I created this thread in this particular forum because although an Olympic boycott is a political thing between China and other nations, there is also an underlying ethnic issue that really disturbs me. At least I think it's an ethnic issue and I'll explain why........

Back on 7Aug2007, I created a thread here on about a resolution Congresswoman Maxine Waters had introduced before Congress concerning US participation in the upcoming Olympic Games in China. You can read that thread here. Congresswoman Waters' concerns at that time involved the genocide happening in Darfur and the Chinese government's complicity in that human tragedy. And, while we had a useful debate on the subject, to my knowledge nothing really ever came from Waters' resolution in the national or international political arena. That is unfortunate in my opinion not only because it was a rare event for me finding myself in agreement with Maxine Waters, but because I truly believe it might have made a difference for the people suffering in Darfur.

Ok, fast forward to today and reference this article on Politico. From that article.......



Hello? What in the hell took them so long? How many people have died since back in August and why is this all of a sudden become an "issue"? Is it because of the Chinese crackdown in Tibet? That sure seems to have been the flash point for the European leaders. Where were they last August, and for that matter where were our political leaders when Maxine Waters was calling for something to be done for the people of Darfur? Is their plight less significant than those in Tibet, or are people in Africa less important than those living on other continents? Is this a racial thing? These are all questions posed for debate, although less formally than normal. So, I'll pose one formal one to get the ball rolling......

Why was the Chinese government's complicity in the genocide happening in Darfur largely ignored prior to the crackdown in Tibet?


Aquilla

Oh man this is easy.

Why was the Chinese government's complicity in the genocide happening in Darfur largely ignored prior to the crackdown in Tibet?
Do Darfurians provide cheap labor and lead-tainted cheap goods? Do Darfurians export oil? Do they have representation on the world stage like an ambassador capable of spinning the crisis right in the capitol to denounce the "economic sanctions" proposed by the president, sanctions that don't hit the country's largest companies for fear of alienating China? Is there a Darfurian army?

No, no and no?

Then the requisite response is: who cares?

I'd wager our morals will not outweigh our economic interests, love of sports will numb our misgivings and we'll ignore Tibetan sovereignty (but continue supporting Kosovo's).

Hear her!

Well said Lesly.



For the reasons stated above, but also I think because there's no friendlier-than-a-teddy bear Dalai lama preaching feel good on behalf of the darker than dark Darfurians and because Muslims committing genocide is simply freedom of religion in a world where the OIC controls the UNHRC.

The whole Olympic thing is a farce and I for one shall not watch any of it.

Well maybe – but who cares? Certainly not the world. If they did you would think the body that we all (countries) give billions to would do something about it. (UN if you havn’t guessed).

Ditto to what was said. Furthermore I don't think China is any more or any less culpable for the Darfour crisis then other countries in the world. The world knew/knows about the horrors in Darfour; but instead of acting on the genocide they found ways to call it everything but genocide. It was called ethnic cleansing or tribal fighting. If it was called Genocide the world would have been under an obligation to act. So I don't think we can say China has a greater responsibility becuase they have economic ties to the region.

I put this thread into the "Race Issues" forum for a reason. It has nothing to do with sports or cheap goods from China. It actually has nothing really to do with China's policies at all. Those were referenced in the other thread I started in August. THIS thread is about what I see as a classic double standard on the part of the world community. Back in August there appeared to be little interest in Maxine Waters' resolution, no European leaders were threatening a boycott of the Olympic Opening Ceremonies, nobody seemed to give a damn that China was a part of the problem of what was happening in Darfur. Now everyone is raising hell about what's happening in Tibet. Why? What's the difference? Is it because Darfur is in Africa? Does that make it less important to us and to the Europeans than Tibet?

This is a serious question to consider in my opinion. I would hope that someone here understands it. If you want to bash sports, or cheap goods from China or the UN in general fine. Do it somewhere else because that is not what this thread was intended to be.


Aquilla

I don't think this is a racial issue. Tibet and Darfur are entirely different matters, IMO. In Darfur, the Chinese government, at most, is enabling. In tibet it has sent in troops and is actively and violently squelching dissent. Tibetians have died at the hands of Chinese...not so in Sudan. What is happening in Tibet is more along the lines of what happened a few years back in Tiananmen square (which was also met with boycotts and outrage).

Edited: Thought I'd add...On the other hand, if the olympic games were being held in the Sudan, there would be boycotts. China is not to Darfur what China is to Tibet. It isn't a true comparison.

Yes. That and the fact that China is already considered a 'bad guy' after years of Free Tibet demonstrations, where as no one's ever heard of Darfur until very recently and there's not been two decades of Free Darfur concerts ghoing on all across the western world.

There is also the fact that the people of Darfur are Africans, and lets be honest, with the exception of the really die hard NGO's and a few Irish nuns, no one gives a toss about dirt poor Africans exterminating each other. Is it racism? ...or just resignation to the fact that Africans seem to love murdering each other at the drop of a hat.

Why was the Chinese government's complicity in the genocide happening in Darfur largely ignored prior to the crackdown in Tibet?

I don't think it's racism. I also don't think we want to look the other way because it is Muslims killing people in Darfur.

The real reason is: because protestors have been more insistent this time. It could be because of the timing and the feel good atmosphere surrounding the Olympics. I have no idea, but nobody is disrupting the torch ceremony and chanting "Stop the killing in Darfur!". They are protesting Tibet. Protests are emotional and it is hard to define why some situations are protested vigorously and others are not.

Also, as I've said in the past, China is not directly complicit in what is going on in Darfur. Maybe they have some influence there and maybe they are profitting, but it isn't the Chinese army killing poor Africans.

We may as well ask why people are protesting the war in Iraq and not the US's lack of action in Darfur. The answer is "because they aren't".

Damn. The compassion is just overflowing in this thread. So is the lack of facts and informed perspectives.

Why should the screws be turned on China for their complicity in the slaughter in Darfur? Because just like the guy who sits in the getaway car while his partner shoots up the bank and blows away a few clerks and customers, he didn't directly pull the trigger but he shares in the guilt for being an accomplice.

China has a significant economic, political and military relationship with the Sudanese government. This is not in dispute.

What is also not in dispute is China has been the biggest roadblock to resolving the situation in Sudan as that nation's most ardent defender in the United Nations.

China has been the chief impediment to strong Security Council action against the government of Sudan for its role in the mass killings and genocide in Darfur, although it has calibrated its position as international criticism has grown. The Security Council has passed six resolutions on Darfur in the four years since the present conflict began, but has yet to impose economic sanctions or other penalties on the government, although travel and financial sanctions have been imposed on four individuals implicated in war crimes. The Chinese Ambassador to Sudan, Zhang Dong, explained his government’s position in 2007, saying, 'China never interferes in Sudan’s internal affairs."

For example, China succeeded in watering down Security Council resolution 1556 (July 30, 2004). That resolution imposed an arms embargo on nongovernmental combatants in Darfur, required Khartoum to allow humanitarian assistance into Darfur, and also required the government of Sudan to disarm the janjaweed. The original draft would have established a committee to monitor Khartoum’s compliance; due to the threat of a Chinese veto, however, the final resolution included no enforcement mechanism. Two months later, China succeeded in weakening an effort to credibly threaten sanctions on Sudan’s petroleum sector and delayed by six months imposition of a ban on offensive military flights, which was imposed by UNSCR 1591 (March 29, 2005). China abstained on a resolution (UNSCR 1593, March 31, 2005) that referred indicted war criminals to the International Criminal Court (as did the United States). The following year, China resisted efforts to sanction Sudanese government officials charged with war crimes, whittling down from seventeen to four the list of those individuals subject to Security Council travel bans and financial sanctions (UNSCR 1672, April 25, 2006). China, backed by Russia, publicly threatened to veto an initial draft of that resolution.

In August 2006, China insisted that the Security Council’s resolution authorizing a peacekeeping force for Darfur include the condition that it deploy “with the consent” of the government of Sudan. In a compromise between China and the United States and Britain, the final resolution “invites” but does not require the consent of Khartoum. China and Russia abstained rather than veto the resolution.

The impact of China’s successful efforts to block strong action have been significant as they are seen by Khartoum and others as an indication of continuing Security Council division on whether and if so how to pressure the Sudanese government to take action to end the conflict. link

China is an accomplice to genocide. They are a party to murder, rape and torture. The blood of innocents is on their hands. Why is this such a difficult concept for some people to wrap their brains around?

Maybe moif tagged it: "Nobody gives a toss about dirt-poor Africans." It is overly simplistic though to suggest they just enjoy slaughtering each other. There aren't a lot of factories in Africa building helicopters and munitions. There are a lot of outside forces that are all too happy to exploit tribal differences and racial hatreds in Africa for their own economic aggrandizement and China is one such example.

Blood and oil don't mix. No more in the Sudan than it does in Iraq.

Why is China enabling this activity? Oil, of course. China needs it, Sudan has it. Here's a good article on the combination: Sudan, Oil, & Human Rights.

To go back to moif's comment...it's not true that 'the world' doesn't give a toss about dirt poor Africans, it's just that they care more about what they can get out of Africa. Being dirt poor, they're essentially at the mercy of the rest of the world, and we're seeing where that leads. If you look through human history, probably the single most important factor in all interactions is greed. That's what's going on in Africa, internally and externally, I think. External forces are manipulating internal ones to get what they want...and there's no shortage of internal conflicts to manipulate.

I knew well a number of fellow schoolmates who were Olympians on the 1980 team and did not compete because of the 1980 boycott. This Carter debacle only hurt our athletes. Here, boycotting the ceremonies just adds more fuel to China's undeniable desire for our athletes to lose in Peking. If we go, let's go--all in.

As an aside, I knew one of our top female swimmers from the 1980 team who chose to boycott Carter's invitation for the team to visit the White House. She was beyond angry, as she could not wait around until the 1984 games. As she said, the best thing we could have done was go to Moscow and win.

China in many respects is a disaster--mean, ruthless, and awful to its own citizens. If we need to counter them, let's do so. The fact we have stepped into business with them up to our eyebrows is probably a terrible mistake, but it is what it is. But, let's not play politics at the expense of our athletes, many of whom have only this one chance to compete in the Olympics.

As it turns out, I also know a member of that 1980 Olympic team, my cousin Ron who was a swimmer. I know he was very disappointed at missing his chance to compete.

However, there are other things that could be done short of a complete boycott of the competition itself. Simply having the President not attend the opening ceremonies, or even stronger not attend the games at all would send a statement in the political arena. If Bush wants to watch the games, he can stay at home and catch them on TV like the rest of us. This debate is a political debate, not one of who produces the best athletes. If one of the American athletes wins a gold medal over a Chinese athlete, does anyone think that's going to cause China to change their policies in Africa? But, if the world community as represented by the leaders takes a stand by not paying homage to China's hosting of the Olympic games - in effect telling them that until they become a responsible member of the world community we won't treat them like one, it might make a difference. If not, no harm, no foul and we'll have to find a different way.


Aquilla

Bush shouldn't have agreed to attend in the first place. Cancelling now is just an unneccesary slap in the face.

Since when has our president attended any other nation's Olympic Games? Is that standard practice? I took a quick Google and didn't see much, but I was not under the impression our president attended the games in other nations.

All I am saying is we should do what is necessary to win--that is the best thing we can do to China is win. Since so many of these sports are judged and are not objective, I do not want to do anything to justify poor scoring on our behalf.

I have to laugh at anyone who uses the phrase "let's not play politics" and "the Olympics" in the same sentence.

The Olympics are politics. Pure and simple When have they not been political? The notion that the Olympics are about sports is bull. It's quaint and charming, but its' still bull.

The Olympics have gone far beyond merely a series of sporting events between countries. Athletes march in under the flags of their respective homelands. They don't wear an Olympic uniform. They wear one with the colors of their nation.

Cry me a river about all the poor athletes. The people of Darfur and Tibet are suffering far more and I doubt either one of them will be participating in the games.

I could care less if the U.S. doesn't win a single damn medal. It's more important that we stand up for our principles and with those being oppressed by the Chinese.

True.



Yes, this is a prime case in point. I've always wondered why this event, supposedly trumpeting how sports transcends nations, keeps score based on national medal counts? Huh? This is why it is so political, after all. If it was just a bunch of athletes getting together, who'd care?



Hmmm... that gives me an idea. Get athletes from Darfur and Tibet, and have them march with our athletes. Now THERE would be a statement.... their athletes marching in lockstep with ours. What could be more pointed than that?

I agree China has some responsibility for the Genocide in Darfur. Its role was ignored becuase most of the world doesn't care about Africa. Look how long it took to end Apartheid. What I was arguing is that China is as complicit in the crime as other nations. The UN did a inquiry and said it wasn't genocide. The US while recognizing it as a Genocide has done little short of an embargo. So I would argue that yes China has responsibility; but no more or less than the rest of the world. The world starts to care now with Tibet becuase Tibet is a safe issue to protest and of course they have the best symbol of peace in the Dali Lama. There is no chance anyone would send troops into Tibet to actually free it. Tibet is something that can protested with the safe knowledge that not much will change. Furthermore if something does change and China opens negotiations it won't result in military support. If tommorrow China said we were wrong in Darfur lets do something about it, then the UN, Europe, and the US would actually have to send people to do soemthing about it. China is just a convenient scapegoat.

Interesting analysis. Not bad for a "TinFoilLilberal.

I do wonder if China ceased their relationship with the government of the Sudan and allowed UN Security Council action to stop what's happening in Darfur what would happen. I honestly don't know. But, as NT has pointed out, China has been the main player blocking any effective action. Does that make them a "scapegoat"? Perhaps, but we'll never know unless China changes their policy and calls the rest of the world out on it. One way to cause China to modify their policy might be with a symbolic gesture of disapproval at the Olympic Games.

Aquilla

Well, I think we could all hazard a good guess. How has the Democratic Republic of the Congo been doing? That's the bloodiest place on earth. Worse than Darfur. Do you hear about that on the news? UN troops sent in there committed some pretty egregious crimes and actively traded their weapons for Congolese gold. And the French just drafted a resolution (that was passed) at the Security Council exempting the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo from a UN arms embargo. Do we boycott France now? How many people even know that fact?

Look at Somalia and all the good the UN troops did for that area. It became WORSE than ever imagined, the UN then pulled out and it became an Islamic state...and now Ethiopia and Somalia take turns shooting at each other while we sit in Djibouti and help occasionally. Sudan was worse before it started making the news and moviestars and athletes started protesting than it is today. It is the birthplace of Al Qaeda afterall, and used to be run Turabi. Bashir is a cuddly little teddybear compared to that guy. Prior to 2001, Sudan was the place of some of the most egregiously creative human rights violations in the world. We started making demands on the government of Sudan after 9/11, and were successful to an extent...which is why Turabi isn't in power anymore.

I've never really bought into the "if we can't fix everything, we can't fix anything" theory, and that sounds an awful lot like what you are saying here. Mrs P. What makes the idea of some sort of a political statement like world leaders boycotting the Olympics' ceremonies in China attractive to me is that is so simple to do. I'm not talking sanctions or military force or anything like that at all. Just a simple sign of disapproval of policy while China is in the world's spotlight. Now, do I expect the Chinese leaders to come hat in hand begging President Bush to attend and promising to end their current relationship with the government of the Sudan? No, that's not going to happen. But maybe, just maybe it will cause them to take into consideration the fact that their actions have consequences, even if it's just prestige. A boycott of the ceremonies today and who knows what could happen tomorrow. There's an old saying that "a long journey begins with a single step". Perhaps this is a good time to take that first step.


Aquilla

Here's a question: Where (in the many degrees of separation) does accountability for any nation's behavior begin and end? If it's the source, Sudan alone is responsible for Darfur. If it's with China, are we accountable for China's behavior because we trade with them? Why not? Is France responsible for the behavior of the DRC? Is Europe responsible because they are openly debating lifting an arms embargo with China and some European countries have gone so far as to actively conduct Naval exercises with the Chinese? Russia already actively sells them weapons and conducts military exercises with them...are the Russians responsible for Darfur? Why or why not?

To the degree that the French (who are actively trying to use all avenues to sell the Chinese arms as well as conducting military exercises with them) are responsible for China's domestic behavior, the Chinese are responsible for Darfur's domestic behavior.

That said, the Chinese government is directly responsible for its own behavior in Tibet. There is absolutely no comparison between their relationship to Darfur and their relationship to Tibet. And, IMO, when we place our foot down on something merely "because it is simple to do" that sends a clear message. It means we don't really mean what we say, we only wish to be insulting in things that don't directly impact us.

It's not much different than if I choose to stand in front of a store and picket and shout about the owner's conduct, but continue to frequent the store. It's something out of a Monty Python skit, rich with satire. That's what this olympic opening "boycott" brings to mind. If we wish to boycott China because of its behavior, fine. Boycott China. Stop importing its products. I'd rather buy more expensive things from better countries (including our own). At present, I don't even have that alternative most of the time.

Nightimer, you've shot yourself in the foot, as usual.

Yes, the Olympics are political. The Greeks invented them as a way to hold "warlike" games without real death, as a brief respite from real war so deadly to competition much less so. If war is the ultimate political expression, then the Olympics are the ultimate political expression of sport.

What I am saying is let's put the politics in our favor: let Bush go, so the Chinese don't feel slighted, and then let's win. What could be more humiliating to the Chinese than to hear the US National Anthem played, oh, about 30 times?

Since you wear your blackness on your sleeve, perhaps this will strike a chord: would it have been better in 1936 for us to have boycotted the Berlin Games, or for us to have gone so Jesse Owens would collect all of his gold and salute, rather than "sig heil", the Fuerher?

Most of these athletes have no professional sporting future and this is their one shot, and then they are too old or must pursue their regular careers (Dream Team pros, obviously, excluded.) Your total insensitivity to Olympic athletes, many of whom have trained for 5 or 6 hours a day for years and years for this one shot, is a clear indication you haven't met and gotten to know any of them; if you had, you'd not feel the way you do. Slighting the athletes will not feed anyone in Darfur or save Tibet.

Finally, as far as fixing all of the world's problems--you who oppose the war in Iraq, which at least arguably could benefit us in the long run--would you advocate military intervention by the US in Darfur? Think carefully before you answer. War would work, of course, and much better than whether Bush goes or doesn't go to the ceremonies. Maybe we should invade Tibet, too?







The dilemmas you raise are exactly why a nation should only do what is in ITS self interest. It is immoral for our govt to ask our citizens to die for something that will not benefit them. Also, we can go nuts trying to extrapolate what is good for some other nation and its citizens, and in many cases our intervention only makes matters worse (our boycott of Saddam's Iraq pre-war is blamed for many civilian deaths). If what we do for ourselves benefits others, great, but we should not attempt to save the world....

What you describe is true in the sense that international relationships are extremely complex and intertwined. Most human relationships are that way, be they be between nations of people and their respective governments or simply between two people living in the same house. There is always a give and take where something in dispute is more important to one party than to the other. It may be as commonplace as one person at the end of a long day wants to go out for dinner and the other person at the end of an equally long day doesn't want to go out. They normally don't kill each other over it. It's in a sense the same way with nations. What may be a big issue to one nation may not be so important to another. That's why I created this thread in the first place. It seems to me that the Tibet issue is far more important to the world body than the issue in Darfur. Why?


Aquilla

What is happening in Darfur is no more and no less racist than the U.S. invading Iraq and France selling arms to Rwandan rebels. The U.S. and European states exhibit general apathy towards African states, true, but economic interests cement our indifference. China isn't immune to the lure of economic expansion either, and so they pursue their own goals and add to human suffering.

The UN is trying to think up of ways to do more when internal strife and displacement do not spill over into other borders. Some want to change charters so that states can intervene militarily in cases like Darfur. Some presume states, including the U.S., will vote against these changes for fear of having their own sovereignty questioned. I'm not sure why the U.S. would even worry about the possibility given we have had a decent standard of living for a few generations. I'd be more worried about the U.S., Russia and China backing up these ideas, manipulating events and toppling whatever regimes they deem necessary for economic reasons.

Ok, then why in the hell does everyone have their panties in a bunch over Tibet?


Aquilla

They have a charismatic ambassador, the Dalai Lama, a man who has put a face to the human suffering for years. Their struggle for independence is established and they don't have to raise as much awareness.

Even though Tibet has a leg up on Darfurians I don't expect a good outcome there either, Aquilla. Tibet may not be in Africa but it is surrounded by our favored trade partner and may have huge gas and oil deposits. China is not going to drop the subject and we're not going to declare war on China.

I suspect rooting for one victim also gives us a feeling that we're not all that bad; we're not another cog in the industrial machine.

I don't see a good outcome in Tibet either, Lesly, boycott or no boycott. It just seems to me that if we and the rest of the world community want to make a statement short of going to war, we have to start somewhere. Hosting the Olympic games for a nation like China is a BIG DEAL. It's really important to them that they show the rest of the world what they can accomplish. That's fine, and I'll talk about that more in another thread I'll try to start at some point because unlike many here, I really enjoy the Olympic games. But I also view the China Olympics as an opportunity for the world to make a statement of disapproval of some of China's policies. Small step to be sure, but a step nonetheless.

Aquilla

No thanks for the unnecessary history lesson quik (oh sorry, seems I dropped the "c" in your handle the same way you always drop the second "t" in mine. I'll work on that), but while we're on the subject of self-inflicted wounds you might want to heal thyself first.

I could have sworn you said on April 8:

Yet on April 9, you're saying,

So you're all in favor of exploiting athletes for politics as long as it sticks it to the Chinese? How sporting of you. It's also jingoism taken to a nauseating extreme, but extreme nationalism is what you're all about quick. "Hooray for us and the hell with everybody else" could be your motto when it comes to the spirit of the Olympic Games.



Thanks for playing "Really Bad Analogies," quick. What does someone like you care about Jesse Owens? The situation in 1936 and Nazi Germany is not even slightly comparable to 2008 China. What is analogous is the exploitation and abandonment of Olympic athletes--specifically this African-American one---begins as soon as the applause ends:

"When I came back to my native country, after all the stories about Hitler, I couldn't ride in the front of the bus," Owens said. "I had to go to the back door. I couldn't live where I wanted. I wasn't invited to shake hands with Hitler, but I wasn't invited to the White House to shake hands with the President, either." link

Owens brought home the gold and this quiet and dignified Black man showed up Adolf's so-called "Master Race." But if a handshake from The President wasn't forthcoming neither was fame and glory:

Upon Owens' return to New York and a ticker-tape parade, he had to ride the freight elevator to a reception in his honor at the Waldorf-Astoria. He was treated as a kind of curiosity. When endorsements didn't come his way, he made money by, among other activities, running against horses and dogs.

"People said it was degrading for an Olympic champion to run against a horse, but what was I supposed to do?' Owens said. "I had four gold medals, but you can't eat four gold medals."

I take it as a compliment, quick when you accuse me of wearing my Blackness on my sleeve. That's rich coming from somebody who wears their Whiteness as a point of privilege.



Neither will playing footsie with the Chinese while we turn a blind eye to the rape and murder in Darfur they are complicit in. Unlike you I don't put sporting events ahead of human rights in importance.

China’s brutal crackdown against Tibetan protesters ahead of the Summer Olympics in Beijing carries with it a terrible echo from the past. Scores of people, including school children are reported dead and more repression has been promised. The People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the ruling Communist Party of China (CPC), said “[We must] resolutely crush the "Tibet independence’ forces’ conspiracy and sabotaging activities."

Even after decades of occupation, the ruthlessness of the crackdown has shocked much of the world. It happens the week after the US State Department removed China from its list of the world's worst human rights offenders.

Yet the concern expressed by world leaders has seemed less for the people of Tibet than the fate of the Summer Games, with Olympic cash deemed more precious than Tibetan blood. The Olympics were supposed to be China's multibillion-dollar, super sweet sixteen. Britain's Minister for Africa, Asia and the United Nations, Mark Malloch-Brown told the BBC, "This is China's coming-out party, and they should take great care to do nothing that will wreck that."

Other countries hankering after a piece of China's thriving economy have rushed to put daylight between the crackdown in Tibet and the Olympics. No surprise, the Bush’s White House, underwriting their war in Iraq on loans from Beijing, headed off any talk that President Bush would cancel his appearance at the Olympic Games when spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush believed that the Olympics "should be about the athletes and not necessarily about politics." Earlier, the European Union said a "boycott would not be the appropriate way to address the work for respect of human rights, which means the ethnic and religious rights of the Tibetans." link2

I don't want to hear one more word out of Dubya's lying mouth about how America stands for "freedom" and "democracy" and all that high and mighty jive until he walks the walk instead of just talking the talk the talk. Right about now he's about to walk right over the broken and bloody bodies of the people of Tibet and Darfur to play slap-and-tickle with the Chinese.

I hope he chokes on a pretzel.



Even if I had suggested military action in Tibet and Darfur (which I never have) with the way Dubya has overextend our military for the United States to take on another situation might totally shatter our increasingly fragile armed forces into a million pieces. I don't believe you can impose solutions on people by the barrel of a gun. That hasn't worked in Iraq and I don't see it working any better in Darfur.

By the way, what benefit in the long run for the U.S. are you expecting from Iraq? As gas prices head into an all-but-certain $4 or $5 dollars-a-gallon by the summer and our Iraq allies turn to Iran instead of us to resolve the latest jam Nouri Al-Maliki got himself in with Muqtada Sadr, there don't appear to be ANY benefits coming out of this permanent war Dubya blundered into and can't find his way out of.

This just in: Death toll just in Baghdad, since Sunday: At least 67 Iraqis, 9 U.S. troops killed. More work for funeral homes across America.

That the sort of benefit you're going on about quick?



Today is a great day. We agree completely it is immoral for our government to ask our citizens to die for something that will not benefit them. I've been saying that for years about the Iraq War. Nice to see you're capable of "evolving."

As you said, the Olympics are political, by default. Why organize the games by nation if this weren't the idea? If you consider that exploitation, that is your privilege; I would consider it a great honor to represent my country in the Games.



What do internal US issues of the time have to do with what was demonstrated under the nose of the Fuehrer in 1936? Well, not much. It was still a demonstration of US power, might and prestige.

As far as Mr. Owens' gripes, some of which were clearly legitimate in the overall context of race relations in the USA at the time, I have this one statement: He could have gotten a job rather than race a horse. No one guarantees that winning Olympic medals guarantees financial success, although in some cases it has in recent years. There have been many Olympic champions of all races who made little from their athletic success. So what?

I'll ignore your other comment. Why bother?



Your response begs the question. You haven't much of an argument here.



No one has shown me how Bush's going or not going will have any real effect, one way or the other. Maybe you should wire one of our track athletes to jog around the track carrying a Tibetan flag....The best way to rain on China's parade is to WIN.




Our presence in Iraq may well lead to our ability to control both oil and pertrodollar oil trading in the future, as well as reduce the likelihood of Islamic terrorist attacks in the USA. The jury is still out, and as I have stated before on this board, I had my qualms about this war. But, one thing is very certain: Invading Tibet or schlepping around Africa, gun in hand, trying to mess with the Chinese, would get not one single thing that will benefit this nation. Even you cannot reasonably disagree with this assessment.

I'll get your board moniker correct, sooner or later. My apologies. When I intentionally mess with it, you'll know. Simple misspelling should not occur much (although I never use spell check here because I do not want the software on my cptr).

Interesting article about this today.......
Link

From this article......



What in the Hell does this mean?


Aquilla

Wow- no foolin'- if someone says "USA is #1- will somebody from China say that is propaganda? Or just pride for one's country? Who is going to police this one?

I think, Aquilla, you are probably on the right track about boycotting the opening of the games-

china has a "face saving" type of culture when it comes to leadership and status- in other words- they ARE vuneralble to shame, deserved or not.

If it is sufficiently embarrasing enough- even the most powerful could lose thier rankings and positions. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" on these types of culture- if you are stained with dis-honor- no court of law will free you from that dishonor.

If there is real solidarity amongst all western powers, perhaps there will be some face-loss that will negatively affect China's leaders problems.

It is a very fine rope we walk here with China- on one hand, the best way to end a totalitarian regime is to help them form a very large middle class population- middle class populations tend to want more freedoms all the time.

This is the same reason I have always been against the Cuban embargoes- it is easy to control a population made poor by outsiders- not so easy when it is being done within, and obviously at that- at some point, as folks have something to live for, they want more freedom, up to a point.

So, it is a double edged sword we walk- do we, as Mrs P, obliquely refered to- do we start punishing them with economic sanctions, harm thier markets? Or do we foster further business, and grow thier middle class, to the point it is self sustainable, and see what they do with it themselves?

The same could be said for the opening ceremonies- do we, as a world, rain on thier parade, but let the games go on anyway? Or do we really rain on thier parade, let them throw a party, and then no one shows up? Always embarrasing for anyone in that position.

I think I would favor some kind of negotiation with all the western powers in the world, and do it completely in solidarity, or don't go for an all out boycott of the olympics.

Okay- GW - he doesn't show up- does this mean anything in the global community? Does he have the moral "stroke" to negatively affect anything?

What do YOU think Aquilla- if it is just GW that boycotts the opening ceremonies- does it make a difference- and would it make a difference if, say, whoever the next president elect is, for them not to show up?

I think GW has screwed up his own image so bad- it would be a collective "who cares" for the Chinese.

I think it means if you win the 200m, then stand on the podium, fist held high, wearing a glove in the colors of the Tibetan flag, you might not get to be on the front of the Wheaties' box. Just a guess, though.

Like it not, and I know you don't, Bush is the President of the United States, the most influential and powerful office in the world. Were he to thumb his nose at the Chinese with the simple act of boycotting their opening ceremonies and state why he isn't going, it might make them re-consider their policies with respect to Darfur andf Tibet. Bush may be a lame duck, but he's still the President and if he uses this opportunity to use his office in the fashion and set the standard, consider this. What will President McCain, or President Obama, or President Clinton do on these issues? Will any of those three back down after Bush has stood up? These are questions the Chinese must consider.

I know it's a symbolic gesture, but what really do we have to lose? If this nation wants to be a world leader, then let's be one and join with our friends in the world community who have already stood up, at least n the case of Tibet. The case is still out to the jury on Darfur.

Aquilla

I hear you, and agree, but I am not sure if it will have the same affect, home or abroad, if we are the only ones doing it. Though, that is NOT a reason NOT to do it- being right, even being right alone, is not a bad thing IMHO.

If GW does this, I would support it, regardless.

But on the same vein, I wonder how hypocritical we are, as a nation, taking out the politics of the situation- for our hard-core support of thier economy?

I believe it is hard to be morally correct in this, and boycott the olympics on one hand, but support thier leaders economically on the other.

This does smack a bit of the situation between Darfur and China- China supports Darfur's behavior, the behavior of thier leaders anyway- but supporting them economically, while we do the same for China.

As Mrs P pointed out, international relationships can be very complicated and intertwined. That's the nature of the beast. But one thing the President of the United States can do is simplify them on a specific issue. That's the power he and maybe soon she wields. Even yu would agree Bush can do something simple. He can say to the Chinese, "We'll still trade with you, do business because it is advantageous for us to do so, but guess what. I'm not coming to your big dance because of what you're doing in the Sudan and Tibet. Before you can expect to gain respect from us and the rest of the world community, you need to change your policies." That's the statement Bush could make and I will be extremely disappointed in him if he doesn't.


Aquilla

I am okay with it I suppose. Just seems to be a bit of an empty gesture. I am not sure what good it would do either, except for us to feel a little bit better about ourselves? Know what I mean? Not against it- just can't get enthused about it- but really nothing wrong with a good moral statement either kinda thing.

Whoa. Has anyone kept up with what is happening in South Korea with the passing of the torch out there? Chinese protests have been getting violent.

Here Chinese demonstrators pummel a 'free-Tibet' protester. Here is a Korean news account of the violence in the streets.

From ROK drop, a military blog written by a long-term South Korean resident:

Also from that blog (I don't speak Hangul, so I can't verify):

Eek. This really hasn't hit national headline news the way it should. On a related note, Paris has just granted the Dalai Lama honorary citizenship, angering China.

On the flip side, the ICC is now attempting to get its (as of yet ignored) arrest warrants for Darfur genocide criminals enforced by issuing more.

Yeah, the Olympics is a farce. Corrupted by politics and greed, its got nothing to do with sport at all. Drug pumped freaks competing for fraction of a second differences and lucrative advirtising contracts means moif turns of the TV and does something interesting instead.

I have decided to demonstrate my disgust by ignoring the event completely. I could not care less if a Dane wins a medal.

Those YouTube videos posted by Chinese activists must be approved by the government unless the activists are abroad. China has predictably banned YouTube. To be fair, Han Chinese and anyone not Tibetan are also being targeted. In Angola a Chinese arms shipment to Mugabe, where opposition members are being attacked by mobs, is stuck in the pier for now.

Dana Perino left open the possibility that Bush would not attend. My guess is he'll wait until the last moment, make a grand announcement making us feel better and little else.

"To be fair"? There a bit of a difference between a Chinese person living in Tibet being targeted by individual Tibetians and a Chinese mob, organized via the Chinese embassy cleaning the clocks of South Koreans within their own country. Imagine what would happen if the South Korean government staged massive protests from its embassy in China and started smacking Chinese heads in Beijing.

Not to Chinese victims there isn't. I'm just saying violence begets more violence and victims. Han merchants didn't tell the Chinese embassy to arm a Chinese mob.