Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (136866)	4/9/2001 9:08:14 PM
From: zonkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I can't envision any circumstances in which we would owe the Chinese an apology. The reason I say this is because of the differences in the capabilities of the two aircraft involved. Our plane was a slow flying prop plane while theres was a jet fighter. Their pilot would have had to have been too close to our plane before a collision could have been possible. Our pilot could not have chased him down and rammed him. If their pilot was a qualified jet pilot he would not have been close enough that it would have been possible for a prop plane to have rammed him. When he came close enough that he could not take evasive action in case of an emergency the responsibility for any collision became his. If our plane would have been more advanced (faster and more maneuverable) than theirs I could see how the collision could have been the fault of our pilot. But it wasn't. I think the Chinese are doing exactly what our government would do in if the roles were reversed (blame the other country any way possible and try to turn it into a political advantage.) I believe we would have sent their servicemen back (the ones that didn't want to defect) by now though.