I support the protest of the olympic torch processions

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Does it look like I care?

I'm supposed to weigh an athlete's feelings against murder, torture, imprisonment, communism, totalitarianism, fascism.

They say "sports transcends politics." But what that means is money (sports) trumps human rights (politics).

God, I hate the idea of being more concerned about selfish athletes than people who are dying under oppression.

First, the only reason there is any leverage on this issue is due to the decision of the Olympic committee, not due to an American policy.

Second, the athletes are only there becasue the olympics are there. They have no choice.

Third, nothing about the olympics equates with, causes or leads to murder, suppression or the other horribles that CHina is committing. In fact, if anything, having the Olympics there is only likely to help open them up more. The Olympics will go forward, with or without the american athlete.

Punishing the athletes for china and the olympic committee's transgressions doesn't make much sense to me. Do you think the 1980 boycott was effective?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I pray you aren't comparing a bombing in a marketplace to assaulting the torch bearer. They aren't out to hurt the guy holding the torch. Quite clearly, they are after the torch itself. It is a small act, but it is having huge repercussions, and I absolutely respect those protesters for their acts.

Sorry, but I find the assault of the torch bearer, direct or indirect, to be completely juvenile. The whole spectacle just smacks of a lack of ability to more effectively articulate your opposition to the policies of the Chinese government.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

They are meaningless. China doesn't give a rat's ass about what happens to torch bearers.



No I didn't. I argued AGAINST an "ends justify the means" approach. Work on your reading comprehension.



I may have capitalized the word "American," but I did not mean to imply it only mattered that the torch runners today were American. And I clarified that point by saying those runners in Paris (French, obviously) did not deserve to be attacked, either. I'm sorry if that was too difficult for you to understand.



But you are a clever plagiarizer. Though I suppose I should give you partial credit for a slightly new twist on the vulgar play on words.



I can't recall where I said it should be in China. Would you mind finding that for me?

Lingo, I don't think you understand China at all. China ABSOLUTELY cares about what is happening with the torch. They are more interested in image than perhaps any other nation on Earth. They have gone through the main cities and spruced up the areas where visitors will be going to absurd levels. They have bulldozed villages that didn't look nice, arrested all homeless people, diverted water that is filtered through a special purifying plant so visitors think all Chinese water is nice and clean (unless they get a drink 1 mile away). They have spent billions on new buildings that are magnificent and designed to show off China and its abilities (seriously, the new buildings are amazing). And yes, all host cities spend a lot of time on image, but China is taking it to entirely new levels.

China brought in the Olympics to show the world what they wanted the world to see in China. Instead, the world is telling China that what China is showing them isn't good enough.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

First, the only reason there is any leverage on this issue is due to the decision of the Olympic committee, not due to an American policy.

Second, the athletes are only there becasue the olympics are there. They have no choice.

Third, nothing about the olympics equates with, causes or leads to murder, suppression or the other horribles that CHina is committing. In fact, if anything, having the Olympics there is only likely to help open them up more. The Olympics will go forward, with or without the american athlete.

Punishing the athletes for china and the olympic committee's transgressions doesn't make much sense to me. Do you think the 1980 boycott was effective?

Having dinner with Hitler didn't cause the holocaust, but I still wouldn't do it.

Going to the olympics and saying nothing and doing nothing about human rights is de facto endorsement of Chinese policies.

I already said that if athletes could protest in some way, I would probably support going to the olympics. But if they can't, screw it.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Having dinner with Hitler didn't cause the holocaust, but I still wouldn't do it.

Going to the olympics and saying nothing and doing nothing about human rights is de facto endorsement of Chinese policies.

I already said that if athletes could protest in some way, I would probably support going to the olympics. But if they can't, screw it.

Here's what you said:

After reading this artcile, I am leaning in favor of the USA boycotting the olympics.

But I am glad to see you are still wiling to be reasonable. No one is exactly sure how protests might play out. If the athletes aren't there, of course, they won't be able to protest at all.

You also didn't answer my question. Do you think the 1980 boycott was effective?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I see. Appeasement. Thanks for playing.

Appeasement? At least pretend to be honest here.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Having dinner with Hitler didn't cause the holocaust, but I still wouldn't do it.

Going to the olympics and saying nothing and doing nothing about human rights is de facto endorsement of Chinese policies.

I already said that if athletes could protest in some way, I would probably support going to the olympics. But if they can't, screw it.

Our continued "Most Favored Nation" classification of China speaks louder than any protester with a water bottle or athlete with a black glove, raised arm and clenched fist.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

You also didn't answer my question. Do you think the 1980 boycott was effective?

Yes. We took a stand and said that naked evil, in the attack on Afghanistan was immoral and wrong.

If the olympics were in Iran this year, do you think the USA should attend?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Appeasement? At least pretend to be honest here.

We can't be too tough with China. If we get tough, they might get mad. If they are mad, they won't listen to us, blah, blah, blah.

That's bullshit and you know it. It's all about money and trade.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Yes. We took a stand and said that naked evil, in the attack on Afghanistan was immoral and wrong.

If the olympics were in Iran this year, do you think the USA should attend?

You still didn't answer the question. I know we took a stand, and I know what we said, but was it effective? I don't think so. A few crates full of stingers was much more effeective in afghanistan that the boycott.

In Iran? You betcha.