ADN

OK, let me clarify: The Olympics are not designed as a political venture. They do not carry political weight. They are (supposed to be) independent of political leaders, political review, and political or economic sovereignty.

That is not to say they don't have their own political atmosphere, or their own social politics among the anthletes, trainers, ets. I am sure they are as contrived as anything else.

But the fact is, as I see it, a main motivation of wanting to host the Olympics is the revenue gains in travel, and tourism. The investments the chinese people made to host the olympics, which they won honorably must be recouped, or the chinese people (not the officials) will suffer.

I suspect the Olympics have their enthusiasts, like all sports, and they will sell out. Public boycott is just not feasible because it cannot be controlled.

Asking President Bush to not attend is an ineffective protest. It will not have the intended effect, and will just lead to Chinese offense, which will more effect their presence on the permanent security council than on Tibet. Action in protest like this will lead to action in protest on them. Expect major Taiwan troubles...

Asking a country to not send their team to the olympics is not going to sway Chinese opinion.

Face saving and shame are important to china, but they are and will be an arrogant people. Not easily muscled by their weaknesses into a course of action. When has this EVER worked on a national level?

Should we avoid helping Africa because we disagree with the Nigerian/Egyptian oil claims that spark conflict throughout? Wpuld it really help? How well has boycotting anyone anywhere REALLY worked?

If anything, I would say a REAL demonstration would be for the World Leader to attend AN ADDITIONAL Olympics: http://www.tibetanolympics.com/

If I say Barack Obama at this, for even a few hours, I would truly be awed.

If I saw Bush at this, I would smile with pride.

raum sez: "Face saving and shame are important to china..."
ootpoot sez: "I agree, it is an old truism that I also believe."

raum sez: "...but they are and will be an arrogant people."
ootpoot sez: "You make a declarative statement as if it were fact -- I disagree.
I see China as a proud people. I see the USA as the arrogant people."

Of course, it is deeply evil for a militant expansionist
country to conquer and kill weaker people in the

Tibetan Nation.

:(

Please don't miss my point arguing for another way to basically just slam the big bad US by anology and image, ok? Let's try to stay on the topic of China hosting the Olympics, and where a lack of attendance by World Leaders will effect their policing of the people of Tibet. The leader at focus is the US President, who stated he will attend as a sports fan.

My point is China's pride is OVERBEARING. That, by definition, is arrogance.

HOWEVER, it will not "tsk tsk" them into a removal from Tibet. If you won't come play in China's sandbox, don't expect them change the rules of the games they play in there. Because they consider their sandbox divinely appointed in a way no country younger than 3000 years old can. I was personally involved in the struggle for Taiwan's independence demonstrated by their first democratic election. It was of no use to "petition", to "refuse", or "boycott." It took the US Navy sending three carrier groups circling Taiwan to keep China from firing more missiles. We had to dare them to hit us. Clinton was as influential a Commander In Chief to foreign powers as we have had; he could not sway China's position on Taiwan. If he could not convince, coerce, or conflagrate China's position on Taiwan, then no way is anyone in current office going to be able to sway them on Tibet in a similar manner. If he could not sway them, or shame them, and he tried, you have to consider other routes. What Clinton did was gained support for Taiwan by ACKNOWLEDGING THEM, not by denying the Chinese people, their Nation, or their contribution. For some of the things Clinton did wrong, this was one he handled VERY well.

What it will take is a positive reinforcement of Tibet, not a negative connotation for China.

What hurts China's oppression of Tibet is the GOOD that is shown of Tibet, not the bad that is shown of China.