Tibet, China and the Olympics

Sean Trane wrote: IVNORD wrote:   You put words into my mouth. I specifically used the word "tilt" to emphasize that I've got it. Your "Far away from me the idea of supporting China " was pretty clear. That was me who sided with you - rare occasion. Even the parallel with the Vietnamese in Cambodia was legit.   As any religion, Buddhism is a well-established business. Ever wonder what the sources of income of the Dalai Lama are? There's no question it's a religion. The claim to its philosophical status is to reassure its followers of their sophistication as if they not merely follow a religion but a philosophy.   THe entire situation in Tibet is used as a counterbalance to China - the West supports the Dalai Lama and the separatist movement, etc. but no Western power has no interest in Tibetan feudalism and standard of living. Neither do the Chinese or anybody else for this matter. Even if they brought the XX century there, the change was miniscule, nothing to celebrate. One opressor replaced the other. So the Dalai Lama might very well stay in charge, what's the difference?   Sorry for misreading you!!     Ain't that the truth

You're not sarcastic, aren't you? Bet you, if the Chinese REALLY open their country to free trade and begin playing by the rules with their currency by letting it float, there will be much less talk about Tibet as well as much less appearances of the Dalai Lama on TV.

Let's see ... We got Russia out of Afghanistan, the U.S. got tit for tatted in L.A. , and no one has yet to explain why the billions governments spend on Olympic facilities (not to mention the usual & never forecast cost overruns) are of any benefit that would exceed the good that could be done in other projects.
Amateurs competing for ancilliry monetary rewards (sponsorships, advertising deals, gov't financial support etc ...); bloated bureaucracies enjoying the gold seat perks of power, while bemoaning athletes using any means necessary to achieve the top, all the while knowing that the major nations (hello America/Russia/China) will do all they can to hide/avoid/deny any positive tests.
The ultimate reality is that Tibetans would have to show themselves willing to commit mass suicide (with Chinese help of course) rather than endure Chinese tyranny.
Now if only Tibet was under Cuba's thumb, then you'd see the good ol' U.S. of A. kick some communist butt. And you know why ... 'cause you never pick on a power that can nuke you back.
If anything, we in the western world could boycott any & all products that buy advertising or sponsor these Olympics. And let them know it. money talks, eh.
Whoops, I forgot to take my meds. Oh Well, back to reality

Sean Trane wrote: IVNORD wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Other buddhist absolute Monarchies like Bhutan, Sikkim (part of India) and some provincies of Nepal are not much better in terms of human rights as Tibet of the 40's or today's China.     BTW Bhutan's king is quite a progressive guy from what I hear. The man insisted on becoming a constitutional monarch and installed a parliament some 10 years ago. That doesn't affect human rights in Bhutan in any way, of course   Didn't they just have "elections" that ranked among the worst mascarades ever seen??? I think that even Saddam and Stalin played the game more respectfully!!!

Alright, I don't follow the politics of Bhutan closely and don't know much about their "elections." Put that "progressive" in quotes too - "PROGRESSIVE" - fine with me.

IVNORD wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Other buddhist absolute Monarchies like Bhutan, Sikkim (part of India) and some provincies of Nepal are not much better in terms of human rights as Tibet of the 40's or today's China.     BTW Bhutan's king is quite a progressive guy from what I hear. The man insisted on becoming a constitutional monarch and installed a parliament some 10 years ago. That doesn't affect human rights in Bhutan in any way, of course

Sean Trane wrote: I couldn't care less about Olympic games.... It's been a travesty for decades (I'd say since 68 in Mexico), and political since that time as well: Black Power in 68, than the PLO in 72, the African Boycoot in 76, the Western Boycott in 80 , the Easetern Boycott in 84  etc....   Seoul (88) was the first games that really derailed the sports. They eliminbated Johnson but didn't check Carl Lewis who was also a doped athltetes. etc....       Far away from me the idea of supporting China (I really don't), but when they invaded Tibet in the late 40's and when the Dalaï Lama fled in 59, it is because the communists eradicated a feodal system where 85% of the population was either slaves (serfs) or part of the religious community, headed by a semi-living god called Dalai Lama. 90% of the land belonged to the clergy. Foreigners were killed as to not say what was happening in this land. The Tibetan buddhism absolute monarchy  was one of these religious regime mankind can certainly do without.   Other buddhist absolute Monarchies like Bhutan, Sikkim (part of India) and some provincies of Nepal are not much better in terms of human rights as Tibet of the 40's or today's China.   While there was no genocide, one can draw comparison between China's invasion of Tibet with Vietnam's invasion of Kampuchea/Cambodia during the Pol Pot years; However Vietnam withdrew as quick as they could, something these arseholes in China are not willing to do.   I know it's very trendy to be buddhist in our western democracies, partly because it likes to define itself as a philosophy, rather than a religion (this is pure BS, of course, it's a religion just like others), but we should definitely look that the Tibet regime in exile as something else but saints.     BTW: the head of Olympics is Belgian Jacques Rogge and there is an all-important Tibetan institute in Belgium (Chateau Fontaine L'Eveque in Tihange/Huy), so you can't say that I'm biased after reading this post of mine

Geez! Your anti-religious stand is so dominating that it tilts you toward anyone anti-religious, even such obnoxious rogues as the Chinese communists.

Edited by IVNORD - March 28 2008 at 10:16

Third option. 

I for one am glad the games are giving Tibet some much needed exposure. We have to realize, however, that the games are not about politics but for bringing people together. We still had the games in 1936 in Germany despite the rising evil everyone was cautious of. Think of all the hard work these hundreds of athletes have put in. Some people's lives are entirely devoted to these upcoming games; their life has simply been a preparation for this mass meeting of the world's premier athletes. These games need to remain a symbol of humanity.

Boycott would be terrible for the athletes and many more people... but to show solidarity will be fair and, peaceful.

On the other hand, a nation that never existed (Kosovo) got its fake "independence" supported by many powers and why not Tibet has this right since it existed as a nation before. Stop the world, please, I want to get out.

Edited by Atkingani - March 19 2008 at 18:51

Reality is obscured by perception, once again.... I think Gerald has a few good points here, neither Chinese or Westerners have clean hands. Giving China the games and then boycotting them is indeed an act of hypocrisy. Requiring our sportsmen and -women to boycott the games is equally so - why should these people give up their (Olympic sports) dream for us, who only look from a distance and give up nothing? They have had as much part in this as the Tibetans have asked for being treated as they are now.

I like the idea of participants showing solidarity with the Tibetans - regardless of whether they deserve or require independence, solely for the way China treats them. 

tuxon wrote: Personally I don't think a boycot will help, I suggest we make a fist and invade China, throw out that brute dictator and remove all the nuclear bombs they have.     BTW, while we are at it, why don't we boycot the USA for invading and forcefully opressing the people in Iraque, Afghanistan, and New York, same with Great Brittain, The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, France and other countries involved in oppressing parts of the world.   I'm very much in favour of a free Tibet (not that it affects me in any way), but I think it's rather hypocritical to point the finger when you live in a Western society which supports western intrusion all over the world, and never in the places where it matters (Sudan, Erithrea, and where do we stand regarding Birma and stuff like that, as long as there's oil or other natural products or cheap labour to harvest).   Let's first pull back our troops where they don't belong and than we can tell other country's to do the same (lead by example not by force).