and felt by looking the person -right in the eyes- when they were telling you it. Far different from a TV show or a book using two dimensional text writing No?

MAC

Hi Mac your story on the Iranian A300 seem too strange, howcome the media was not known about it only few people on the recovery, who had said something about it. This should have blown over everything if it was true. I think the us service man should be held trial in china if they are capture in China.

Spaceman

"Too strange"? How so? Because it speaks of something not revealed before? Because only "journalistic sources" are what makes news...-news-?

I lived in the Middle East before and well remember the tactics certain governments employed there to control what was reported in the press.

One of those quite successful ones I saw employed in Turkey was (especially with regards to the PKK uprising in Eastern Turkey) that if the press didnt report it, "it didnt happen". When it -really did, like air raids on certain villages, etc. So conversely, if something the press didnt report, -didnt happen- works in this same vein as well? So only if the press reports it, that legitimizes it?

That seems strange no?

And if you advocate a trial for the US servicemen being -illegally- held in the PRC, expect a full blown crisis very soon.

Say Bye Bye WTO.
Bye Bye MFN
Bye Bye Olympics Bid in 2008

Hello Aegis Missile Destroyer sales to Taiwan.

And then it can get racheted up an even bigger notch..I see the potential for divestiture of US assets in China (a-la Apartheid era South Africa style) coupled with trade sanctions. They want to play, then we'll make them pay. If they go ahead and put those airmen on trial, who were flying in international airspace and were collided into and then get forced down because of it, then the PRC just kissed off it's $80 billion in trade with the US as there will be no more market for their goods here.

Think it cant happen? Think again.

MAC

Who do the Americans think they are bossing people around? Intruding into other country's business. Taiwan's issue is between the Chinese people Americans should have nothing to do with it. If they interfer with it too much it will only result in retaliation. And what's for the pilot that is still missing, do you not value a chinese' life as equal that to an American?

..Of being rescinded.

And indeed, this seems to say that President Bush IS going to approve the sale of Taiwan's defense systems 'wish list'. I wonder what's planned after this? Could divestiture and sanctions be next? A rumored China travel ban?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/default-200145225718.htm

TTYL
MAC

They are going to make the sales any way, even if this didn't happen! They just afraid China would get too strong! However one day Taiwan and China would unite.