The Beijing Olympics

fly_agaric

Thirdfox wrote:

I don't think the culture has been forsaken

We don't have much culture left to not forsake tbh. A few scraps.
The language is the heart of a country's culture and ours is basically...dead!

Another poster was talking about someone (us?) "mocking the westernisation" of Japan (though I've never actually met anyone who mocks Japan...).

Japan has

a) much more of its pre-"engagement with the West" culture left than we have of our own indigenous culture and
b) more influence over the direction of the modern/global/mostly western culture it shares with us than we ourselves do!

So I wonder who should be "mocked" here?

Thirdfox wrote: »

I'm not convinced that democracy as we practise it, is the best way of deciding what's best for our national interests.

Maybe so, but is China or any other non-democratic state an example of the better system we should be striving towards here?

Thirdfox wrote: »

One could argue that the Chinese people have given the current government their mandate by supporting them over the KMT during the civil war (our "wars" aka general elections are fought much more regularly though).

No, I don't think anyone could argue that (could they?).

1) Is it not the case that the communists won because they actually fought the war far better than the KMT [regardless of which was more popular]?

2) Even if the communists victory did actually indicte that they were more popular with the public (rather than better led or other factors), wouldn't it be a bit like saying that because the pro-treaty side won the civil war here we should have a blueshirt govt. for ever more? It doesn't make much sense.

Thirdfox

fly_agaric wrote: »

Maybe so, but is China or any other non-democratic state an example of the better system we should be striving towards here?

Hmm, an interesting question. And not as clear cut as many people would like to assume. In such a large country with a large population a strong central government is certainly one way of running the country, compare the indecisiveness of the federal government in the US over New Orleans with the Sichuan earthquake response by the PLA (or indeed their response to the flooding that happens every year along the Huang He (Yangtze)). Ireland is a tiny nation (in a global sense) and our system seems to work okay most of the time - if however we implemented the system in China I believe there would be chaos (imagine HSE's problems x1000) Then again the EU superstate can be seen as one example of where large populations have been managed quite successfully whilst independent of each other.

Looking at democratic India, my friends in China say they do not want the system they have implemented there. So while their system does not suit us, I'm not sure our system will suit them either. I believe it is not a case that "Western democracy" = good and "anything else" = bad.

I think it's fair to say that in a choice between Ireland, China and Zimbabwe as countries to live in it would be 1, 2, 3 in 99.9% of people's minds (looking at living standards only, cultural/familial ties etc. excluded). And I am sure that people do want better living standards for all in China too... but a sentiment that many Chinese themselves feel (whether the media here blames on government propaganda or as I and many others feel after careful consideration) is that the people who cry loudest about human rights for Chinese citizens may not have our best interests at heart. The present round of protests and aggreviations before the Beijing Olympics is a mistake in terms of convincing the Chinese people that we actually care about them rather than just scoring political goals and gaining leverage on the international stage. What happens then is that nationalists gain greater sway, moderates become disillusioned with what you say and ordinary Chinese citizens do not see us as friend who wants to help and advise but an schemer who wants to undermine them as they become prosperous.

I'd like to write more but bedtime it is for me!

No, I don't think anyone could argue that (could they?).

1) Is it not the case that the communists won because they actually fought the war far better than the KMT [regardless of which was more popular]?

2) Even if the communists victory did actually indicte that they were more popular with the public (rather than better led or other factors), wouldn't it be a bit like saying that because the pro-treaty side won the civil war here we should have a blueshirt govt. for ever more? It doesn't make much sense.

SkepticOne

Thirdfox wrote: »

Looking at democratic India, my friends in China say they do not want the system they have implemented there. So while their system does not suit us, I'm not sure our system will suit them either. I believe it is not a case that "Western democracy" = good and "anything else" = bad.

I don't think many in the west want to actually impose democracy in China against the will of the people there. Where the clash comes is issues like human rights and relations with cultures like Tibet. I can understand the nationalistic indignation this gives rise to but we live in a globalised world and it is not realistic to expect outsiders to have no opinions on these matters. Should human rights campaigners have stayed silent about apartheid in South Africa, for example? It was certainly argued by the government of that country at the time that outside anti-aparthied campaigners did not understand the situation and culture and should mind their own business.

Another area of clash is a difference in the way information is percieved. Here, for the most part, we don't consider information, political messages or propaganda a threat. We have access to not just western media with its particular bias but also Aljazeera, CCTV, and hundreds of other sources. For the most part we are free to discuss any political topic. Very little if anything is out of bounds.

How do ordinary people in Ireland engage with ordinary people in China when certain subjects are potentially illegal?

Should I talk more with ordinary people in China first before forming an opinion? Can raise the issue with ordinary Chinese people in china reports that filter out from the Tibet region to neighbouring countries but might be banned in China itself?

These are just examples. What are your suggestions?

GuanYin

SkepticOne wrote: »

I don't think many in the west want to actually impose democracy in China against the will of the people there.

Honestly? Reading boards.ie at times, I would be inclined to dispute that.

Where the clash comes is issues like human rights and relations with cultures like Tibet. I can understand the nationalistic indignation this gives rise to but we live in a globalised world and it is not realistic to expect outsiders to have no opinions on these matters.

What human rights issues? Can you or anyone else actually source a report coming from inside tibet that suggests that the people of tibet are suffering under PRC rule?

To me it looks like a political power struggle with alot of spin and MOST reports are from people who have not set foot in China for many years.

Now, China's treatment of radical protesters is awful. I disagree with it. But on this same forum that damns the PRC for hardline tactics against radical protesters, we have people who believe that radical PETA activists should be shot/hung for their actions etc etc. Do we mean this? BEcause if so, then people advocate the same action against radicals here, as the PRC is taking in China.

Should human rights campaigners have stayed silent about apartheid in South Africa, for example? It was certainly argued by the government of that country at the time that outside anti-aparthied campaigners did not understand the situation and culture and should mind their own business.

You are being very disingenious in comparing Tibet with South Africa. Under current legislation, Tibetan nationals have far more social perks than non Tibetans. They have financial, educational and social welfare paid for by the PRC. In addition as an ethnic minority, they are not suffering the same restrictions imposed on the Han Chinese population. Hardly Apartheid.

The major contention (and I've visited Tibet in the last 3 years) seems to be a religious-political issue based on the loss of power of the Lamas and the rules imposed on them by the PRC. This is mostly down to the history between the PRC and the Lama, but is more analagous to the demise of the political power of the IRish catholic church, who were once untouchable.

Another area of clash is a difference in the way information is percieved. Here, for the most part, we don't consider information, political messages or propaganda a threat. We have access to not just western media with its particular bias but also Aljazeera, CCTV, and hundreds of other sources. For the most part we are free to discuss any political topic. Very little if anything is out of bounds.

Again you speak of things based on conjecture on your part. Do you believe that Ireland gets fair and balanced reporting about what goes on in the rest of the world? The US certainly does not. Their news media is controlled by a politically invested party. This, however is not censorship.

The great firewall of China is an issue, but again, internet restrictions exist in all countries. For instance, you have no privacy in terms of your internet histry from the federal american government.

SkepticOne

My main points concern the nature of discourse between people within China and Irish people within Ireland. I don't want to get bogged down in the differences between China and South Africa. I am aware there are differences. The issue I'm dealing with is that outsiders got involved in human rights issues within South Africa when the government of that country felt it was their concern alone.

With regard to media bias, I think you miss the point here. No media is free from bias. The way we get around it is by comparing the various sources with their differing biasses and coming to a conclusion and perhaps discussing that conclusion with others of differing opinions.

I am not saying that this is better than what happens in China, but I am pointing out that it is different there and that this difference raises problems.

It seems to me that even before getting down to specific facts and issues, we run into problems.

SkepticOne

GuanYin wrote: »

Now, China's treatment of radical protesters is awful. I disagree with it. But on this same forum that damns the PRC for hardline tactics against radical protesters, we have people who believe that radical PETA activists should be shot/hung for their actions etc etc. Do we mean this? BEcause if so, then people advocate the same action against radicals here, as the PRC is taking in China.

Just to deal with this. The forum does not have a point of view. I find it strange that anyone would expect there to be some coherence among the views expressed here.

GuanYin

SkepticOne wrote: »

My main points concern the nature of discourse between people within China and Irish people within Ireland. I don't want to get bogged down in the differences between China and South Africa. I am aware there are differences. The issue I'm dealing with is that outsiders got involved in human rights issues within South Africa when the government of that country felt it was their concern alone.

No, you created an analogy that is both inappropriate and emotive, creating a bias in your question. There is no similarity in the plight or the tibetan and south africans, so to compare them based on anything is questionable.

So again, show a source if you're going to make the claim or clarify the issue.

With regard to media bias, I think you miss the point here. No media is free from bias. The way we get around it is by comparing the various sources with their differing biasses and coming to a conclusion and perhaps discussing that conclusion with others of differing opinions.

I am not saying that this is better than what happens in China, but I am pointing out that it is different there and that this difference raises problems.

Is different bad?

It does raise problems, especially when people think the world should only be seen from their point of view.

It seems to me that even before getting down to specific facts and issues, we run into problems.

If you approach the issuen a dishonest manner, this is bound to happen.

SkepticOne

GuanYin wrote: »

No, you created an analogy that is both inappropriate and emotive, creating a bias in your question. There is no similarity in the plight or the tibetan and south africans, so to compare them based on anything is questionable.

So again, show a source if you're going to make the claim or clarify the issue.

Like I have said, although there are differences there are also similarities, among them alleged human rights issues within the country, campaigners outside the country and the attitude by the government that these issues were its business alone.

Is different bad?

It does raise problems, especially when people think the world should only be seen from their point of view.

One ways you understand other points of view is through discussion such as this. That is why I have an interest in countries where freedom of expression is very restricted.

stevenmu

Referring back to the OP, in my view the Olympics this year has become overly politicized, it has been hijacked by political interest groups and used to promote their views and interests. The Olympics has become a symbol for peace and humanity and in my view this is being wrongfully used by people to further their own particular agendas.

Historically the Olympics reached this symbolic status because of it's non-political nature. The Olympics is an event where people of any race, colour, religion or creed can stand side by side as equals, and the best man (or woman) is chosen purely on the basis of sporting prowess. To me it is a shining example of the greatness of mankind, how athletes who dedicate themselves to their sport can achieve unbelievable feats. Historically the Olympics has been an event where all politics have been set aside, difference forgotten, and even wars have been halted, all to focus on something good and pure. That is how it achieved it's status as an event promoting peace and goodness. To me that is the magic of the Olympics, and IMHO that is being corrupted by people who are trying to turn it to their own ends.

BlaasForRafa wrote:

Your original point was flawed in any case...how do we know what the chinese people want when they haven't been given a chance to express it by voting?

The chinese people have overthrown a regime they were unhappy with more recently than any western state as far as I'm aware.

SkepticOne

stevenmu wrote: »

The chinese people have overthrown a regime they were unhappy with more recently than any western state as far as I'm aware.

Various European countries, many now part of the EU, overthrew communist rule in the late 80's/early 90's. But I think it has been pointed out on this thread that it tends to be an elite that does the overthrowing. Whether they have populer support is determined later through elections.

SkepticOne

stevenmu wrote: »

Referring back to the OP, in my view the Olympics this year has become overly politicized, it has been hijacked by political interest groups and used to promote their views and interests. The Olympics has become a symbol for peace and humanity and in my view this is being wrongfully used by people to further their own particular agendas.

The actual sport I think should be non-political but a lot of the surrounding pageantry is political in origin. The Nazi's introduced the torch relay, for example, for the 1936 Berlin Olympics. This is why people there's a vague facist feel to the games to this day.

Overheal

According to US News information chinese citizens are being told a) not to engage in political or religious discussion b) not wear pyjamas in public and c) wear no more than 3 colors at a time. Among many other things.

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080801.wolymrules31/GSStory/GlobeSportsOther/home



Its funny because at least in a way they realise their behavior is not generally well looked upon. Hopefully if the Olympics dont become a complete political disaster it will be a new turning point for their foreign relations anyway. It all reads as the first time anyone has really been given a big eye into China in decades; theyre having you over for a fancy dinner and they dont want their kids to slouch at the dinner table.

Thirdfox

SkepticOne wrote: »

I don't think many in the west want to actually impose democracy in China against the will of the people there. Where the clash comes is issues like human rights and relations with cultures like Tibet. I can understand the nationalistic indignation this gives rise to but we live in a globalised world and it is not realistic to expect outsiders to have no opinions on these matters. Should human rights campaigners have stayed silent about apartheid in South Africa, for example? It was certainly argued by the government of that country at the time that outside anti-aparthied campaigners did not understand the situation and culture and should mind their own business.

Another area of clash is a difference in the way information is percieved. Here, for the most part, we don't consider information, political messages or propaganda a threat. We have access to not just western media with its particular bias but also Aljazeera, CCTV, and hundreds of other sources. For the most part we are free to discuss any political topic. Very little if anything is out of bounds.

How do ordinary people in Ireland engage with ordinary people in China when certain subjects are potentially illegal?

Should I talk more with ordinary people in China first before forming an opinion? Can raise the issue with ordinary Chinese people in china reports that filter out from the Tibet region to neighbouring countries but might be banned in China itself?

These are just examples. What are your suggestions?

It may be Newsweek or NY Times that had stated that President Hu enjoys something like 86% approval in China (and one of the highest globally too - above leaders of the Western countries). An article written in the NY Times states that Pres. Clinton told people that once China opened up economically it would be a matter of years before democracy followed - the article analyses why this has not happened and comes to the unhappy conclusion that autocratic systems of government can function just/almost as well as democratic systems when looking after the majority of its people.

Also, if you meet ordinary Chinese people, have a good grasp of Chinese and they feel you genuinely want to talk about an issue I believe they will wholeheartedly welcome a discussion. However if they feel that you've come to lecture them on their government it's automatically on the defensive and no progress is made.

SkepticOne wrote: »

The actual sport I think should be non-political but a lot of the surrounding pageantry is political in origin. The Nazi's introduced the torch relay, for example, for the 1936 Berlin Olympics. This is why people there's a vague facist feel to the games to this day.

I don't feel there's anything wrong with some nationalism over the hosting of the games... there is quite a big distinction between being proud of your country and being fascist. I was present as a volunteer over the Special Olympics that took place in Ireland, there were parts of it that celebrated Irish culture and Irish pride - are we fascist too?

Overheal wrote: »

According to US News information chinese citizens are being told a) not to engage in political or religious discussion b) not wear pyjamas in public and c) wear no more than 3 colors at a time. Among many other things.

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080801.wolymrules31/GSStory/GlobeSportsOther/home



Its funny because at least in a way they realise their behavior is not generally well looked upon. Hopefully if the Olympics dont become a complete political disaster it will be a new turning point for their foreign relations anyway. It all reads as the first time anyone has really been given a big eye into China in decades; theyre having you over for a fancy dinner and they dont want their kids to slouch at the dinner table.

In one way I applaud it - go to the countryside and you'll see giant adverts painted by the local officials that state "the world has changed, girls are just as good as boys - having a girl is a patriotic duty" (obviously in Chinese). China is undergoing changes, not just for foreigners and for the Olympics.

I would imagine the horror of the Americans if they were hosting the games and a leaflet dropped through the door requesting that anyone with a BMI of 35+ is recommended to stay at home in case of offending foreign guests...

SkepticOne

Thirdfox wrote: »

I don't feel there's anything wrong with some nationalism over the hosting of the games... there is quite a big distinction between being proud of your country and being fascist.

I agree that origins of some Olympic traditions may be fascist in origin but the use subsequently need not be. It is, however, political and this is the point I was making with stephenmu.

fly_agaric

Thirdfox wrote: »

Hmm, an interesting question. And not as clear cut as many people would like to assume. In such a large country with a large population a strong central government is certainly one way of running the country, compare the indecisiveness of the federal government in the US over New Orleans with the Sichuan earthquake response by the PLA (or indeed their response to the flooding that happens every year along the Huang He (Yangtze)).

IMO, strength & decisiveness do not have to mean unaccountability.
Also, I am unsure if your example illustrates what you think it does (what has happened in New Orleans is an example of indecisiveness due to the US system of govt. being more democratic than China).

It has also been argued that this failure of the US federal govt. is a actually a symptom of a fundamental weakening of democracy as the functions of the state are downsized & privatised.

Thirdfox wrote: »

Looking at democratic India, my friends in China say they do not want the system they have implemented there. So while their system does not suit us, I'm not sure our system will suit them either. I believe it is not a case that "Western democracy" = good and "anything else" = bad.

China's never going to be a "Western democracy". There are many ways to skin a cat, there are lots of flavours of western & non-western democracies.
Thinking back to the other poster's points about maintaining China's culture & integrity - I wonder if introducing some democracy would actually be as potentially damaging to China's original culture(s) as the free-market system/gloabalisation? I don't think so.

stephenmu wrote:

Historically the Olympics has been an event where all politics have been set aside, difference forgotten

No it is not. It has regularly been a political football (or hot-potato:P).
Hitler used/abused it for propaganda purposes to show the superiority of the German fascist state.
A state which was not a full-blown global menace at the time, just another (nationalistic & autocratic) soveriegn state (with a bit of a persecution complex) which was busily clamping down on its own dissidents/flies-in-the-ointment.
In the cold war, Nato states boycotted the Moscow games and the Eastern bloc boycotted the LA games. There was also that incident in Munich with the terrorists...

stephenmu wrote:

The chinese people have overthrown a regime they were unhappy with more recently than any western state as far as I'm aware.

see 1) end of the cold war (as already mentioned) & 2 - even more recent) the Yugoslav war(s)?

Thirdfox wrote:

the article analyses why this has not happened and comes to the unhappy conclusion that autocratic systems of government can function just/almost as well as democratic systems when looking after the majority of its people.

All well and good. Speaking from a mainly self-interested point of view & forgetting about (most of) the Chinese people happy with their efficient autocracy - what happens to the rest of us if a clique like the US neocons grabs the reins of power in China.
Who or what is going to prevent them doing almost exactly what they want (which will probably be a desire to kick off WW3)? China's lack of democracy (and associated systems) means (at least) one less barrier to such a thing happening. I'm afraid that's actually what concerns me the most about China's power & autocracy combination. I'm selfish, I know.

Overheal

Thirdfox wrote: »

I would imagine the horror of the Americans if they were hosting the games and a leaflet dropped through the door requesting that anyone with a BMI of 35+ is recommended to stay at home in case of offending foreign guests...

I can only dream.

RedPlanet

fly_agaric wrote: »

All well and good. Speaking from a mainly self-interested point of view & forgetting about (most of) the Chinese people happy with their efficient autocracy - what happens to the rest of us if a clique like the US neocons grabs the reins of power in China.
Who or what is going to prevent them doing almost exactly what they want (which will probably be a desire to kick off WW3)? China's lack of democracy (and associated systems) means (at least) one less barrier to such a thing happening. I'm afraid that's actually what concerns me the most about China's power & autocracy combination. I'm selfish, I know.

Is that an argument for "democracy"?
Hardly!
None of those checks and balances you allude prevented the Neocons from ravaging Iraq and Afghanistan.
And it certainly didn't prevent Hitler a generation earlier.

SkepticOne

fly_agaric wrote: »

No it is not. It has regularly been a political football (or hot-potato:P).
Hitler used/abused it for propaganda purposes to show the superiority of the German fascist state.
A state which was not a full-blown global menace at the time, just another (nationalistic & autocratic) soveriegn state (with a bit of a persecution complex) which was busily clamping down on its own dissidents/flies-in-the-ointment.

I think one of the problems is the movable nature of the modern Olympics. The original Greek Olympics where always held in the same place every four years. There was no "Athens" or "Thebes" Olympics like we would have Berlin or Beijing Olympics in the modern era. The modern Olympics might be more of a cause of abuses than something that brings people together.

Thirdfox

fly_agaric wrote: »

All well and good. Speaking from a mainly self-interested point of view & forgetting about (most of) the Chinese people happy with their efficient autocracy - what happens to the rest of us if a clique like the US neocons grabs the reins of power in China.
Who or what is going to prevent them doing almost exactly what they want (which will probably be a desire to kick off WW3)? China's lack of democracy (and associated systems) means (at least) one less barrier to such a thing happening. I'm afraid that's actually what concerns me the most about China's power & autocracy combination. I'm selfish, I know.

To be selfish is to be human I believe - I'm selfish too... when people/governments try to dress up their self-interests as morals et al. that doesn't sit well with me (though I know the meaning of tact I prefer if people could be open about preserving self-interests).

To come to your question about a megalomaniac China - I really believe that 7,000 years of history has shown that the Chinese in general assimilate rather than annihilate. The Chinese people are a peaceful race (though I do get concerned about how nationalistic some of today's youth can be - and indeed across all Asia). They certainly didn't sail around the world planting flags everywhere (though they did sail all around the world).

Looking at the present - the separation of powers is too weak right now. The supreme court needs to be given greater powers to check the government (I believe there has yet to be a constitutional case to be heard in front of the SC). If directly elected representatives is not an ultimate goal of the CCP then the law must be strengthened so that the people's interests are preserved. This is something that is happening now, with a property rights bill being passed last year and amendments to the use of the death penalty. Obviously much work remains to be done.

And ultimately, I believe that the Chinese people know what is right and what is wrong (hence being happy with the general direction the government is going in). If a Chinese Bush came into power and decided to go invading other countries to spread the Chinese ideologies by gunpoint he will be brought down; a) because this sort of action is un-Chinese b) it is an unprofitable action...

afterall, the Chinese government is looking out for its self-interests too!

Thirdfox

1 Day to go - we've already got the athletes wearing masks (in the airport!), and the subsequent apology... Yao Ming carrying the torch... 4 Westerners putting up Tibet posters

oh and in regards to the sport:
Shocking defeat of the US by Norway, China beat Sweden and Brazil/Germany tie (women's football).

But to stay on topic - those 4 protesters, heroes from the West bringing their civilisation to the heathen Chinese or criminals who broke local laws and should be locked up (though probably just deported...) - loaded question perhaps

I was interested to read in the NY Times that Texans today were able to execute 2(?) Mexicans for a crime and not give them consular access (allegedly) and amid international protests (especially by Mexico where there is no death penalty).

gaf1983

Bush has some balls to go and lecture the Chinese about Human Rights and press freedom - actually, he doesn't really, as he made those comments in Bangkok.

The United States believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings. So America stands in firm opposition to China’s detention of political dissidents, human rights advocates, and religious activists. We speak out for a free press, freedom of assembly, and labor rights not to antagonize China’s leaders, but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential. And we press for openness and justice not to impose our beliefs, but to allow the Chinese people to express theirs. As Chinese scientist Xu Liangying has said: “Human nature is universal and needs to pursue freedom and equality.

A bit rich coming from a man whose country presides over trials such as this one.

Pride Fighter

Thirdfox wrote: »

1 Day to go - we've already got the athletes wearing masks (in the airport!), and the subsequent apology... Yao Ming carrying the torch... 4 Westerners putting up Tibet posters

oh and in regards to the sport:
Shocking defeat of the US by Norway, China beat Sweden and Brazil/Germany tie (women's football).

But to stay on topic - those 4 protesters, heroes from the West bringing their civilisation to the heathen Chinese or criminals who broke local laws and should be locked up (though probably just deported...) - loaded question perhaps

I was interested to read in the NY Times that Texans today were able to execute 2(?) Mexicans for a crime and not give them consular access (allegedly) and amid international protests (especially by Mexico where there is no death penalty).

Dont forget the illegal trial of Bin Laden's driver in Guantanamo bay. The US should definitely sort its own human rights abuses before criticising those of others.
Good luck to China. Hopefully they will stage a good Olympics, with Liu Xiang winning gold, he is my favourite Chinese athlete. And hopefully Ireland gets its hands on a few medals:)

SkepticOne

To be fair I think Bush will get a friendly handshake in Beijing when he arrives because he made those remarks in Thailand rather than in China where they would have caused huge embarrassment. I would have a lot more respect for the likes of Angela Merkel and Gordon Brown who will not be attending the opening ceremony. Actions speak louder than words.

GuanYin

SkepticOne wrote: »

To be fair I think Bush will get a friendly handshake in Beijing when he arrives because he made those remarks in Thailand rather than in China where they would have caused huge embarrassment. I would have a lot more respect for the likes of Angela Merkel and Gordon Brown who will not be attending the opening ceremony. Actions speak louder than words.

The US is in no position to condemn people on human rights violations, unfortunately

Apart from the illegal trial of the aforementioned driver, our news today is stating that despite his short punishment (5 months + time served) the administration is stating that in 5 months he may not be free to go as theyreserve the right to retain him in custody until "the war is over".

Add to that the execution of a mexican citizen in Texas last week who did not get due process (he was offered no representation) and created a situation that is most likely an international treaty violation (even Bush had begged a stay of execution).....

phew.... glad we're not hosting the Olympics

SkepticOne

GuanYin wrote: »

The US is in no position to condemn people on human rights violations, unfortunately

Apart from the illegal trial of the aforementioned driver, our news today is stating that despite his short punishment (5 months + time served) the administration is stating that in 5 months he may not be free to go as theyreserve the right to retain him in custody until "the war is over".

I agree, but it is a moot point imo, since Bush will be attending the opening ceremony. Doesn't really matter therefore what he says in another country.

lostexpectation

just watching abit of the olympics stadium parade there and some idiot woman is commentating, and kazakhstan comes passsed and the women starts saying how china and russia have started to freeze out the wesst from these countries diplomatically and econmically.... blaa blaa, nothing about why and how kazakhstan has 132 athletes coming to the games, i would have liked to have known whichi sports they were doing etc, that would be far more interesting.

Thirdfox

SkepticOne wrote: »

I agree, but it is a moot point imo, since Bush will be attending the opening ceremony. Doesn't really matter therefore what he says in another country.

Actually it was reported that at the opening of the new US embassy in Beijing President Bush used the opportunity to chastise the Chinese again. So maybe he has guts afterall!

I understand this is all politics - however, it just seems like by taking this action he's not appeasing the anti-China groups nor is he pleasing his Chinese hosts; lose-lose situation...

Thirdfox

K4t wrote: »

I hope to God there is a terrorist attack.

You mean Allah?

Shouldn't feed the trolls I know...

SkepticOne

Thirdfox wrote: »

Actually it was reported that at the opening of the new US embassy in Beijing President Bush used the opportunity to chastise the Chinese again. So maybe he has guts afterall!

His words were extremely measured in my opinion. Far short of a chastisement.

“The relationship between our nations is constructive, cooperative and candid. We continue to be candid about our belief that all people should h.ave the freedom to say what they think and worship as they choose. We strongly believe societies that allow free expression of ideas tend to be the most prosperous and the most peaceful.”

No mention of what China should do. I think you would need to be very thin-skinned to take offence at that.

K4t

Thirdfox wrote: »

You mean Allah?

Shouldn't feed the trolls I know...

No, I mean a terrorist attack by non-Muslim extremists who blow up their own people and innocent civilians to achieve their aim.

Ok, my words were a bit strong. Obviously I hope there isn't a terrorist attack, but that is what more than likely will happen. 16 Chinese police officers murdered already, but that's just thrown aside by some fireworks.

These games will end in disaster, mark my words.