Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on April 11, 2001, 08:01:00 AM
-
US apologizes for the death of Wrong Way and landing on the island, but not for the survellience(sp)...do you agree or disagree with this? Apparently, theres a Navy plane OTW to pick them up as I type this.
Next week both sides have agreed to meet and discuss the outcome of the aircraft itself.
Do you agree on how this was handled, or disagree?
-
Well, atleast chinese did get what they wanted (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Plus their military might get more power in china's internal matters in future... Is that a good thing?
------------------
jochen When I am king you will be first against the wall
Gefechtsverband Kowalewski
Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87D, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190A, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.
Sieg oder bolsevismus!
-
I think you got the chinese pilot's name wrong Rip.
1Wmaker1
Lentolaivue 34
-
Jochen, it was my understanding that they wanted an apology for the whole incident, the survellience, the downing of their Ace pilot, the intrusion of the aircraft on their island...they got 2 of 3...Bush looked grim as he spoke for 90 seconds and took no questions, as if a gun was held to his head. Those were my observations.
Widow, you are correct. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 04-11-2001).]
-
There was just 2 possibilities :
- Apologise (good for the 24 crew and the 5 billion around)
- a "Bras de Fer" (kind of chicken run) (bad for the 24 crew and the 5 billion around)
GWB made the only responsible move <S!> (but not the easiest )
-
I think it was wise to get them back BUT....
I think they held our people hostage and we can't let them get away with it.
Say what ever it takes to get our people back then stop trade with them and sell ships to Taiwan. Oh and vote no on them getting the Olympics.
-
Well, well,well, the Chi-coms may think they have won, but the war isn't over (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Bet Congress does something with MFN. China is no friend of the USA and this just may have been an incident that wakes up the American people to all the products the Chi-coms produce!!
This only focuses attention to their form of government and the last thing they need is for Americans to see them under the spotlight!!!
The Chi-coms have dealt themselves a blow that will take years to repair!! The Hardliners got what they wanted but will have to suffer the consequences.
-
I think they played this for everything they could. GWB in my opinion did something that was hard and not easy with the weight of the country on his back.
Hopefully we got the Aircrew back. Don't hold out hope for the P3 though.
How could a really manoeuvrable, Chinese jet, collide with a huge great big P3. The thing is about the size of a 737 for gods sake. Was there so called "Ace" pilot also a really crappy blind one?
Something stinks
-
I agree 1776, the US has already started speaking with their wallet, and that trade deficit WILL be lowered, I garantee it.
-
I think we should make them pay for the damage to our plane.
-
I think China won the exchange and the U.S. will be perceived as weaker to our other global "neighbors".
If I were Taiwan, I'd worry.
Eagler
-
Well I figured something had happened this morning with the whole deal. As I was leaving my house at 10 this morning the neighborhood was a frekkin media circus. One of the guys from the plane lives a block over from my house and all the local TV crews were there to get their live shots in of the family's reaction.
-
Taiwan is the only winner outa this deal. They will receive all the aid they have requested from the USA!! Taiwan will be stronger for the Chi-coms handling of this situation!!!
-
Hey, I see what you've done there. You've taken a Chinese name, 'Wong Wei' and mis-pronounced it to read 'Wrong Way'.
That's, like, sooooooo witty. And clever.
-
Knifing thru your sarcasm, yes, but not my wittiness...mentioned on several shows this way as tongue in cheek, after the real fellow back in the 30's..forget his last name, but he took off and went East instead of West for a record setting flight.
-
I certainly hope there is legislation in the works to revoke whatever trade benefits China currently enjoys.
------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
My threshold was Sunday.
Say whatever is necessary to get our people back. Then reverse trade relations, screw ‘em! You don’t have to fire bullets to make someone feel the wound.
Zippatuh
-
I have been boycotting Chinese goods for years and I will continue to do so with even greater vigilance.
We should revoke China's Most Favored Nation status. Hell, we should never have granted the status in the first place. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Bring the Spitfire F.MkXIVc to Aces High!!!
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Originally posted by 1776:
... Chi-coms handling of this situation!!!
i gotta ask - what's with the 'chi-com' thing?
i mean do you call americans 'am-caps'? for american capitalists?
i dont know, not a flame, just havent heard anyone call the chinese 'chi-coms' outside of the cold war era yet.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I think the whole thing was a lucky break for GW. With the collapse of the soviet union, most Americans developed a "the war is over" attitude. Conveniently forgetting about the 1 billion red Chinese. This could make reconstruction of the military easier. So much so, that I half to admit, it has crossed my mind that maybe our plane did do the ramming.
-
Chi-coms=chinese communists. Not all chinese are communists!!!! But Chi-coms run china with a steel boot at the present time.
Just a accurate way of distinction (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
My understanding is that the US apologized for entering airspace and landing on soil without authorization.
I don't think that's much of an apology, although Chinese spin doctors will run with it, that's nothing.
It's an empty apology in that if a plane needs to make an emergency landing, you're not always going to get the proper clearance. So in my view there was nothing to apologize for, and apologizing means nothing.
It's certainly not the sort of apology I thought the Chinese were looking for. We didn't apologize for anything except an unauthorized emergency landing!
Apolgizing is saying you made a mistake and you are sorry about it. We didn't make a mistake by making an emergency landing.
Read the letter for yourself at http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/11/prueher.letter.text/ (http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/11/prueher.letter.text/)
We are very sorry the entering of China's airspace and the landing did not have verbal clearance..
BFD! We certainly did not apologize for the loss of the airman.
Both President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have expressed their sincere regret over your missing pilot and aircraft
<<edit: use of the word "regret" was a bad decision because it does in some way indicate that the US was responsible for downing the plane. "Sorrow" would have been a much better word. Although I don't see the word "regret" as being too big of a deal, I still think the Chinese got shafted on this one. They didn't get anything out of this deal>>
Fury
[This message has been edited by Fury (edited 04-11-2001).]
-
US did not appologise.
We wrote a letter together with the Chinese diplomatic stuff that states that we are sorry the whole mess happened. That is undoubtedly true regardless who was at fault.
The wording of the same letter will allow chinese to pretend they do not completely understand English and translate "We are sorry" as "We appologize" - which can be done in some context but definitely not in this one.
Of course that only works for chinese citizen who do not know English and will not get access to the original of the letter.
Also in a few years for outsiders who are too ignorant to remember what really happened and too lazy to look up the text.
I hope the americans make the right conclusions from that and act accordingly.
Chinese interceptor did attack our plane by ramming and forced it to land after which the crew was taken prisoner. That may not rate a war but calling China a friend or a partned after that is silly.
Also, a person responsible for a decision to land a damaged airctaft on the territory of an attacker should be brought on charges of treason.
There are plenty of cases when it is justifiable for a soldier to surrender to the enemy, but that was not one of them.
They should have ditched the plane in the sea or bailed out or whatever. It sounds risky but what the heck, it's supposed to be an army.
P.S. I suspect that the chinese pilot who rammed the US airctaft and ejected was allowed to die in the sea or found and "disappeared" because his action was most likely not sanctioned by the government and his admition of recklessness could have caused embarassment later. Much more convenient to have a martyr...
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 04-11-2001).]
-
P.S. I suspect that the chinese pilot who rammed the US airctaft and ejected was allowed to die in the
sea or found and "disappeared" because his action was most likely not sanctioned by the government
and his admition of recklessness could have caused embarassment later. Much more convenient to
have a martyr...
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theory...I would have to say that I agree with this considering they never replied to the US after we immediately offered Air/Sea rescue ops within 30 min. of the incident.
-
Mrfish remember that for a long time, USA did not recognize the illegitimate government in Beijing. The legitimate government moved to Taiwan, so that island was China to the USA, and its residents were the Chinese. The guys on the mainland were the Chicoms.
-
I don't care if Mr Bush had to wear a dress in Macy's front window to get the pilots back, he's the man responcible for getting them back and needed to do whatever it takes.
NUTTZ
-
DAMMIT!, My ICBM was almost completed...anyone wanna buy a bunker in a nice texas field??
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Also, a person responsible for a decision to land a damaged airctaft on the territory of an attacker should be brought on charges of treason.
There are plenty of cases when it is justifiable for a soldier to surrender to the enemy, but that was not one of them.
They should have ditched the plane in the sea or bailed out or whatever. It sounds risky but what the heck, it's supposed to be an army.
???
Pilot's choice 1: Land plane in China = Good chance crew survive unhurt, but plane and crew will be captured.
Pilot's choice 2: Ditch plane in sea: Good chance crew will be injured or killed, but crew(and plane wreck) will probably be recovered by Chinese.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1:
I think it was wise to get them back BUT....
I think they held our people hostage and we can't let them get away with it.
Say what ever it takes to get our people back then stop trade with them and sell ships to Taiwan. Oh and vote no on them getting the Olympics.
If they would had drop to russian soil, they would been interment, as they did in china.
Almost in any country which isn't western aligned, definately if it was a crew of a 'spy plane'
and more definately if they land at the military airport.
Though, they would be sent back eventually, without a doubt.
-
so do you think GWB should have let Jessy (wish I was pres ) Jackson help?
-
Originally posted by juzz:
Pilot's choice 1: Land plane in China = Good chance crew survive unhurt, but plane and crew will be captured.
Pilot's choice 2: Ditch plane in sea: Good chance crew will be injured or killed, but crew(and plane wreck) will probably be recovered by Chinese.
No choice at all, especially for a soldier on intelligence mission with secret equipment in his care. Military are supposed to defend their country and its secrets, not embarrass it. It sounds risky but that is what it is - military service.
They should have turned towards the deepest area of teh sea, preferably in the direction of the friendly forces and tried to demolish/throw out as much equipment as possible before bailing out or ditching or both.
miko
-
Agree with miko. The safety of the crew can never take precedence over the mission objectives.
Someone should be court marshalled for this fiasco. Either the crew for not following procedure and crashing the plane, of if the procedure allowed landing on the enemy territory, the SOB who came up with this procedure should be hanged.
This is ridiculous, if we ever are in conflict, all the enemy has to do is to kidnap a couple of our guys. We'll surrender to get them back?
The chinese won big time, they've humiliated us, exposed our utter incompetence, and on top of that they kept the plane.
All we got is the crew.
-
Is there anything in our arsenal which we did not give (free of charge) to the chinese yet (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
First Clinton now Bush. This is frikkin' treason.
-
I'm a bit confused and irked by people talking about what "they" should have done.
First of all let's talk about "he" instead of "they". The pilot would make the decision to land or ditch, possibly aided by his commander if he was in radio contact with his base. The crew of the plane would have nothing to do with it. There is no "they". "They" are passengers.
Also, don't you think HE would have some clear standing orders on how to handle that situation, if a choice between preservation of life and preservation of security had to be made? I have heard comments on this board and AGW from people who have piloted and flown aboard this kind of aircraft, and they have indicated that keeping people alive would be the first priority.
Remember that landing an airplane in the ocean is not like video games. The airplane is likely to be damaged in the landing, and it will sink like a stone, giving the crew little time to escape. Even if they get out, they still have to survive in the water, and be located and rescued, and neither of those things are certain.
So it seems perverse when I see people in the media and in here talking about how "they" should have made a decision to ditch and give up their lives to save some fancy radios, when the decision was most likely likely predetermined by USN policy and made by one person, and we're sitting here at home in our comfy computer chairs.
-
The crew should follow the contingency plan (I do not know whether they did), and the contingency plan should make sure that the plane does not land. Especially on the enemy territory.
Should not be difficult to bail on parachutes and let the plane crash. The we could either recover it, or leave it on a bottom. The price of the hardware is irrelevant, the main objective is deny an access to it to the enemy.
Either this type of plane is not really that valuable and we don't care whether the chinese get it, or we defend it at all cost.
-
BTW, I'm trying to say that we should kill the crew. What has happend was completely predictable and it seems to me that we could easily save the crew and whack the plane.
Was the plane forced to land in china by the remaining chi-com or did pilot do it at his discretion (with or without approval from the command)?
[This message has been edited by mietla (edited 04-12-2001).]
-
Funked, it IS the aircraft commander's decision in the end.
However, there used to be ... and I'm sure there still is ... a "Tactical Doctrine" book that tries to give guidance for exactly such circumstances.
For obvious reasons, Tac Doctrine is classified. I doubt we'll ever hear what the current TD says to do in such a situation.
All that being said, in the "old days" it would have been a ditch, possibility of loss of life notwithstanding according to TD.
Some days you eat the bear, some days the bear eats you.
Understand, I'm not second guessing anyone here. I'm just saying I'm SURE there was printed policy guidance somewhere.
-
I sincerly hope future recon flights in the area of china will be escorted. Perhaps the interceptors won't feel to interested in getting real close if there is an F14 right behind them.
Mav
-
I sincerly hope future recon flights in the area of china will be escorted. Perhaps the interceptors won't feel to interested in getting real close if there is an F14 right behind them
Better yet, randomley send a few F-22s with a recon plane now and then..have them fly pretty close to the P-3 (Not Wang close) so that they dont show on radar (if they would anyway) and then when the hotshots show up they will be greeted by a few raptors.. and after a while they Chi-coms wont know if when they head out to harass a plane who will be doing harassing...would be funny to see some booger jacking with the P-3 and the chi-com pilot sees the P-3 pilot point and make the gesture "behind you" and mr raptor is sitting there on his 6 with a big cheesy grin.
-
Toad, thanks for the info.
Mietla, I guess it depends on what the TD was as Toad describes. If the pilot violated orders or doctrine then I'm sure he'll face some consequences. But I don't think we should be so sure that the TD was to risk 24 people to keep the Chinese from seeing some fancy radios.
-
Originally posted by 1776:
Chi-coms=chinese communists. Not all chinese are communists!!!!
If your not a communists and are Chinese, "better to keep mouth shut" confucious say
-
Funked,
Well, it depends on how "fancy" the radios were. Watching the entire bruhaha, one can get an impression that they were top secret (plus on the data gathered using them).
You are right, there is no need to jeopartize the lives of the crew for and old airframe, but I can easily imagine this plane full of extremely sensitive electronics and data, in which case it should be defended at all cost.
I'll shut up now, because I do not have enough knowledge on this topic, but it makes me extremely nervous and mad to see our government and the military allowing the enemy an access to the most sensitive stuff we have. The Wan Ho Lee, Loral and the hard drive affairs look to me like much more than an incompetence. I can see something much more organized and sinister behind them.
Can you say treason?
-
Originally posted by mietla:
Funked,
Well, it depends on how "fancy" the radios were. Watching the entire bruhaha, one can get an impression that they were top secret (plus on the data gathered using them).
You are right, there is no need to jeopartize the lives of the crew for and old airframe, but I can easily imagine this plane full of extremely sensitive electronics and data, in which case it should be defended at all cost.
I'll shut up now, because I do not have enough knowledge on this topic, but it makes me extremely nervous and mad to see our government and the military allowing the enemy an access to the most sensitive stuff we have. The Wan Ho Lee, Loral and the hard drive affairs look to me like much more than an incompetence. I can see something much more organized and sinister behind them.
Can you say treason?
Mietla,
I don't think the EP3 has the latest gadgets in it. (could be wrong) I am sure it had some interesting gear in the plane but the chicoms probably have some of the data on file from their covert operations (spy purchases). I imagine the vrew had time enough to do enough to keep functional equipment out of the hands of the chi-coms. Of course if they had followed international law (as pointed out in Toad's posts) on the situation there would have been no entry into the aircraft by the chinese.
Mav