Yet another Bush-jacked thread

[quote=“Vorkosigan”][quote]just which “international framework” is supposed to help Taiwan anyway? the rest of the world practically spits on it.

Vork,
I understand your asides but please explain your main point.[/quote]

I meant that those international frameworks which the US has organized and Bush has driven a truck through might indeed help the US against China. My fault for not being clear. International frameworks don’t have to recognize Taiwan to be useful to it, as they remain restraints on China’s behavior. Although I admit that Europe that Europe has been China’s Compleat Whore over Taiwan, yet still perhaps the useless Europeans might actually be shamed into some kind of action on Taiwan. I confess to being an eternal optimist.:slight_smile:

[/quote]

Not likely in the case of Taiwan. It is almost universally seen as a province of China, very few governments would take any kind of meaningful international action against it. I agree with you that Bush’s callous disregard of international opinion in many areas won’t be of help. But in this case it would basically be subtracting zero from zero.

Tigerman, was there a thread here related to the EP-3 ramming? I searched but found nothing.

[quote=“Jive Turkey”][quote=“tigerman”]
Do you mean like the UN Convention for the Law of the Sea (which also regulates airspace) to which China is a signatory? Because if you do, then this doesn’t support your contention.

Remember the US EP-3 observation plane that was rammed in the air by the Chinese jet? That US plane was legally flying through international airspace when the Chinese jet rammed it and forced it down.
[/quote]
Tigerman, was there a thread here related to the EP-3 ramming? I searched but found nothing.[/quote]

take this thread to hainan… :slight_smile::):slight_smile:

one thing i always wanted to know about this… do the flights continue, or were they stopped?

[quote=“Jive Turkey”][quote=“tigerman”]
Do you mean like the UN Convention for the Law of the Sea (which also regulates airspace) to which China is a signatory? Because if you do, then this doesn’t support your contention.

Remember the US EP-3 observation plane that was rammed in the air by the Chinese jet? That US plane was legally flying through international airspace when the Chinese jet rammed it and forced it down.
[/quote]
Tigerman, was there a thread here related to the EP-3 ramming? I searched but found nothing.[/quote]

tigerman, are you perhaps exaggerating a bit. Although none of us really know what happened up there, ‘ramming’ a plane seems overboard. It is well-known that pilots, according to what i read in the LA Times (jk), often play these flying games. This flyboy probably took a gamble and made a mistake. To say that he used his lighter, smaller plane to intentionally ram a larger, heavier plane, seems far-fetched.

Of course, the U2 planes flying over Soviet airspace were perfectly acceptable. imagine the response were it the other way around.

Well if Tigerman was exaggerating why oh why was the pilot in question named Wang (wrong) Wei (way)?

Hmmmm got an answer for that JB, hmmmmm? didn’t think so. :smiling_imp:

[quote=“fred smith”]Well if Tigerman was exaggerating why oh why was the pilot in question named Wang (wrong) Wei (way)?

Hmmmm got an answer for that JB, hmmmmm? didn’t think so. :smiling_imp:[/quote]

Mr. Smith, I respected you much more when you were the political/cultural/culinary critic. Please refrain from venturing into the realm of humour.

[quote=“Jack Burton”][quote=“fred smith”]Well if Tigerman was exaggerating why oh why was the pilot in question named Wang (wrong) Wei (way)?

Hmmmm got an answer for that JB, hmmmmm? didn’t think so. :smiling_imp:[/quote]

Mr. Smith, I respected you much more when you were the political/cultural/culinary critic. Please refrain from venturing into the realm of humour.[/quote]

Don’t be hard on Fred Smith, Mr. Burton. I personally find his political/cultural/culinary musings very funny; especially all those nice things he says about George W. Bush. They are hilarious. Give him a break.

[quote=“daltongang”]
one thing I always wanted to know about this… do the flights continue, or were they stopped?[/quote]
I don’t have a link, but my understanding is that the flights resumed immediately after the repatriation of the EP-3 crew; the Chinese of course hate this. At least for a few months, they used a jet that has even more capabilities than the EP-3. I can’t remember what type of jet; it’s a wide body thing modified for snooping. They moved the flight path about 50km further away from China’s coast. The added distance and the fact that the jet’s speed is about twice that of the EP-3 mean that Chinese interceptors wouldn’t have a mission radius large enough to fuck with them like they did the EP-3, especially not in an F-8. They can probably make just a couple of passes and then they have to head home. I have heard that the USAF has resumed EP-3 flights for some of these missions and that the one that landed in Hainan has been refurbished and is flying the same old route. That would be a nice gesture to paint mock scars on the body and write “suicidal pilots ram >here<.”

“Strong right arm” was how Rumsfeld described Hussein.

I didn’t claim the US put Hussein in power.

Vorkosigan

[quote]Do you mean like the UN Convention for the Law of the Sea (which also regulates airspace) to which China is a signatory? Because if you do, then this doesn’t support your contention.

Remember the US EP-3 observation plane that was rammed in the air by the Chinese jet? That US plane was legally flying through international airspace when the Chinese jet rammed it and forced it down.

Or maybe you mean conventions such as the Universal declaration of Human Rights, to which China is a signator. But that doesn’t really restratin China either, does it?[/quote]

Oh! I see! Every single convention MUST restrain China or the notion that they could, can, and do doesn’t work. I must have missed that lesson in logic 101.

No concrete grounds. Just, as I said, eternal optimism and faith in humanity. I admit it gets a bit tattered now and then.

Vorkosigan

when you say you hope the europeans will be shamed into action if china attacked taiwan, what type of action are you refering to?

1.) some strongly worded resolutions saying “bad china!”(almost definite)
2.) suspending trade for a while(likely)
or
3.) sending french and german troops to defend taiwan under a un flag(lol. please tell me how THAT resolution is going to pass the security council)

refresh my memory, what was the european reaction when china dropped missles on taiwanese shipping lanes a while back? and this was with a us president in power who was all about international frameworks. :unamused:

[quote]Do you mean like the UN Convention for the Law of the Sea (which also regulates airspace) to which China is a signatory? Because if you do, then this doesn’t support your contention.

Remember the US EP-3 observation plane that was rammed in the air by the Chinese jet? That US plane was legally flying through international airspace when the Chinese jet rammed it and forced it down.

Or maybe you mean conventions such as the Universal declaration of Human Rights, to which China is a signator. But that doesn’t really restratin China either, does it?[/quote]

Well, I wasn’t making an argument… merely citing a few examples off the top of my head that would seem to undermine your contention. Can you give us any examples, off the top of your head, of international conventions to which the Chinese belong that have or do constrain or restrain their actions and that would thus support your contentions?

JB, I didn’t say that Wrong Way intentionally rammed the US plane.

BTW, the US and China held discussions regarding what was then increasingly dangerous flying by the Chinese pilots, including Wrong Way himself, prior to the EP-3 incident and China agreed to a set of “rules” for such interceptions of US observation planes flying in international airspace. China did not feel constrained apparently by that agreement.

removed

you need bush in the white house, broon. without bush, you lose your greatest scapgoat and your complete lack of any suggestions for alternative policies to counter terrorism sticks out like a sore thumb.

I am not aware of any thread here discussing the EP-3 incident… but I’ve only been posting here for 18 months.

Flip, you’re a bit behind here. I have already said there is no concrete reason to depend on the Europeans. I simply hold out hope that they may recognize the right.

Vorkosigan

sorry, i guess i should have jumped in sooner. so have you already admitted that your argument that bush’s cowboy foreign policy damages taiwan’s security holds no weight? :slight_smile:

[quote=“Vorkosigan”]
Flip, you’re a bit behind here. I have already said there is no concrete reason to depend on the Europeans. I simply hold out hope that they may recognize the right.

Vorkosigan[/quote]

The right to sit on their asses and sip coffee while Taiwan goes up in flames?

What other way of putting it is there? Wang’s plane impacted the EP-3 on the EP-3’s wing. Is that a “failure to yield”? “Inappropriate touching”?

The EP-3 is a turboprop plane based on the P-3 Orion, based on an old airliner I’d never heard of before called the Electra. It’s got a huge honking radome underneath its front, and is a pig to maneuver.
fas.org/irp/program/collect/ep-3_aries.htm
Reports at the time had it doing a gentle turn when Wang, in a relatively nimble fighter, “sexually assaulted” the EP-3. Oops.

Well, that’s a pretty silly comment. Both the U.S. and the Soviets/Russia use spy satellites on each other. When you have the capability, you use it.

The EP-3 was flying in international airspace, anyway.