I mean, is it our place to do so?

CHINA! 

At the same time, let's not Free Iraq from America either.

USA!

huzzah!

        b
 

 Damn the only ones available are "Free Iraq from Saddam" when I really need "Free Iraq from US Occupation."

Damn dumb hicks. 

The bottom line, pure and simple, is that whether or not we thought we should free Tibet, we could not. To attempt to do so would be to invite flat out war with China, on their own border, and that is not a war we will win.

Set aside, for a moment, whatever we might think about our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Sometimes I hear the argument that we should not take an action in such and such a place because we aren't addressing some other injustice somewhere else. But the truth is we can't do it all, and sometimes we have to focus on what we CAN do.

(Disclaimer: The author is not trying to justify our invasion of Iraq. At this point I wish we had left Saddam the hell alone and focused on Afghanistan--but yanking our troops now may only make things worse).

i agree with you murrog, and we CAN as a people protest China in Tibet and the 2008 olympics.

leaving our troops in for too long may make things worse too.

   Its fine to protest in the sense of drawing awareness to an issue, but under no circumstances should we boycott the olympics.   The olympics is about the athletes, not politicians.    Carter did it in 1980 for the moscow olympics and they sucked.   then in 1984, in LA, the soviet block didn't show up, so they were the worst olympics ever.   full of jingoistic promotion about our dominance in the medal count when many of the world's best athletes were not allowed to come.  

    The olympics should not be politicized. 

protesting the olympics is to draw awareness, yes, and also a vehicle to speak out against china's treatment towards tibet

the olympics aren't only about the athletes. the olympic games represent global unity, peace, freedom, and especially our humanity. china's human rights abuses and actions in tibet violate the basic ideals the olympics stand for, and beijing hosting the 2008 games is ideologically hypocritical.

Yeha, there has to be some sort of exit strategy for Iraq. However, telling the world what it is defeats it--if the terrorists know we are leaving in 18 months, they can just lie low until we are gone, or cause a surge when we are pulling out, or whatever.

 Back to Tibet, I am against protesting via the Olympics. Thing is, there is always someone can protest over, any time, and all it does is politicize the olypmics and destroy their purpose as a world-wide celebration of sports without regard to politics. Should a bunch of countries boycott us, next time we host, because of Iraq? Would that achieve anything meaningful?

Yes, we can protest Tibet--but doing so through the Olympics causes more hard than good.

I'm actually curious to see what would happen to a country politically and economically if they decide to boycott China's Olympics or even say anything bold enough to anger the Chinese politicians. 

if the olympics want to avoid being politicized to any extent then they should not recognize any nation and instead just take in great athletes indiscriminately. but seeing as the olympics are represented by politcal states, then of course issues are going to be brought up in the olympics 

Well sure, nations compete in the Olympics. But all using them as a forum for political protests will do is destroy that very forum. After a few years of Olympics destroyed by protesting and boycotts they will have faded into meaninglessness, and then the forum is lost.

It is like everything. Abuse something, and you lose it altogether. Besides, is it the fault of the Chinese athletes that their government wants to control a small nation next to it?

 What will happen to a country if they boycott? Not much--but that is not the point. What will happen to the Olympics?

I see this a lot these days, on this board and everywhere--folks who are so focused on their view that they feel justified in expressing that view by any means, no matter what the cost. Some times it is a case of not being able to acknowledge opposing but equally valid view points--ie most of American politics. Sometimes it is not a case of realizing that certain times and places are not the right ones to selfishly use to express YOUR view. Think about it. Do you think that by protesting the Olympics we will pressure China into lightening up on Tibet? We may embarrass them, we may frustrate them, but these are the folks who rolled into Tienaman Square with tanks. They won't leave Tibet alone because we insist on shouting and screaming during the olympics, or just stay home.

We have to find another way.

    What individuals do and what a country such as the US does in terms of protesting, are completely separate.  Individuals are free to do what they want.

     The US will not protest China's actions because we are too beholden to them.  They have us by the economic balls and if the US comes on too strong, they will twist.  

is it really so bad to use the olympics, the international forum, a symbol and event seen by the entire world to protest a country's numerous human rights abuses and totalitarian grip on a nation that should be freed? sure the usa probably wont take any action but citizens around the world can criticize whats happening, by using a stage that everybody across the globe is sure to see.

if there was a better way, then what is it? what other civilian demonstrations will bring this much attention and focus on Chinese crimes? the US won't boycott but at least we can draw attention to the cause.

and as a sidenote, the olympics have been a politcal hotbed for years. from the russian boycotts to the one where China held out because of Taiwan, the Olympics have never been truly free of politics. and it hasnt destroyed them yet. the olympics arent only athletic games for entertainment, they're a reminder of our humanity and need for unity, and those ideals will always involve disputes among nations because of the very goal of the olympics: to bring together all countries and try to instill a sense of international unity

Tibetans don't need to be liberated.

Only countries with oil need to be liberated. 

ucatchtrout:

Tibetans don't need to be liberated.

Only countries with oil need to be liberated. 

That's a good point.  I'm still waiting for George W. to figure out that Al Berta is actually in Canada and not somewhere in the Middle East.
 

Xskball:

 

one day, we'll all be chinese     

As a Filipino male i'm partly there =)