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 : The Arab-Israeli Solution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbn3 who wrote (355)	4/22/2001 11:57:58 PM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2279

I don't have time to respond to your post tonight, but trust me, I WILL respond tomorrow!

To: jbn3 who wrote (355)	4/23/2001 5:40:21 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 2279

a) The plane that was damaged and forced to land in China was a reconnaissance plane. More bluntly, a spy plane. More bluntly perhaps, but not more accurately. It was not on a covert mission nor was it "behind enemy lines". b) It was spying on the Chinese. It was attempting to discover and determine what military capabilities they have. True but there is nothing wrong in this attempt and we would be stupid if we didn't do it. c) It may have been over international waters at the time of the incident. But that does not mean that it did not violate Chinese air space previously, on this flight or another. One of the standard tactics of this type of spying is to deliberately violate the target country's air space in order to determine the location, type, and speed of response. Its very unlikely that is was in China's airspace. e) This is merely another example of the same type of thing that occurred when Gary Powers and his U2 were shot down over the former USSR back during the cold war. The U2 was shot down deep in Soviet airspace. The EP3 was crashed in to over international waters. The cases are not that similar. f) When a Cuban pilot defected with his MIG, did we return them both intact? No, we took that plane apart, nut by nut, and bolt by bolt, to see what its capabilities were. We didn't hold any Cuban's hostage. (the pilot wanted to be in the US). g) Remember the outrage in this country a year ago when Dr. Wen Ho Lee, a scientist of Chinese extraction, working at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratories was accused of spying for China, turning over nuclear secrets to the Chinese? A charge that later turned out to be false? This innocent man was shackled hand and foot whenever he left his cell, and kept in jail for nine months. Were our service members treated any worse than that? They were not, yet who had a greater degree of comparative guilt? He was accused of commiting an actual crime. If he was innocent then the accusation was faults and any imprisonment he may have endured and injustice but probably not a deliberate injustice. The American crew of the EP3 were not guilty of anything. In there case no crime was commited. In the other case a crime was commited and it is possible that the wrong person was accused. Tim

To: jbn3 who wrote (355)	4/23/2001 6:15:44 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2279

U.S. intelligence gathering plays a vital and necessary role in national security; the U.S. intelligence community has ongoing surveillance operations world wide and these operations serve to maintain the status quo and insure the stability of neighboring countries... presently, there are unusually large Communist Chinese troop movements along their borders; the United States has every right to monitor that troop movement..... anyone who thinks the world can remain at peace for any duration of time without intelligence gathering does not have a clue about international political stability... the United States has no problem with the Chinese people, but the Chinese government and their Communist allied factions are sworn enemies against the United States; we had better not forget that..... GZ

To: jbn3 who wrote (355)	4/23/2001 11:11:12 PM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2279

GZ made my response for me... Message 15706689

To: jbn3 who wrote (355)	4/23/2001 11:59:54 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2279

Before we all begin an "anti-Chinese" campaign, let's review some facts. Well jbn3... if the "evidence" you provide is the best you can do in convincing we Americans not to boycott Chinese goods, you've clearly failed with me. b) It was spying on the Chinese. It was attempting to discover and determine what military capabilities they have. Just as the Chinese were spying on US warships. Remember the video that the Chinese provided showing US jet intercepting THEIR SPY PLANES??? If picking up broadcasted radar and radio signatures is "spying", I would think the Chinese wouldn't want to emit them. And in fact, we're all going to have to give up our shortwave radios because they could potentially pick up transmissions from China.. right? c) It may have been over international waters at the time of the incident. No "may" about it. It was. One of the standard tactics of this type of spying is to deliberately* violate the target country's air space in order to determine the location, type, and speed of response.* Yeah.. the Russians have been doing for years. And so have we. And so has China, who transgressed into Taiwanese airspace 100 times in a 30 period back in July-Aug, 1999. But the Taiwanese didn't chase the Chinese aircraft back onto their side and shoot them done. e) This is merely another example of the same type of thing that occurred when Gary Powers and his U2 were shot down over the former USSR back during the cold war No this isn't. Gary Powers violated Russian airspace. The Russians had the right to shoot it down. But the EP-3 was, AS YOU EVEN ADMIT, in international airspace. And it was a reckless act on the part of the Chinese pilot. f) When a Cuban pilot defected with his MIG, did we return them both intact? He defected... Of course we're going to look the plane over. And I don't give as much of a crap about the airplane as I did about the Chinese government theatening to put them on trial, denying them contact with consular personnel (as required by international law under the Vienna Consular Relations Convention), and essentially holding them HOSTAGE to an apology. And yes.. I DO MEAN HOSTAGE, because they were being held until the US issued an apology!! A charge that later turned out to be false? If it was false, why did Lee plead guilty to felony mishandling of classified material?? Furthermore, what the hell was he thinking when he accessed a isolated classified information system (not connected to the internet or any other public system) and started copying reams of tapes and disks??? LEE WAS FULLY BRIEFED ON THE HANDLING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WHEN HE RECEIVED HIS CLEARANCE!! He was FULLY BRIEFED on the fact that anything that goes onto a classified system, even if only a picture from Playboy sent in jest, immediately becomes CLASSFIED. NOTHING, but NOTHING, can be taken off a classified system unless it bears a classifed label and is handled in accordance with proper procedures. Lee is clearly BS'ing, trying to claim he didn't know that. Had he done such a thing on a Chinese (PRC or Taiwanese) classified system, he would likely have not lived to tell about it. He would have "disappeared" forever. And furthermore, he compounded his violation by dumping classified material into a dumpster where ANYONE, including Chinese agents(partners?) could do a "trash run" on his garbage and retrieve them. If he was innocent, he should have turned the tapes over IMMEDIATELY and apologized for his violation. Hawk..

To: jbn3 who wrote (355)	4/24/2001 12:05:36 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2279

Con't... And we would treat that crew and that plane no better and hopefully no worse if the situation were reversed. Cite for me ONE EXAMPLE of where a US pilot pulled the kind of crap that Wrong Way.. err.. Wang Wei pulled, and go away with it... The FAA governs all intercept protocols for US military aircraft, and they directly cite that NO ACTION will be taken that endangers the aircraft they are attempting to identify. And it also states that US aircraft will abort the intercept if the other aircraft creates a dangerous situation (acts aggressively), and they will report to higher authority for instructions. faa.gov 5-6-2. Interception Procedures a. General. 1. Identification intercepts during peacetime operations are vastly different than those conducted under increased states of readiness. Unless otherwise directed by the control agency, intercepted aircraft will be identified by type only. When specific information is required (i.e. markings, serial numbers, etc.) the interceptor aircrew will respond only if the request can be conducted in a safe manner. During hours of darkness or Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), identification of unknown aircraft will be by type only. The interception pattern described below is the typical peacetime method used by air interceptor aircrews. In all situations, the interceptor aircrew will use caution to avoid startling the intercepted aircrew and/or passengers. More..... "2. Phase Two- Identification Phase. The intercepted aircraft should expect to visually acquire the lead interceptor and possibly the wingman during this phase in visual meteorological conditions (VMC). The wingman will assume a surveillance position while the flight leader approaches the unknown aircraft. Intercepted aircraft personnel may observe the use of different drag devices to allow for speed and position stabilization during this phase. The flight leader will then initiate a gentle closure toward the intercepted aircraft, stopping at a distance no closer than absolutely necessary to obtain the information needed. The interceptor aircraft will use every possible precaution to avoid startling intercepted aircrew or passengers. Additionally, the interceptor aircrews will constantly keep in mind that maneuvers considered normal to a fighter aircraft may be considered hazardous to passengers and crews of nonfighter aircraft. When interceptor aircrews know or believe that an unsafe condition exists, the identification phase will be terminated. As previously stated, during darkness or IMC identification of unknown aircraft will be by type only. Positive vertical separation will be maintained by interceptor aircraft throughout this phase. I do not consider that grounds for a major anti-Chinese campaign If I keep hearing crap like yours, where you DELIBERATELY misrepresent the facts, and try to justify the Chinese pilot and government's behavior (their aggression and extorsion), then I'll never knowingly buy another Chinese product ever again. (at least until the communist government falls or faces a viable opposition political party). I'm not upset with the Chinese people here. But I am upset with these old communist bastages in Bejing thinking they can ship 1/2 off of their foreign exports to the US and think they can get away with extorting this nation. I'm all for NAFTA.. we don't need China. We can produce toys and widgets anywere. I'd rather invest the money in Latin America were there are fledgling democracies, than propping up a bunch of corrupt communists clinging to their last vestiges of power. Better to treat China like the former Soviet Union. There simply won't be a change in China until there exists a political opposition that represents an alternative economic solution. So try again jbn3... We're not the stupid and barbaric "foreign devils" that many Chinese extremists take delight in calling. In fact, were it not for the US, China might have been conquered by Japan during WWII. Remember the "flying tigers".. and the US generals and officers who trained and armed the Chinese forces under Chiang Kai Shek?? I'll be waiting for your response to see if you can change my mind about "buying Chinese"...