[Winona Online Democracy]
>My comment: It appears that the Chinese planes were playing chicken with us
>in international air space. Chicken is a dangerous sport. The Chinese lost
>a plane and probably a pilot. Their suggestion that the US aircraft caused
>this accident is ludicrous on the face of it.
Our spy plane entered Chinese airspace -- that, apparently, is the point of
these kinds of missions: to see how the other nation will respond. I don't
know if the collision itself occurred in their airspace or international,
however.
They sent their jets up to intercept our spy plane. These little espionage
cat and mouse games are not uncommon. Usually, the pilots from each nation
will try to intimidate those from the other by flying as close as they can
to the other's plane. There's no way to know from the sketchy details
whose plane was the cause.
> >I'm not familiar with the intricacies of international diplomacy, but it
>seems that U.S. and Chinese authorities are taking a hardline stance; out
>of stubborness, pride, strategy, all of the above or what, I don't know.
>
>Lori Baumgardt
> >Winona
>
>
>My comment: If the United States were really taking a "hardline stance" we
>would have bombed that plane to smithereens shortly after our sailors were
>off the plane. And no, I'm not suggesting that is the course of action
>which should have been taken. I just find it hard to describe the
>diplomatic efforts we are making a "hard-line stance".
What I meant by "hardline stance" is that either side seems unwilling to
back down. I don't define the phrase as the use radical action, but rather
by the unwillingness to cooperate.
Lori Baumgardt
----------------
This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
