China shot us down!

[Bires]

Crazyace (and everyone else):
The rules of international airspace clearly state that the smaller, more agile aircraft must yield to the larger, less manuverable craft.
If the Chinese pilot was obeying the rules, tell me how it could possibly be our fault?
Saying our recon plane rammed the little fighter is ridiculous! It lacks the physical ability!

Once again, Crazyace demostrates his complete lack of patriotism and knowledge of the situation.

[LPMiller]

just because you disagree with CA, you have no call at all to question the man's patriotism.

I'm as patriotic as the next guy - but this needs to end before it gets any more silly. Seems to be the priotiy is those men and women in China, not some semantics on whose fault it was. as long as 'sorry' doesn't mean giving something up, get those people home.

[TheLoneGunman]

First, there was no "shot" as your subject states.

Second, if you were at a party and a big man with a gun bumped into you and spilled your drink, and asked YOU to apologize, would you start discussing "right of way" with him or would you just apologize to diffuse the situation.

The Son of a Bush, has no concept of nuclear tipped ICBMs. We HAVE NO MISSLE DEFENSE! If China went bezerk, you can kiss the US and the rest of the world goodbye. Sure, we could nuke them back and destroy the world, but who cares? It is a volatile situation and machismo has no place here.

[gwilks98]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
First, there was no "shot" as your subject states.

Second, if you were at a party and a big man with a gun bumped into you and spilled your drink, and asked YOU to apologize, would you start discussing "right of way" with him or would you just apologize to diffuse the situation.

The Son of a Bush, has no concept of nuclear tipped ICBMs. We HAVE NO MISSLE DEFENSE! If China went bezerk, you can kiss the US and the rest of the world goodbye. Sure, we could nuke them back and destroy the world, but who cares? It is a volatile situation and machismo has no place here.


You're argument's backwards bud. The "big guy" was not the aggressor in this case. That's like some little shit cutting in front of me in a salad bar line and dropping his plate. Screw him, pass the chic peas.
Think of it in terms of autodriving. Would you expect larger, slower moving vehicles (semi's) to try to avoid getting in the way of some jackass doing 90 in a corvette.
The fact of the matter is, the more manuverable, the more responsibility in avoiding the accident. I'm under the impression that those fighters were tailing our plane for miles. This sounds like belligerent ingorance on their part for causing the collision.

Also, I'm not a fan of G.W., but I don't think the nation has any room to lose face once it takes a position like this. (ESPECIALLY since he's in his first 100 days) Apology my ass. They escalated the situation to this. We're not asking an apology from japanese fishermen for hitting them with a submarine. It was blatantly OUR fault.

[TheLoneGunman]

You seem to have missed my point. The "big guy" in my analogy was CHINA! I agree that it was more their fault than ours, but still, I don't feel like being toast because GW has an ego.

We can threaten Japan because we have a stronger military. We cannot threaten China.

[helius]

Am I the only one who's finding this whole incident just a tad funny/silly? All this... egotism. :)

The sad thing is... the media (both the ones in US and China) are responsible for making this into more headline worthy crap. :laugh:

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by Bires
Once again, Crazyace demostrates his complete lack of patriotism and knowledge of the situation.
And you just demonstrate how tightly that flag is wrapped around your eyes.

Lookit, the operative question is are we supposed to be flying around some other country and spying on them? Don't give me the semantic bullshit about the difference between "reconnisance" and "spying"; there isn't one. Spying is spying.

Whether we're technically allowed to be there or not ignores the common sense of the whole thing; it's like a murdered getting off because of improper police technique. Sure, you're free, but it doesn't change the fact that you did something wrong in the first place.

If we weren't there poking our noses where we weren't supposed to be in the first place, there's no Chinese figher in the air, and there are no American officers in danger. If you want to go and spy, be prepared for the consequences.

[Bires]

Hmm....pennypinch: it sound like you would have us minding our own business ... leaving our borders and the borders of our allies undefended. If it weren't for our official alliance with Taiwan, there wouldn't be a Taiwan. Same for Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, The Balkans, and most of South America.

Good intelligence is the key to getting things done militaristically and politically without firing a shot. When fighting does occur, it’s the spying you hate so much that wins it for us.

We would not have won WWII had it not been for the UK and US “spying” efforts. How many times has Navy/CIA “spying” prevented a nuclear or biological weapon from entering our shores? Think about it. How easy it would be to float a boat up to the Portland Coliseum or Boston Harbor loaded with a nuclear device. It’s the electronics on the “spy” planes that allow us to see such threats coming long before they can do harm.

[pennypinch]

Absolutely not. Spying is, of course, integral to national security and the efficient and effective conduct of international relations.

What I'm saying is no-one should be bitching when we get caught spying, 'cuz it's intrinsically wrong. Isn't espionage still punishable by death in the US? I rest my point.

I'm of the mind that we'd probably be doing the very same thing. Remember that ol' Mig 25 that that defector brought us? If I remember my old military aircraft specs, there ain't no way in hell a Mig 25 can make it from Russia to the East coast...so we must have refuelled it somewhere along the way. If I also remember correctly, we took that mother apart, right down to the bolts. It's facially a different situation, but the elemental fact is that we kept the plane and only gave it back when we were good and ready. I wouldn't expect the Chinese to act any differently.

[TheLoneGunman]

Originally posted by pennypinch
Remember that ol' Mig 25 that that defector brought us? If I remember my old military aircraft specs, there ain't no way in hell a Mig 25 can make it from Russia to the East coast...so we must have refuelled it somewhere along the way. If I also remember correctly, we took that mother apart, right down to the bolts. It's facially a different situation, but the elemental fact is that we kept the plane and only gave it back when we were good and ready. I wouldn't expect the Chinese to act any differently.

The MiG came from Cuba (only 90 mile trip).

I believe I have made the same point before.

As far as a boat sailing into our harbor, that is DEFENSE, not spying (i.e. we are watching our OWN coast, not theirs)

[Memo]

Spying, the Chinese spy on us too. It wasn't like the US tried to cover it up as not spying. They said it was a spy plane. Both countries are at fault here, I think. I also think China has "more" fault. Simply because their aircraft was more maneuverable. As to the competence of their pilot, I have no idea. And for the person that finds it funny...yea it'd be funny if it wasn't China and if we didn't have G.W. in office.....and if we both didn't have nuclear capabilities. And for some comic relief...

Did you hear what the name of the Chinese pilot was?


Wong Wei :)

[TheLoneGunman]

As far as planes go, two Wongs don't make a Wright.

[fakesurfers]

I think a lot of Americans, especially the more worldy ones (or the ones that try to seem wordly) know the USA's reputation around the world as somewhat of a bully and bend over backwards to try to mirror world opinion. Hence, China apologists like Pen E Pinch & Crayz E Ace. What if someone shot you for standing across the street from his yard? This is basically the issue here. I dont care if we were listening or sticking our wangs (or melons) out the cabin door. International waters are international waters! China is in the wrong and they are testing us because they think the country is divided. Make no mistake, we are not when it comes to our servicemen. You may hear the loud protests of psuedo-deep-thinkers, but the majority of the American public would support bombing them back to the 1st Ming dynasty if they dont give up their people. So, those of you whining about why cant we just all get along, think again, because that is what our adversaries seek, more people like yourselves.

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by fakesurfers
I think a lot of Americans, especially the more worldy ones (or the ones that try to seem wordly) know the USA's reputation around the world as somewhat of a bully and bend over backwards to try to mirror world opinion. Hence, China apologists like Pen E Pinch & Crayz E Ace. What if someone shot you for standing across the street from his yard? This is basically the issue here. I dont care if we were listening or sticking our wangs (or melons) out the cabin door. International waters are international waters! China is in the wrong and they are testing us because they think the country is divided. Make no mistake, we are not when it comes to our servicemen. You may hear the loud protests of psuedo-deep-thinkers, but the majority of the American public would support bombing them back to the 1st Ming dynasty if they dont give up their people. So, those of you whining about why cant we just all get along, think again, because that is what our adversaries seek, more people like yourselves.

Oh look, that makes two posts attacking someone's patriotism just because they fail to agree with you.

How...American. Glad to see we respect beliefs here.

[Grimm]

Point 1:
There is a difference between spying and recon. It's like the difference between shoplifting and window shopping. Spying is illegal, recon is not. If the plane was inside the 12 mile limit then it is spying, it was not. We were not "caught spying".

Point 2:
It has been documented that Chineese piolots fly very aggresively at aircraft near their borders. They will swoop and near miss frequently. They attempt to intimidate other aircraft. The same can not be said for us recon planes. They hit our plane.

Point 3:
China intends to use this incident as leverage against the United States. An appology will cost us something, and not something small. Taiwan, observing a greater limit on recon essential to the security of the United States, trade issues, easing up on human rights, how whould you feel if hundreds or thousands of people died because Bush appologized and had to let China do as they pleased to student protesters or religious groups?

Point 4:
China has nowhere near the nuclear capability of the United States. Their missle program is not as advanced and their warheads probably don't have as high a yield. China didn't get to be where it is by making stupid mistakes. If they detonated a nuclear weapon on US soil, there would be no China 1 hour later. We have a Texan in office, what would you expect?

Point 5:
I do not trust the government. I always question their motives and try to figure out what is realy going on. But until I know that we are wrong it is my duty to show a united front against the enimies of the United States. If you don't think that China is our enemie in this please pull your head out of the sand. They have taken hostages, American servicemen, to try to extort us. It's an act of war. It can not go unchallenged.

I find Crazyace's comments offensive.

[Chinpoko_Mon]

Hmm.. after reading more on CNN about the wife's letter and such... a thought just dawned on me.

In most cases, if a pilot is able to safely eject from his/her failing aircraft, they have a pretty good chance of surviving right?

Is it possible? (in everyone's opinion) that the Chinese gov't would "rescue" their own and then keep him locked up away from the prying eyes of the world. So as to leverage an apology from the U.S. Afterwhich the pilot would "surface" again? OR to avoid any possible leak, that the pilot has already been "dealt" with and remained a casualty caused by the US surveillance plane's "reckless" flying (as claimed by the Chinese)?...

I think the second is quite possible...

[helius]

Originally posted by Chinpoko_Mon
Hmm.. after reading more on CNN about the wife's letter and such... a thought just dawned on me.

In most cases, if a pilot is able to safely eject from his/her failing aircraft, they have a pretty good chance of surviving right?

Is it possible? (in everyone's opinion) that the Chinese gov't would "rescue" their own and then keep him locked up away from the prying eyes of the world. So as to leverage an apology from the U.S. Afterwhich the pilot would "surface" again? OR to avoid any possible leak, that the pilot has already been "dealt" with and remained a casualty caused by the US surveillance plane's "reckless" flying (as claimed by the Chinese)?...

I think the second is quite possible...


Anything is possible. Remember though, no news reporter is unbiased, whether they work for "the west" or "the commies". :)

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by evilcyclops

Point 5:
I do not trust the government. I always question their motives and try to figure out what is realy going on. But until I know that we are wrong it is my duty to show a united front against the enimies of the United States. If you don't think that China is our enemie in this please pull your head out of the sand. They have taken hostages, American servicemen, to try to extort us. It's an act of war. It can not go unchallenged.

I find Crazyace's comments offensive.

No. Your duty is to question. We were given a first amendment for a reason. It wasn't so any idiot could have an opinion. It was to have the ability to question government without fear of getting your butt smacked around.

That means, they can and will question the government, even when others feel it isn't their time to do so. It doesn't matter, however, what those others think. Because it is your right and your duty to question, just as much as it is to serve in the armed forces, or pay your taxes, or whatever.

If CA and the others were like "screw the service men" ala 'Nam, I'd find that offensive. I still wouldn't question their patriotism.

You do, of course, have the right to be offended.

What you have said, "But until I know that we are wrong it is my duty to show a united front against the enimies of the United States", Means you will support the government until you feel they are wrong.

Just because CA or LG have decided ahead of you that the government is wrong, doesn't in fact make those guys wrong. Or less american.

[Tankman]

Sorry, but I have to go with my patriotic brethren on this one. This is a matter of principle. The Chinese gov't is asking us to kiss their feet in front of the world for their mistake. Yes, that is exactly what apologizing will mean. Why should President Bush do this?

Those of you who think the US is wrong, think about the other possible outcomes of that boneheaded Chinese pilot flying too close to the EP-3. Let's say he recovered from the collision with quite a bit of damage and the EP-3 and it's 24 crewmen went plunging to their deaths. Then the Chinese proceeded to ask for an apology for damaging their plane. How would you feel about that? Would you still think that we were at fault for observing their country from international airspace. That is what you are saying, isn't it?

Our personnel are safe and being well-treated for the time being. China will find themselves quickly isolated if they decide to treat them otherwise. They have too much at stake in the world to do otherwise.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by evilcyclops
Point 1:
There is a difference between spying and recon. It's like the difference between shoplifting and window shopping. Spying is illegal, recon is not. If the plane was inside the 12 mile limit then it is spying, it was not. We were not "caught spying".

Point 5:
I do not trust the government. I always question their motives and try to figure out what is realy going on. But until I know that we are wrong it is my duty to show a united front against the enimies of the United States. If you don't think that China is our enemie in this please pull your head out of the sand. They have taken hostages, American servicemen, to try to extort us. It's an act of war. It can not go unchallenged.

I find Crazyace's comments offensive.

Two things:

1) The shopping analogy is clearly erroneous, and you know it. Last I checked, you didn't read confidential e-mails and EM transmissions when you went window shopping. Yes, that's what the plane can do. Your attempt to make spying sound innocuous just doesn't work, because you're trying to differentiate spying and recon by location. That would make spy sattellites non-spy sattellites? Lexiconic trickery is an age-old trick of governments, and it appears you've been taken in hook, line and sinker, which brings me to my next point...

2) It has never, EVER been your "patriotic" duty to provide unconditional support for your country's actions. Frankly, the most patriotic thing to do is to decide for yourself what is right, and support that course of action. I doubt anyone would ever categorize Nazi supporters and sympathizers as patriotic!

[Memo]

I don't doubt that the US was spying, they know it and they aren't denying it. As far as patriotism, I think MANY MANY people would say the Nazi's followed Hitler due to their patriotism.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by UT Memo
As far as patriotism, I think MANY MANY people would say the Nazi's followed Hitler due to their patriotism.

Ah, you see, you're confusing patriotism for a blind acceptance of a country's policy. I think Germany might have been a better place if more people HAD questioned what was going on...yes-no?

[The Happy Squirrel]

Hitler?
hehe i saw something interesting today

Take a one dollar bill and apencil
traw a mustasch and a lower hair line on george and he look very much like hitler

[Memo]

I didn't say *I* would call it patriotism i said MANY people would.


patriotism n : love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it

[ironchef]

Originally posted by Tankman
Those of you who think the US is wrong, think about the other possible outcomes of that boneheaded Chinese pilot flying too close to the EP-3. Let's say he recovered from the collision with quite a bit of damage and the EP-3 and it's 24 crewmen went plunging to their deaths. Then the Chinese proceeded to ask for an apology for damaging their plane. How would you feel about that? Would you still think that we were at fault for observing their country from international airspace. That is what you are saying, isn't it?

Yes, I would say the US is wrong again here. We would still have been caught spying, the point which I think is what has most folks stuck on a fence here. Would I think that a US apology would be appropriate for it? Hell no! The results of your scenario and what really happened are drastically different. There's been no loss of US lives. If this thing were to escalate into military action, we're looking at a potential for a huge loss of US lives for what amounts to little more than China confiscating a plane and G.W. being made to look a fool. China's foolish egotism cost them one life and a plane so far, US's has only cost us a plane. In the scope of military reasoning, it may stand that the plane is more valuable than a man, but I beg to differ (this being a time of "peace" and all).


Our personnel are safe and being well-treated for the time being. China will find themselves quickly isolated if they decide to treat them otherwise. They have too much at stake in the world to do otherwise.
This I totally agree with. But the fact remains that there's no evidence of our folks being mistreated yet. It's foolish that both countries' leaders are pounding their chests and refusing to back down. Cut our losses now, come to some joint agreement that will make everybody feel better about their course of action and walk away.

[Grimm]

Originally posted by pennypinch

Two things:

1) The shopping analogy is clearly erroneous, and you know it. Last I checked, you didn't read confidential e-mails and EM transmissions when you went window shopping. Yes, that's what the plane can do. Your attempt to make spying sound innocuous just doesn't work, because you're trying to differentiate spying and recon by location. That would make spy sattellites non-spy sattellites? Lexiconic trickery is an age-old trick of governments, and it appears you've been taken in hook, line and sinker, which brings me to my next point...

2) It has never, EVER been your "patriotic" duty to provide unconditional support for your country's actions. Frankly, the most patriotic thing to do is to decide for yourself what is right, and support that course of action. I doubt anyone would ever categorize Nazi supporters and sympathizers as patriotic! [/B]

I will have to disagree with you pennypinch, the analogy stands well. Recon is legal by international law. If we can read their tea leaves from 12 miles out, it is their problem, not ours. Same goes for them. If they can put a plane 12 miles off our coast and learn missile secrets, to bad for us, that's our fault for leaving it out in the open. Broadcast or visual, it doesn't matter. That's the way the law works. We were well within our rights to do exactly what we were doing. Don't believe for a millisecond that China doesn't do the same thing when it can.

Second, don't put words in my mouth. I did not say it was a "patriotic" duty. Your quotes imply that is my opinion. It is not. I would have protested Vietnam if I were around back then. It was wrong. I would not have spit at servicemen or shown them a lack of respect when they came back home. They did their duty just as protesting would be mine. What I did say is that in a crisis we should pull together, not start a tug of war. Formulate your own opinion. If after an informed and reasoned decision your conscious can not abide what is happening, object. Ask others to object. Explain your reasons and convince them. But keep it among ourselves, don't let China know. Show them a united front weather it is backing them against the US government or backing the US government against them.

Regardless, an attitude of "It's to much effort to do it the right way, let's just fold and go back to watching TV" (not referring to any specific person) is unacceptable in any case. Other nations count on our divisiveness and laziness to work against us.
Let's not give it to them.

[jase71]

Originally posted by evilcyclops
I will have to disagree with you pennypinch, the analogy stands well. Recon is legal by international law. If we can read their tea leaves from 12 miles out, it is their problem, not ours. Same goes for them. If they can put a plane 12 miles off our coast and learn missile secrets, to bad for us, that's our fault for leaving it out in the open. Broadcast or visual, it doesn't matter. That's the way the law works. We were well within our rights to do exactly what we were doing. Don't believe for a millisecond that China doesn't do the same thing when it can.


I've gotta agree with Pennypinch on this one. Your original analogy didn't work...

Keep in mind, being legal does NOT remove all risk or blame from an action. An example I've used before: I have a perfect right to get in my car and drive down the street.
But even though it's perfectly legal, it is NOT guarunteed to be SAFE. Nor is it a guaruntee I won't be in an accident. When I exercise my right to drive, I accept the risks inherent in the activity. If I am not willing to accept the risks, I don't drive. Flying a spy plane off the coast of China is the same. We might have a perfect legal right to do it. But that does NOT remove the risk from the activity, and by doing it, we accept the risks inherent to it. Yes, China did something stupid. But their dangerous behavior has a history and a pattern. We accepted that risk when we launched that plane. Therefore, we accept at least some of the blame for the result, even if China is perhaps MORE to blame than us.

A more accurate analogy than window shopping would be a little window peeping. Imagine I own the house across the street from you. I purchased a high power telescope, a laser microphone, and a cell phone scanner. From my home across the street I can see everything you do through your windows. I can zoom in and read your social security number when you pay bills, because you didn't close the curtains. I can listen to every word you say with my microphone. And I can hear every cell phone call you make, to your wife, your broker, your boss.... Damn, what could I do with your social security number and a whole bunch of personal information?

Now, I've never crossed the street onto your property. Am I spying? *I* would think so. According to you, that's just recon, and perfectly legal and fine, since I never crossed into your "territory". If you won't want me to know any of that info, you should shutter all your windows, NEVER talk in your own home, and make no phone calls.

Right?

Now, if you got upset, and came out in the street one morning and punched my lights out as I left for work, would that be right? No... it would still be wrong, and illegal. But it would be understandable. After all, by spying on you, I'd have "earned" that punch in the nose, even if legally I was in the clear.

China is in a similar boat. We were peeping in their windows. What they then did by harassing our plane was understandable. Hitting it accidentally was obviously very, very wrong. Unfortunately, it's a risk we ran by being there, carrying out the activities that we did.

[Tankman]

Posted by Ironchef :
<Yes, I would say the US is wrong again here. We would still have been caught spying, the point which I think is what has most folks stuck on a fence here. >

There is a world of difference between esponiage and surveillance. Stop paying so much attention to what the media is saying and think for yourself. All nations of the world are looking at what other nations are doing. That's a fact. It's done in many different ways. There are no spies on that plane and they were not conducting espionage. As the more facts come out, people who are sitting on the fence will realize we are in the right here.

jase71
I guess by your analogy all countries of the world can now start shooting at anything that is looking at their nation from international space. Is that right? So we should start shooting down every satellite that orbits above the U.S. Nah? I don't think that will fly. Your analogy doesn't work either. Big difference between personal privacy and national privacy.

Anybody else out there think the US is wrong. Speak up. I would like to hear your argument.

While I'm not a natural a$$hole, this topic is very close to home and have no understanding whatsoever as to why anyone would think we are at fault here.

[ironchef]

Originally posted by Tankman
There is a world of difference between esponiage and surveillance. Stop paying so much attention to what the media is saying and think for yourself. All nations of the world are looking at what other nations are doing. That's a fact. It's done in many different ways. There are no spies on that plane and they were not conducting espionage. As the more facts come out, people who are sitting on the fence will realize we are in the right here.

It still comes down to semantics. Spying = surveillance = espionage (w/o the connotation that damage is being done). It's all secretive information gathering. What one does with that information is an entirely different matter and not what we're discussing.

This is a time of piece. We can not be in the right here because we were caught doing something that is inherently wrong and provoking; wrong regardless of who's doing it. I try to hold our own government up to the same scrutiny that I do others'. Would I support the US if this situation was reversed? Of course! That's what military at a time like this is for - defense.

[fakesurfers]

Concordia parvae res cres****, discordia maximae dilabuntur.

[ironchef]

Originally posted by fakesurfers
Concordia parvae res cres****, discordia maximae dilabuntur.
In concord small things grow; in discord great things decay.

[fakesurfers]

Through unity the small thing grows, through disunity the largest thing crumbles.

-Sallust

[jase71]

Originally posted by Tankman
There is a world of difference between esponiage and surveillance.

Let me guess, you wrote the definition on "sexual relations" for Clinton too, right?

Give me a break. The only difference between recon and spying in THIS case is that "Good" guys do recon, "bad" guys spy. We've been all through the definitions, and no one has come up with a substantive argument that it was "recon" versus "spying".

Please, if you would, tell me how this was recon versus spying, in light of the fact that they were trying to intercept communications not meant for US ears, and they were most likely there to glean information about a brand new Chinese Navy ship just launched and still in Chinese waters?



Stop paying so much attention to what the media is saying and think for yourself. All nations of the world are looking at what other nations are doing. That's a fact. It's done in many different ways. There are no spies on that plane and they were not conducting espionage. As the more facts come out, people who are sitting on the fence will realize we are in the right here.


If you think for yourself, rather than just listening to the people who agree with you, you'd probably realize that NEITHER side is totally in the right. While China is MORE at fault than the US, we aren't totally innocent either.



jase71
I guess by your analogy all countries of the world can now start shooting at anything that is looking at their nation from international space. Is that right?


Dunno WHERE you got that out of what I wrote. Gosh, I could have sworn I said that what China did was WRONG.
I think the quote was "very, very wrong". And nowhere did I mention anything about anyone shooting anything down.
If I'm wrong, please correct me, and point to where I insinuated we should be shooting something down.

What I SAID was that China's actions prior to colliding with our plane were understandable, given the fact that we were SPYING on them. And that as such, we bear at least some of the responsibility for the incident because we put our plane in the situation.



So we should start shooting down every satellite that orbits above the U.S. Nah? I don't think that will fly.

Yet another leap from an inference that was misguided in the first place.



Your analogy doesn't work either. Big difference between personal privacy and national privacy.


How is it any different, other than in scale?

How is China's right to privacy regarding what goes on within it's borders any different than your right to privacy within your home? Please, explain the differences, rather than just claiming they exist and that they're "big".

If anything, China ought to have a GREATER right to privacy within it's borders than you do in your home. After all, China is a soveriegn nation, an "equal" to the US. It is not a state, county, or citizen of the US, and thus not subject to US laws. You, in your home, are still subject to the American legal system.

But again, please explain why the privacy of a sovereign nation less important than that of a single US citizen. And keep in mind, whatever reasoning you give has to work both ways, meaning if it's ok for us to to do them, it also has to be ok for them to do it to us.



Anybody else out there think the US is wrong. Speak up. I would like to hear your argument.


I don't think most people feel the US is totally at fault.
I know I don't. China bears a greater portion of the fault than the US does. Their plane, after all, hit ours.

However, that does not make us innocent. We were, after all, cruising their coastline, trying to obtain military information they were attempting to conceal, probably about a new Chinese weapon, a navy ship. Thus we placed ourselves in a dangerous situation, trying to obtain information about something we KNEW the Chinese would be defensive about. We walked into it. Even though we knew the potential outcome could be even WORSE than it turned out to be. The driving analogy applies here. We knew the risk. We took it. We lost the gamble. What they did was wrong, but we took the risk it would happen. We could just as easily have stayed at home.




While I'm not a natural a$$hole, this topic is very close to home and have no understanding whatsoever as to why anyone would think we are at fault here.

Read above.

[Tankman]

Originally posted by ironchef:

< It still comes down to semantics. Spying = surveillance = espionage (w/o the connotation that damage is being done). It's all secretive information gathering. What one does with that information is an entirely different matter and not what we're discussing. >



I can't disagree with you more on this. There was nothing secretive about us gathering that information. It was done in broad daylight in a large, slow-moving plane. They knew what it was doing and we knew they knew. What's so secretive about that. Do you also think it's wrong for other nation's satellites to pass over the US?

Now if we flew inside their territorial waters or over their nation ala The Gary Powers U2 Incident, now that would be a completely different matter. We were wrong back then because we violated their airspace. This time we did not.

[ironchef]

Originally posted by Tankman
I can't disagree with you more on this. There was nothing secretive about us gathering that information. It was done in broad daylight in a large, slow-moving plane. They knew what it was doing and we knew they knew. What's so secretive about that.
Nothing secretive? Why then do you think the Chinese reacted in the manner they did? Did G.W. call 'em up and tell them that we'll be flying a big slow plane around in international waters with all the surveillance equipment pointed right at them? I doubt it.


Do you also think it's wrong for other nation's satellites to pass over the US?
I don't think it's right for any nation to be spying during a time of peace. When at war, things change and if secretive tactics prevent the loss of human life, that's a good thing.

Understand that my feelings about this aren't pointed solely at the US. I'm an idealistic young fool who happens to believe that human life is a valuable thing and if measures can be taken to ensure that further loss of lives can be prevented by not provoking agressive reactions (e.g., a Chinese pilot trying to intimidate a spy plane) then those measures should be taken. Spying is an intrinsically threatening activity, there's no getting around that.

So, Peace, love, dope. Can't we all get along. Make love, not war, etc.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by Tankman
Originally posted by ironchef:

< It still comes down to semantics. Spying = surveillance = espionage (w/o the connotation that damage is being done). It's all secretive information gathering. What one does with that information is an entirely different matter and not what we're discussing. >



I can't disagree with you more on this. There was nothing secretive about us gathering that information. It was done in broad daylight in a large, slow-moving plane. They knew what it was doing and we knew they knew. What's so secretive about that. Do you also think it's wrong for other nation's satellites to pass over the US?

Now if we flew inside their territorial waters or over their nation ala The Gary Powers U2 Incident, now that would be a completely different matter. We were wrong back then because we violated their airspace. This time we did not.




Well, the argument can be made that they WERE inside Chinese territorial waters, if you see a map of what portion of the South China Sea China claims...

Regardless, the operative point here, ignoring the semantic games you and others are trying to play, is that we, the US, were trying our damndest to gather information about something China clearly did not want to reveal. If they were willing to reveal it, then why in the world would we need such sophisticated equipment, right?

Therefore, by nature, the reconnaisance/spying was an attempt to procure sensitive information that we were not supposed to have. The point you and others seem to be missing the difference between right and legality. Were we legally allowed to be there? Absolutely. Are we allowed to spy? Everyone else does it, we should too. Is it our right to procure secrets that China clearly does not want revealed? Nope. In our attempts to do so, we were caught and an unforunate incident ensued. We bear some of the blame because we were spying in the first place.

[jase71]

Originally posted by Tankman


I can't disagree with you more on this. There was nothing secretive about us gathering that information. It was done in broad daylight in a large, slow-moving plane. They knew what it was doing and we knew they knew. What's so secretive about that. Do you also think it's wrong for other nation's satellites to pass over the US?

Nothing secretive?

Why did the Chinese want to get their hands on that plane so badly once it landed? Because they had no idea what technology was in the plane. They had no idea of the capabilities of the plane. They had no clue what the plane could monitor, and what it couldn't. They had no idea if their communications were secure, or if the US could see and hear every one of them. That plane was ALL secrets.

Thus, the Chinese really had NO idea what the plane was doing. They knew it was there, and they knew it was flying in circles. But that's about ALL the Chinese knew about it.
Being able to see a thing does not mean you know what it's doing.

So there's a LOT that's secretive about it. If there wasn't, they'd have had no interest in boarding the plane when it landed.

Another analogy: I've got a nice big black van, and I drive it very slowly past your house at least a dozen times a day. You can plainly see me. I'm not moving fast. I'm not even trying to be sly. I'm incredibly obvious. Do you have ANY idea what I'm doing? No... I could be listening to everything you do, reading your pc's harddrive, or maybe just touring the neighborhood looking for a house to buy. You have NO idea. Just because you can see me, and know where I am doesn't mean you have a clue what I'm doing.

That's why the spy plane WORKS. If the Chinese knew exactly what it could monitor, they'd stop that traffic, and the spy plane would have nothing to listen to. Pretty soon the planes wouldn't fly anymore, because there'd be no point. As long as the Chinese have NO idea what it can detect, it's valuable.

So, quite plainly, the Chinese had no idea what the plane was REALLY doing. And just as plainly, the plane was spying.

[Tankman]

Originally posted by jas71:

<Give me a break. The only difference between recon and spying in THIS case is that "Good" guys do recon, "bad" guys spy. >

By your own definition spying is "secretive information gathering". Again I ask, how was this secret??

<jas71: That plane was ALL secrets.
Thus, the Chinese really had NO idea what the plane was doing. They knew it was there, and they knew it was flying in circles. But that's about ALL the Chinese knew about it.
>

Oh please. Do you really think the Chinese are that stupid? I certainly don't. They thought it was flying in circles doing nothing?!?!?

jas71 post:

<And nowhere did I mention anything about anyone shooting anything down. If I'm wrong, please correct me, and point to where I insinuated we should be shooting something down.>


Go back and look at your analogy. Neighbor plays peeping tom. You punch him in the nose and call that an understandable act. See the connection. So now it is understandable that someone shoots down a satellite.

jas71 post:

<Thus we placed ourselves in a dangerous situation, trying to obtain information about something we KNEW the Chinese would be defensive about. We walked into it. Even though we knew the potential outcome could be even WORSE than it turned out to be. The driving analogy applies here. We knew the risk. We took it. We lost the gamble. What they did was wrong, but we took the risk it would happen. We could just as easily have stayed at home>


The fact that our plane could have been somewhere else or even farther from their coast does not mean that blame for the incident lies there. The Chinese pilot was flying recklessly, endangering his life as well as the lives of the 24 personnel aboard the EP-3. This makes China fully culpable for this accident.

<jas71: Another analogy: I've got a nice big black van, and I drive it very slowly past your house at least a dozen times a day. You can plainly see me. I'm not moving fast. I'm not even trying to be sly. I'm incredibly obvious. Do you have ANY idea what I'm doing? No... I could be listening to everything you do, reading your pc's harddrive, or maybe just touring the neighborhood looking for a house to buy. You have NO idea. Just because you can see me, and know where I am doesn't mean you have a clue what I'm doing. >

Oh come now, tell the whole story. This is a specially designed van that belongs to your major competitor. It is openly known that this van gathers information on people just like you. Now tell me you don't know what it is doing repeatedly driving by your house.

[Crazyace]

You have lost your mind. Patriotic? I feel this:

Those people in CHINA are AMERCIANS. They belong home. If a simple "im sorry" can get them back to thier homes, families, country, then shit, SAY IM FRIGGIN SORRY!

We get them back, then litigate about the situation. I did NOT SAY IT WAS OUR FAULT! Because it is not!@ But if one of those people over there was a family member or friend, you'd want them back! Bottom line: The politics can go on AFTER our people are home.

[Tankman]

<iron chef post: Nothing secretive? Why then do you think the Chinese reacted in the manner they did? Did G.W. call 'em up and tell them that we'll be flying a big slow plane around in international waters with all the surveillance equipment pointed right at them? I doubt it. >

Better do some homework. This is a routine flight that PACOM makes. The Chinese come up and look at it quite a bit. It's an EP-3. They have access Jane's All The Worlds Aircraft too. It has surveillance equipment. What's not to know?

<iron chef post: I don't think it's right for any nation to be spying during a time of peace. When at war, things change and if secretive tactics prevent the loss of human life, that's a good thing. >

Spying, a new topic. In an idealistic sense you are right, spying is against international law and no one should do, but everyone does. This partially how we PREVENT wars. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? Do you know how we knew that the Russians were planning to put nucelar missiles on Cuba? Spies gave us the info we needed to identify the construction of a Russian silo. That little fiasco brought us to the brink of war? Can you imagine what would have happened if we found the missiles there after they were in the silos? Spying is sometimes a good thing. If you know nothing of your enemy, you are more apt to do stupid things that could more easily result in war. Spying and surveillance are but two ways we gather information on other countries to prevent misunderstandings. And yes we also collect information to understand their military capabilities so that can better understand their capabilities.

[Tankman]

<pennypinche post: Well, the argument can be made that they WERE inside Chinese territorial waters, if you see a map of what portion of the South China Sea China claims... >

What China claims is irrelevant. What international law recoginizes is. If the world recognizes this, where will it stop? How about we claim all of the area between the West coast and Hawaii?

As for the rest of your comments see my above post.

Bottom line is that China has no right to do what it did. They were wrong. They do not have a legal leg to stand on. Our aircraft was clearly in international airspace. What it was doing is irrelevant? There are clear rules for International Interception Procedures (http://www.faa.gov/ats/aat/ifim/IFIM0105.HTM).

Lets take this one step further. Lets say we develop technology to collect this same information from over 500 miles away. The same incident occurs. Do you still feel we are partially to blame. How about 1000 miles away? How about 3000? International airspace is international airspace. We are in the right here.

[eSDee]

Tankman when you quote don't get rid of the bold tags, that way we can know when the quote ends and your reply begins.

I agree with Jase and a few others by the way. Both nations are at fault, and we were definitely spying. Most important right now is to get the soldiers back.

[froggystyle]

DOES ANYONE SEE THE IRONY IN THE FACT THAT THIS ARGUMENT IN THE FORUMS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR DAYS NOW AND EVERYONE REFUSES TO BACK DOWN ON THEIR OPINION? ID LIKE TO SEE PENNY PINCH APPOLOGISE EVEN THOUGH HE BELIEVES HE IS RIGHT AND HAS MANY SUPPORTERS...IT SEEMS THAT THAT WOULD SUIT HIS ARGUMENT. IF APOLOGISING HAS NO COST THEN LETS SEE YOU DO IT. NO WAIT APPOLOGISING WONT BE ENOUGH YOU MUST ALSO AGREE TO NEVER ARGUE ANTOHER POINT AGAIN.

[LPMiller]

I'LL SAY I'M SORRY AS SOON AS YOU BREAK OFF THE CAPS LOCK KEY AND TOSS IT IN THE TRASH, RIGHT AFTER YOU TURN IT OFF.

[zenbooty]

It hurts to see logic and intellectual debate trashed as thoroughly and completely as it is in this thread.

I won't point fingers, as that would just divert attention from the fun.

[jase71]

Oh man... we're going in circles so many times I'm gonna get sick here before too long...


Originally posted by Tankman

By your own definition spying is "secretive information gathering". Again I ask, how was this secret??


Simple. As I've explained before. Did China know exactly WHAT information that plane was gathering? No. They didn't. They had no way of knowing. Therefore, what the plane was doing was secret.

But, to be fair, that's not an entirely accurate quote. I've never used the phrase "secretive information gathering".
If you want my real opinion on what spying is, read through the older threads on this topic. You'll find the following quote: "Spying, basically, is observation with the goal of obtaining information which is intentionally concealed." THOSE are my words.

Nowhere in there does it say "secretive". Spying can be blatant and right out in the open. In fact, sometimes it's better to be obvious than it is to be devious.



Oh please. Do you really think the Chinese are that stupid? I certainly don't. They thought it was flying in circles doing nothing?!?!?


I repeat. China had NO idea WHAT information that plane was gathering, or was capable of gathering. Therefore they had no way of knowing WHAT the plane was really doing.

And the one thing they DID know was that it was probably SPYING. They just didn't know WHAT was being spied on. So... don't they have a right to send someone out to look at a plane they suspect is there SOLELY for the purpose of spying on them?



Go back and look at your analogy. Neighbor plays peeping tom. You punch him in the nose and call that an understandable act. See the connection. So now it is understandable that someone shoots down a satellite.

Read it again. Didn't I say IT WOULD BE WRONG TO PUNCH HIM IN THE NOSE? It would be understandable. BUT IT WOULD BE WRONG. That's a far cry from saying it's ok to shoot down satellites, isn't it? Isn't it?

You're trying to associate "understandable" with "ok". They are not the same thing. That's kinda why I said it was "understandable", and not "ok". Because it WASN'T "ok".



The fact that our plane could have been somewhere else or even farther from their coast does not mean that blame for the incident lies there. The Chinese pilot was flying recklessly, endangering his life as well as the lives of the 24 personnel aboard the EP-3. This makes China fully culpable for this accident.

Why do so many people insist that the blame has to be 100% on one side or the other. I did NOT say that "the blame" lies on the US for the plane being there. I said SOME of the blame lies on the US for having their spy plane SPYING off the coast of China. China bears MORE of the blame for hitting it accidentally.

Blame is not an "all or nothing" issue. Blame can be spread out among the parties. And in this case, it should be.

It's quite simple. The Chinese pilots would not have been there, flying recklessly, if they had not been responding to an American spyplane cruising off their coast. They were there because WE were there. It's not as if we blundered into a situation that would have happened anyway. If we hadn't have been there, NOTHING would have happened.




<jas71: Another analogy: I've got a nice big black van, and I drive it very slowly past your house at least a dozen times a day. You can plainly see me. I'm not moving fast. I'm not even trying to be sly. I'm incredibly obvious. Do you have ANY idea what I'm doing? No... I could be listening to everything you do, reading your pc's harddrive, or maybe just touring the neighborhood looking for a house to buy. You have NO idea. Just because you can see me, and know where I am doesn't mean you have a clue what I'm doing. >

Oh come now, tell the whole story. This is a specially designed van that belongs to your major competitor. It is openly known that this van gathers information on people just like you. Now tell me you don't know what it is doing repeatedly driving by your house.


Ok, we'll add in your info.

Do you know WHY it's driving past your house? Do you know WHAT information it can gather? Do you know WHAT it's listening to? Do you know what it's CAPABLE of listening to? Do you know if it's after YOU, or maybe one of your family members instead? Is it broadcasting anything? Triggering anything to happen in your house? Do you know what ANY of that equipment in the van is doing?

Nope. None of them. You really don't know jack, other than that the van is driving by, and you suspect you're the target. That's all you know.

It's in plain sight, but you have no real idea what it's doing. All you can do is guess.

So... I guess then you should just leave it alone, because it has a perfect right to be there, and assume that everything is hunky-dory, right? Nothing to get worried about. You know exactly what the big black van is doing. It's driving by your house, that's all!

Pfft.

Tell me you wouldn't get a little paranoid about it.

[Edited by jase71 on 04-11-2001 at 09:12 AM]

[froggystyle]

sorry bout the caps yall...I didnt even notice

[Tankman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jase71

Simple. As I've explained before. Did China know exactly WHAT information that plane was gathering? No. They didn't. They had no way of knowing. Therefore, what the plane was doing was secret.

C'mon. The fact that the plane has a primary mission of gathering electronic information is public fact. Here is just a simple link that tells you what it does: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-ep3e.html. So lets get the facts straight, large slow moving electronic surveillance aircraft flying in broad daylight. The radio frequency they are currently listening to is moot. The fact is they were collecting electronic signals and China knew. Why do you think they continually harassed the EP-3 flights. They knew what we were doing and were probably not very happy because what we were doing was perfectly legal.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jase71
But, to be fair, that's not an entirely accurate quote. I've never used the phrase "secretive information gathering".

You're right. It was someone else. My bad.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jase71
Nowhere in there does it say "secretive". Spying can be blatant and right out in the open. In fact, sometimes it's better to be obvious than it is to be devious.

Uh...no. Spying is covert. What we did was overt. Find me a single historical example to back up your claim. There are thousands to back mine up.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jase71
I repeat. China had NO idea WHAT information that plane was gathering, or was capable of gathering. Therefore they had no way of knowing WHAT the plane was really doing.

Same weak argument. See my comments above.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jase71
And the one thing they DID know was that it was probably SPYING. They just didn't know WHAT was being spied on. So... don't they have a right to send someone out to look at a plane they suspect is there SOLELY for the purpose of spying on them?

Of course they have a right to fly in international airspace. I never said they didn't. What I said was that the accident was not in any shape or form the fault of the United States.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jase71
Read it again. Didn't I say IT WOULD BE WRONG TO PUNCH HIM IN THE NOSE? It would be understandable. BUT IT WOULD BE WRONG. That's a far cry from saying it's ok to shoot down satellites, isn't it? Isn't it?

No. From your analogy, you are saying that understandable equals only partially at fault. So if you take that action, you can still lay part of the blame on someone else. Oops, shot down your satellite. I was wrong, but you are at fault also. That's what I saw from your analogy. Explain your logic to me if that is not what you are saying.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jase71
It's quite simple. The Chinese pilots would not have been there, flying recklessly, if they had not been responding to an American spyplane cruising off their coast. They were there because WE were there. It's not as if we blundered into a situation that would have happened anyway.

Again, we have every right to fly in international airspace. A nation's coastline extends 12 miles from their coast by international law. Our aicraft was 70 miles off their coast.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jase71
If we hadn't have been there, NOTHING would have happened.

I don't understand how you make these leaps in logic. So if a drunk driver hits you on the highway, it's partially your fault for being there?!?! This is probably the best analogy since both aircraft were flying legally in international airspace and one of them got very reckless.

[Tankman]

OK. Rookie poster here. Why can't I get the quotes to come out in bold? Can someone please help me out here.

Tanks!

[ironchef]

easy stuff, just take a look at the codes that are inserted automatically:

[ b]bold text[ /b] will make bold
[ quote]quoted text[ /quote] will quote text
(minus spaces in both examples)

hope that helps!

[jase71]

Circles, circles, circles...



Originally posted by Tankman

C'mon. The fact that the plane has a primary mission of gathering electronic information is public fact. Here is just a simple link that tells you what it does: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-ep3e.html. So lets get the facts straight, large slow moving electronic surveillance aircraft flying in broad daylight. The radio frequency they are currently listening to is moot. The fact is they were collecting electronic signals and China knew. Why do you think they continually harassed the EP-3 flights. They knew what we were doing and were probably not very happy because what we were doing was perfectly legal.

Ok, we're just gonna have to disagree on this one, because
we're at loggerheads. You feel that if they can see the plane, and they suspect it's spying, then they know exactly what it's doing. I feel that unless they know what the plane is monitoring or transmitting, they DON'T know what it's doing. All they can do is GUESS what it's doing.



Uh...no. Spying is covert. What we did was overt. Find me a single historical example to back up your claim. There are thousands to back mine up.

Spy satellites? Everyone knows they're there. They're not particularly covert. They're still spying, aren't they?

How about the U2 planes? The Russians knew they were there. We obviously knew they were there. There wasn't anything particularly covert about them. They were just too high to shoot down until the Gary Powers incident. We didn't hide them, we just put them up out of reach.

You could say the same about the SR-71s. Everyone knew they were there. They were just too high and fast to intercept easily.



Originally posted by jase71
Read it again. Didn't I say IT WOULD BE WRONG TO PUNCH HIM IN THE NOSE? It would be understandable. BUT IT WOULD BE WRONG. That's a far cry from saying it's ok to shoot down satellites, isn't it? Isn't it?

No. From your analogy, you are saying that understandable equals only partially at fault. So if you take that action, you can still lay part of the blame on someone else. Oops, shot down your satellite. I was wrong, but you are at fault also. That's what I saw from your analogy. Explain your logic to me if that is not what you are saying.

You're still connecting "understandable" with "ok".

Let's go back to the original analogy. I'm spying on your house, obtaining information about you, legally, that you don't want to reveal. When I happen to wander out in the street, you come out, and because you know what I've been doing, you punch me in the nose.

Now, by spying on you, I provoked you. I violated your right to privacy, thus enraging you. Had I not done so, you wouldn't even have come out in the street to confront me. Then you punch me. Was punching me RIGHT? No. It was wrong to do. Should I have expected it, given my actions in spying on you and provoking you? Yes. Can I understand why you would do such a thing? Yes. Does that make it right? No. Most of the blame lies with you for punching me. Some of the blame lies with me for provoking you to a state where you would WANT to punch me.

2 kids in the back seat of your car. The first picks at the second until the second one slugs the first one. Who's at fault? Both are. The second is in more trouble because he was the violent one. The first is in trouble because his provocation caused the incident.

Simple? The violence is NOT justified. But it is a logical and understandable outcome of the situation.






Again, we have every right to fly in international airspace. A nation's coastline extends 12 miles from their coast by international law. Our aicraft was 70 miles off their coast.

Oh man. Again.

A right to do something does not remove the responsiblity associated with the action. I have a right to drive my car on the street. I am still responsible for my actions when exercising that right.

Just because we were in international waters does not
remove our responsibility for behaving in a provocative manner.



I don't understand how you make these leaps in logic. So if a drunk driver hits you on the highway, it's partially your fault for being there?!?! This is probably the best analogy since both aircraft were flying legally in international airspace and one of them got very reckless.

Make your analogy more accurate. In this case, the Chinese were there because we were there spying on them. To make your analogy more accurate, you have to have the drunk driver be there because you were there. This was not a random collision like a drunk driver hitting another car.
This was one plane entering the area because another plane was doing something provocative.

Thus, if you are hit on the highway by a drunk driver after challenging him to race... or because you called him to come and get you... or because you called him an ass.... or because you somehow caused him to be near you, then yes, you bear some of the responsibility. Not ALL of it. Not even the MAJORITY of it. But SOME of it.

More accurate: You're hiking, and you find a bear's den.
The bear is sleeping. You creep closer for a better look.
You're not IN the den, just outside. You only want to see what he looks like and what he's up to. The bear wakes, gets irate, comes out and mauls you. Who's fault is it? Well, the bear's. He mauled you. But it's yours too. You should have left him alone, and gone about your business.
You provoked him.

We're really wandering off into semantics here, and away from the core issue....

[froggystyle]

Ok people this is getting dumb.....at this point it has ecome quite clear that there are two core issues that folks cant agree on....#1 is china at fault. #2 is the U.S. at fault.

Fact of the mater is that these questions rely on fundamental beliefs of right and wrong. Nobody is gonna give up their fundamental beliefs for analogys and what not...so in essence there is no end to this....bot views have been expressed in every plausible way and it doesnt seem to me that one holds more merrit than the oher. They are both fantastic arguments and they both hold truth.

Its just like looking at the glass half empty or half full....really its the same glass.

anyways...maybe its time to close up the argument...we've all said our parts

[jase71]

Agreed.

[sbp]

Of course you agreed jase71. You always like to have the last word in everything. http://www.geocities.com/sbp7777/winknudge.x

[jase71]

<chuckle>

True enough, true enough, sbp.

But now, you've gotta reply here, or I'll still have the last word.

I'm countin' on ya!

[Tankman]

jas71,

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. We obviously don't see eye to eye on the definition of spying and that is the root of our disagreement. I think a little more historical research would help you to understand the difference, but that's just my $.02.

Tankman

[jase71]

<chuckle> How do you know I'm not a history major, Tankman?

History is a great place to look for trends and patterns.
History is NOT always a great place to look for definitions.
History is written by the victors, and that should always be kept in mind. Any definition or description will be colored by the viewpoints of those victors.

For that matter, an English major could play as important a role as a History major in deciding the definition of "spying". Even historical context is not the sole reference for meaning.

But that's another argument for another time. Let's bury the hatchet on this one, like you generously suggested, and chalk it up to difference of opinion.

Now, if sbp will just give us a quick post so I don't get stuck with the last word, we can move on to the next great political discussion!