Clinton: Bush should skip Olympic opening ceremonies

[eots]

If we boycott it's a disgrace to them............................but if we boycott all the American Corporations that moved their manufacturing there to deliberately take advantage of slavery and environmental laws would send a better message!!!!!!!!!!!

INDEED..that would be one better

 

[eots]

SUPERPOWERS
Pentagon Report Singles Out China As Potential Military Rival

"Of the major and emerging powers, China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and field disruptive military technologies that over time offset traditional US military advantages absent US counter strategies," the report said.
by Staff Writers
Washington DC (AFP) Feb 03, 2006
A major review of US military strategy Friday singled out China as the country with the greatest potential to challenge the United States militarily.
The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) rated Russia as a "country in transition" that is unlikely to pose a military threat on the scale of the Soviet Union, and said India is emerging as "a great power and a key strategic partner."

The review, which is conducted every four years, said a key goal for the US military in the coming years will be to "shape the choices of countries at a strategic crossroads."

The QDR report noted China's steady but secretive military buildup since 1996.

"Of the major and emerging powers, China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and field disruptive military technologies that over time offset traditional US military advantages absent US counter strategies," the report said.

The pace and scope of China's military buildup already puts regional military balances at risk, it said.

It listed an array of high end military capabilities that China is investing in.

They include electronic and cyberwarfare, counter-space operations, ballistic and cruise missiles, advanced integrated air defense systems, next generation torpedoes, advanced submarines, land and sea-base strategic nuclear missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

"These capabilities, the vast distances of the Asian theater, China's continental depth, and the challenge of en route and in-theater US basing place a premium on forces capable of sustained operations at great distances into denied area," the report said.

It said US policy aims at encouraging China to choose a path of peaceful economic growth and political liberalization, rather than military threat or intimidation.

But, it said, "The outside world has little knowledge of Chinese motivations and decision-making or of key capabilities supporting its military modernization."

http://www.sinodaily.com/reports/Pentagon_Report_Singles_Out_China_As_Potential_Military_Rival.html

 

[Ravi]

Okay. What does the bad publicity accomplish? Who doesn't know already about China's abuses in Tibet that would only find out by boycotting the opening ceremonies?

Carter boycotted the entire 1980 Summer Olympics. The only thing it accomplished was the USSR boycotting the 1984 Olympics.

The Olympic Games are supposed to be non-political.

China should be held accountable for its action in Tibet at the international level, IMO. However, I suspect words and/or boycotts will have the same effect they have on Iran. The international community will just get the finger.

I don't really have a problem with Bush doing it ... IF it's actually going to accomplish something.

Sometimes just taking the moral high ground is a good idea. Did we boycott the German Olympics when Hitler was in power?

 

[Care4all]

Oh.

Just noticed your response for the first time. So you think this is a protest that doesn't impact our athletes?

I think it does. The reason is because the opening ceremonies are part of the games. Not the actual competitive events, but still part of the Olympic Games. It kind of throws a damp rag on it, and it IS involving politics in the games.

My opinion is if we are going to boycott, then boycott the games altogether or not at all. I refer you to my previous post as far as questioning what boycotting will actually accomplish.

is it common for presidents to attend the olympics? in foreign countries?

care

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Not really pertaing to the topic, but I find it ironic that Clnton would bring this forward considering her husband's notorious connection to the Chinese. Just a thought.

 

[Gunny]

my point is this.. every penny you put into china's economy buys them more nuclear weapons they point right at you..that they are the prototype of the globalist dream..and that's why they embrace them..as they sell us poison made by slaves and harvest organs of the living..for money..to build their armys..

That's nice. This thread isn'tr about China's economy, nor the pennies we put into it.

It's about boycotting the Olympic opening ceremonies for China's aggressive and abusive behavior in Tibet.

 

[Gunny]

Sometimes just taking the moral high ground is a good idea. Did we boycott the German Olympics when Hitler was in power?

Who is actually fooled by the US taking the "moral high ground"? The US? I doubt anyone else is.

 

[Gunny]

is it common for presidents to attend the olympics? in foreign countries?

care

Honestly, I don't know. I don't recall that they do.

 

[Gunny]

Not really pertaing to the topic, but I find it ironic that Clnton would bring this forward considering her husband's notorious connection to the Chinese. Just a thought.

Yeah, I got a little smirk out of that considering one of the things that set me off about Hillary to begin with was her little trip at taxpayers expense to China back in the 90s and I was like: "Who voted for her?"

Not everyone conveniently forgets. However, as unlikely as it happening may be, I'm willing to give the benefit of doubt that perhaps she has altered her stance on China since then.

 

[Ravi]

Who is actually fooled by the US taking the "moral high ground"? The US? I doubt anyone else is.

Recently? Probably not.

 

[Diuretic]

A boycott of the opening ceremony by any country's leader is a feelgood action which achieves exactly nothing. I would think the Chinese leadership would see it as a massive loss of face. But apart from that the hypocrisy would be palpable.

Take my country. We're a small economy but we're weathering the global economic storm for several reasons, one of which is our trade with China. China has just gone to status of number one trading partner with us. Now I happen to distrust the Chinese government but I'm not going to urge our government to prohibit trade with China. So I'm not in a position to urge a boycott of the opening ceremony or the games themselves. Our PM has been invited to the opening ceremony. I hope he goes.

 

[Gunny]

Recently? Probably not.

Recent being relative. I can only assume you mean correctly the end of the Cold War when "the world" didn't need us to protect their asses from the threat of Communist aggression.

Even then, they never believed we held the moral high ground. Holding the moral high ground would justify defending South Vietnam and removing Saddam from power -- you know -- doing what's right as opposed to what works out in everyone's best interest?

Sitting around knowing that crap is taking place and doing nothing is HARDLY my idea of any moral high ground.

We get our asses kissed when someone wants a freebie. If that doesn't work, the guilt trips and criticism follows closely. Who'd they scream for first and who'd that bobblehead Chirac criticize first when those tsunami's hit Indonesia and Thailand? "What's the US doing about this?"

But it's okay to be used like that, huh?

I think not.

 

[Gunny]

A boycott of the opening ceremony by any country's leader is a feelgood action which achieves exactly nothing. I would think the Chinese leadership would see it as a massive loss of face. But apart from that the hypocrisy would be palpable.

Take my country. We're a small economy but we're weathering the global economic storm for several reasons, one of which is our trade with China. China has just gone to status of number one trading partner with us. Now I happen to distrust the Chinese government but I'm not going to urge our government to prohibit trade with China. So I'm not in a position to urge a boycott of the opening ceremony or the games themselves. Our PM has been invited to the opening ceremony. I hope he goes.

I would be all for curtailing trade with China. The cheap crap we import from them is cheap crap anyway.

I bet WalMart's the biggest abuser. Sam Walton must be rolling over in his grave right now.

 

[Diuretic]

We'd freak out if anyone seriously suggested ceasing trade with China. We import manufactured goods, clothing, electronics items and so on. We export raw materials to China (we should be doing the value improvement ourselves but it seems that a quick buck in digging and shipping is preferable). If we ceased trade with China we would be in a huge hole.

But, of purely domestic interest me I know, check this out:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23509774-601,00.html

These are realities for us. There is talk here of getting out PM to boycott the opening. Faced with these realities I tend to put any boycott in the "useless gesture" basket.

 

[Gunny]

We'd freak out if anyone seriously suggested ceasing trade with China. We import manufactured goods, clothing, electronics items and so on. We export raw materials to China (we should be doing the value improvement ourselves but it seems that a quick buck in digging and shipping is preferable). If we ceased trade with China we would be in a huge hole.

But, of purely domestic interest me I know, check this out:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23509774-601,00.html

These are realities for us. There is talk here of getting out PM to boycott the opening. Faced with these realities I tend to put any boycott in the "useless gesture" basket.

No doubt we would be in a big hole if we ceased trade with China. IMO, the US needs to ween itself off of being dependent on foreign nations for anything. We're allowing our dependence on others to dictate our foreign policy.

 

[Diuretic]

No doubt we would be in a big hole if we ceased trade with China. IMO, the US needs to ween itself off of being dependent on foreign nations for anything. We're allowing our dependence on others to dictate our foreign policy.

I think that goes for all of us. I mean China doesn't trade with us because they like cute marsupials, they need our iron ore and they'll negotiate the best deal they can get from us. We import their goods because all we've got left is a rump of manufacturing (although we do export cars to the US and Saudi Arabia and some parts of SE Asia), heck even our clothing companies (well bar one at least) have offshored.

The US won't necessarily be more dependent than any other nation. Having the world's largest economy actually means the US must be involved with other nations in trade - I don't mean in a dependent sense, I mean in for mutual advantage.

If another country has a competitive advantage in some form of productive activity then you'll trade with them - that helps them and it helps the US (here I am banging on with the language of globalism), but it doesn't make the US dependent. In fact I reckon it makes the world a safer place.

Trading partners, because of the mutual benefit idea, would surely find it more difficult to go to war with each other.

 

[Gunny]

I think that goes for all of us. I mean China doesn't trade with us because they like cute marsupials, they need our iron ore and they'll negotiate the best deal they can get from us. We import their goods because all we've got left is a rump of manufacturing (although we do export cars to the US and Saudi Arabia and some parts of SE Asia), heck even our clothing companies (well bar one at least) have offshored.

The US won't necessarily be more dependent than any other nation. Having the world's largest economy actually means the US must be involved with other nations in trade - I don't mean in a dependent sense, I mean in for mutual advantage.

If another country has a competitive advantage in some form of productive activity then you'll trade with them - that helps them and it helps the US (here I am banging on with the language of globalism), but it doesn't make the US dependent. In fact I reckon it makes the world a safer place.

Trading partners, because of the mutual benefit idea, would surely find it more difficult to go to war with each other.

I'm not looking for "mutual advantage" at the price of self-sufficiency. This whole "arsenal of democracy" crap has snowballed into a monster. I really have no desire to be part of globalization.

I want the US to be EXACTLY what y'all critics claim we should be ... completely out of the rest of an ungrateful world's affairs. What it boils down to is you bitch your ass off about us while our milk-n-honey runs down your chin. We should give but ask nothing in return, nor even venture an opinion.

I have no problem with solving your hygiene problem by removing the milk-n-honey along with our interest in anything "world." Being the world's largest economy, it would be distinctly to our advantage to be self-suffient and sit back and watch y'all fight over the scraps.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm not looking for "mutual advantage" at the price of self-sufficiency. This whole "arsenal of democracy" crap has snowballed into a monster. I really have no desire to be part of globalization.

I want the US to be EXACTLY what y'all critics claim we should be ... completely out of the rest of an ungrateful world's affairs. What it boils down to is you bitch your ass off about us while our milk-n-honey runs down your chin. We should give but ask nothing in return, nor even venture an opinion.

I have no problem with solving your hygiene problem by removing the milk-n-honey along with our interest in anything "world." Being the world's largest economy, it would be distinctly to our advantage to be self-suffient and sit back and watch y'all fight over the scraps.

Too late I'm afraid. The PNAC delusion has ensured that the world's largest economy is in more strife than the early settlers - or haven't you noticed?

The truth is the US can't withdraw from the world. It was the US more than any other country that drove globalisation - may be I should correct that and say it was US-based multinational interests that drove it. So, withdrawal isn't possible.

Welcome to the mess.

 

[PpleLOSINGpower]

Once again slipping off the subject at hand of boycotting the Olympic games and talking about the multiple nations that trade with China. Boycotting the trade, boycotting the olympics, boycotting the sea food, and cat fried rice......never going to happen.

I'm thinking that Clinton's stand on stating that Bush should skip the Olympic opening Ceremonies is just a political engagement in lieu of thousands upon thousands of U.S. citizens protesting China. What a better way to gain citizen support than to temporarily lean towards the protestors side to gain forethought in an upcoming election. When it comes to delegates and votes everyone is your bestfriend in a democratic society; it's when they win or lose that those "bestfriends" become long-lost friends.