Ok...I shouldn’t even need to respond to this. I just wanted to bring it to everyone’s attention. Bush had the unmitigated gall to talk about Russia’s handling of Georgia (and I quote): "This violence is unacceptable...[the U.S. expresses] grave concern about the disproportionate response of Russia and...[the] bombing outside of South Ossetia...My administration has been engaged with both sides in this, trying to get a cease-fire...There needs to be an international mediation." Really? Really? You want to talk about disproportionate? How about dropping daisy-cutters and cluster munitions on Iraq which had AK47’s and RPGs? How about killing more than 100,000 civilians to avenge almost 4,000 at the WTC (which Iraq had exactly zero to do with anyway)? Seven years of unilateral decisions, thumbing your nose at the international community, and you think they should get involved now it doesn’t involved the U.S? All I can say is if I believed in hell you’d be somewhere in the top five for people that can go there first. No one can possibly be this stupid, naive, and hypocritical. But there you have it. Anybody that wants to defend these kinds of condemnations while not acknowledging our own complicity can suck it.
Item #2: why is it that every time the Olympics come on we have to have a big patriotic smoke-blowing contest? The Olympics are about athleticism, personal and team competition, and mild hetero- and homo- eroticism. But every time an international competition starts, it turns into a big monstrosity that people use to justify how great we are because we beat another country at synchronized swimming or power walking (neither of which, by the way, I would ever consider a sport- just a hobby that is difficult. But that’s a different story). It doesn’t make any sense. Maybe people need this kind of "glory" for their self-esteem. It’s a powerful symbol I guess and can carry a deeper meaning. I never understood why people needed symbols, but I can’t deny the power they have. But have you ever wondered why the winners are almost always countries you’ve heard of? It’s because they have enough disposable income to pump into the training. They can pay their athletes. You rarely see Uganda or Slovenia win anything.
I just think it’s a travesty that we hold our athletes and celebrities in such high regard that what should be a personal triumph for them becomes something they are compelled to share with America just because they happen to be citizens there. Should you have pride in your country? Yes- when it does things worth being proud of. These athletes make me feel respect for the discipline it takes to be that good. They make me cringe with the thought of working that hard. But fielding a team of guys who’ve spent years throwing a clay disc down a field doesn’t really make me feel like singing The Star Spangled Banner (which you get bonus points for if you can name who wrote it without looking it up). You can be proud of the athletes, you can even be proud that they are from America and that they represent the best athletics that we have to offer. But don’t use it as a reason to spout xenophobic nonsense or to explain why one entire country or citizenry is better or worse than another. That’s just plain stupid.
Also, take that French swimming team anchorman (notice I’ve targeted the fool responsible, not the entire French nation). I watched the men’s 4x100m relay, which was possibly the best race I’ve ever watched at a sporting event. You should all go find a video and watch it. The anchorman said they came specifically to "smash" the American’s. Instead, they were handed a priceless defeat and the look on their faces was worth staying up until two in the morning to see. Hopefully anyone watching learned a valuable lesson about opening their mouth before the race was won. I doubt it. Instead, they probably learned that America is "better" at swimming fast than France. But it was a good object lesson nevertheless.
11 comments:
"But don’t use it as a reason to spout xenophobic nonsense or to explain why one entire country or citizenry is better or worse than another. That’s just plain stupid."
...and totally goes against the true spirit of the games in my opinion. I hate people who get retarded patriotic. During the 'parade of nations' I inspired my little cousins with my random knowledge about other places. The Olympics poses far more use to me as a time to learn about other countries.
Also I totally saw that race.. it was pretty neat as the top 5 teams all broke the world record. I do have to say trash talking ('we came to smash the Americans etc) is half the fun of competition... tho I cant say what I would do if I were on the international stage as my idea of fun trash talking competition largely involves Super Mario Smash Brothers from the safety of my couch. ;D
I agree with you...trash talk is fun. But it's something you do with your friends over Mario Kart. It's not something that enamors you as an athlete. That's why I can't stand Terrell Owens and Chad Johnson and Kobe Bryant or any of the other fools that talk smack. But there's nothing better than seeing them get a red-ass beat down by the people they sass-mouthed.
I do thoroughly enjoy the Olympics. I just don't like using it as an excuse to be stupid. I always thought it a good opportunity to learn something. I mean, if NBC is going to put 50,000 hours of sob stories about the athletes and their backgrounds on tv, there got to be something buried in there worth learning. If nothing else, we could learn something about China besides the usual rhetoric of communist-anti-human-rights-Tibet-hating-despots. I can't say it enough- what the government does has no relation to what the people think or want. So learn about the culture. China has some kick ass history and culture. American's could learn a thing or two from them.
People tend to want to be a part of something bigger than themselves and it seems to me that, in general, we enjoy sports more when we can identify with in some way with the athletes involved . This is what gets us to root for the 'home' team (school, city, state, country, etc.).
I DO agree that it is ridiculous to spout the patriotic nonsense and xenophobia just because of athletics, but I believe rooting for the home team helps us to identify with the people involved and lets us dream that we could do the same thing if we really wanted to (obviously untrue, but we all have some nonsensical fantasies - a healthy part of human nature that has led to most, if not all, of our creative growth!).
I think the heartwarming stories also let us identify with the athletes, and to see them as something more than just a physical machine.
BRAVO, Kathryn!!! It is VERY smart of you to use the Olympics as an educational tool! I wish more people did that!
Okay, as the token Republican I feel it is my duty to point out a few things. First, regarding your comment on a comment "I can't say it enough- what the government does has no relation to what the people think or want." During the third or fourth day, NBC interviewed the President and he did say something that I 100% agreed with (I know, I know... it is shocking to hear that I do not 100% agree with Bush all of the time). I must paraphrase because I am too lazy to actually look up the quote. Bob "Pansy" Costas asked him about the pressure before the games to boycott the opening ceromonies and the games because of China's actions in Tibet. His response was essentially that boycoting the games would have done nothing to change the government. The games are not about the Chinese government, the games give the world a spotlight (granted a small spotlight) on the people of China... not the government. If you want to affect government change, you cannot start by disrespecting the people of China.
Now, I know that the games have nothing to do with the people as it does corporate greed and lust for power and glory (I love Capitalism... I really do) but still, it was a very different side of the President that we typically don't see. I liked what he had to say.
Second, if being patriotic (the real kind) is essentially being stupid, then sign me up for the short bus and bring on the adult diapers because my IQ has just hit rock bottom. When it comes to the US, I think we are the best... at both good things and making the biggest messes of things. We do not do things half-assed. Either we succeed (Marshall Plan, saving the French (the people) in WWII, the B-2 Stealth Bomber, submarines, and air craft carries) or we fail... spectacularly (Bay of Pigs, Mission Accomplished, Vietnam, TVA (oh wait, that was a good one), and Democrats (just kidding on that one). Either Way, I am waving my flag and cheering for the Americans, no matter what the sport cause I can.
Okay, Before I get grief for calling Bob Costas a Pansy, I apologize for the personal attack. It was not necessary.
In your defense Ambassador, Costas is sort of "vanilla" as sportscasters go. I wouldn't have said pansy, be he looked out of place interviewing Bush.
I honestly don't care about the Olympics. The few hours that I've had on my TV were as background noise while studying.
The administration and McCain have both condemned the invasion of Georgia by saying that sovereign nations don't invade each other in the 21st century. When exactly did the Iraq war start again? While I agree with the sentiment, the blatant hypocrisy and irony or the situation makes it hard for me to take any of the spokespeople seriously.
Another Republican point of view:
I agree that what Bush said about the invasion of Georgia was, at best, really horrible wording. And, although I am not a 'Bush lover', I don't agree with Brandon's assessment of the reasons for the war. So, I guess I am in a minority.
Saddam was actively offering to pay suicide bombers, so was supporting terrorism (agreed, not the 9/11 attacks, but terrorism nonetheless). Bush tried to get world support to reinvade Iraq, but the French and Russians kept vetoing this (could it be because, as it turns out, they were selling weapons to Iraq - or did they just not agree with the proposal?). How many lines in the sand had to be drawn?
I use the word 'reinvade' intentionally. Iraq was IN VIOLATION of the PEACE TREATY that they signed to conclude the first gulf war and SHOOTING at coallition forces (not just U.S. forces) who were trying to enforce that treaty. They were supporting terrorism, and EVERY intelligence agency on the planet thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Based on these facts, I believe Bush would have been derelict in his duties NOT to reinvade Iraq.
Despite all the political rhetoric, it seems to me that the majority of the Democrats in Congress agreed with Bush or they would not have authorized him to restart the war. In my opinion they knew that this would turn into a political mess and set it up so they they could not be blamed for actually 'declaring' war, even though that is, in effect, what they did.
Bush did not have a good plan for what to do once the major military offensive was done. No question. But, if you will recall, we rolled over their forces in an unprecedented manner, and I don't think anyone thought they would be in a position to control the country for a MUCH longer period of time.
My 2 cents-
Being patriotic is not stupid. It's good to be proud of your country and what it accomplishes. And it's really, really great that we can afford to train and produce these outstanding athletes. But the patriotic rhetoric has to be tempered with the realization that you are not the "best" or the "greatest" anything. Birth in a nation is total happenstance. If you happened to be born in, say, Zaire, you would think that was the greatest place on Earth. As long as you understand that patriotism has its limits and that it can and has been used for evil purposes, then be as patriotic as you want. Know your reasons and be prepared to concede that what your country does is NOT always the greatest. Jack is right- you want to be part of something bigger and so you root for the home team. But you have to be willing to concede that these are all great athletes whether American or not. If you denigrate them just because they are not American, then your patriotism is of the stupid variety.
Regarding Iraq, I agree that Saddam was in violation of the terms of multiple treaties. He was a cruel dictator, a vicious tyrant, and a political manipulator on a world scale. But let's look at two things. First, the reason given for the war was WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. They were never found (because they never existed) and the U.S. has yet to apologize for invading a sovereign nation on false pretenses. In fact, the U.S. had intelligence confirming the lack of weapons- Hans Blix, the man who was on the ground and in the best position to know what was happening, repeatedly said these weapons did not exist. But the administration ignored it and manipulated the intelligence to show the outcome they wanted. I'll find the links shortly, but strong evidence suggests that Cheney and Rumsfeld had plans to invade Iraq BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11!!!!! How is that in any way appropriate? Why has this not been investigated and, if found true, why are they not being punished?
Second, let's count the number of regimes in the world that are in violation of their treaties. Why invade Iraq? Why not go after North Korea, Zimbabwe, Russia, China, Myanmar, Angola, Libya, or any of the other several dozen? Also- why are we complaining about other nations violating treaties when we're actively involved in doing the same thing. We violated the ICBM treaty because we wanted to build a missile defense shield. We've violated numerous international atomic treaties by working on designs for new atomic weapons. Would anyone be willing to say we should be invaded by another country for that? Oh...and let's not forget the hundreds of treaties with the Native Americans that have been broken IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY.
The truth is, nations only abide by treaties as long as it is in their interest. Once it's not, they have no reason to.
One more point- look at the terms of the treaty with Saddam. Who dictated the terms of the treaty? Who got the gains and who got the losses? Would you suggest that, if America lost a war, that we should abide by a treaty dictated by the winners with no input from us that pillaged our resources and gave nothing back (look at the oil terms of the treaty in particular)? The truth is, Saddam had no impetus to abide by the treaty because the terms were ridiculous and because Iraq would be seen as weak amongst the Middle Eastern nations. I'm not saying it's right or ethical not to abide by the terms. I'm just saying, if America had signed this treaty and been on the short end, would we follow the terms? We won't even sign a treaty with the new Iraqi government unless it contains previsions that are unacceptable to the government of Iraq (unfettered military attack capabilities, separate prisons for suspects, military bases on Iraqi soil). Would we ever consider a treaty demanding these things of us?
All that aside, Saddam was a huge prick. I'm glad he's gone. But remember- he had NOTHING to do with 9/11, had no WMDs, and there are more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians that will never go home to their families. Those people had no quarrel with us. Their government did. But they were the ones that suffered and died. Just like us- our government has a quarrel with Iraq so our sons and daughters must die. I'm not in any way justifying Saddam or his machinations. But our actions have killed nearly as many civilians as Saddam did. Does that make us any more right than he was?
As always, you give me something to think about. The one thing I would like to rebut is the treaty violation issue...other countries may be violating treaties, but they are not shooting at people in blatent disregard of the treaty and of human life.
As far as Saddam...I have heard that part of the reason he would not let inspectors in to search for WMD is because he did not want Iran to know that he didn't have them.
I wouldn't want Iran to know I didn't have them either. Truly, Saddam was in a bad spot. He had to maintain the illusion of strength even as he faced increased international pressure, regional political and military pressure, internal political pressure from his own party, and incredibly damaging international sanctions. He had to remain the icon of the regime even while being crazy as a loon. The Iraqi oil resources were the only thing really keeping the country afloat in monetary terms.
I agree that other nations aren't actively shooting at us or international troops while violating their treaty obligations. And that's something that should have been dealt with in the international community. It's also very true that we tried to put together a coalition for invasion of Iraq. It should have been a big red flag for America when no one jumped on board. But rather than going back to the table and presenting a stronger case or listening to the international community and not invading, we chose to go our own route. It's not always a bad thing to go your own way, but when it comes to things like war and invasions unilateral action is highly suspect. It also sets a bad precedent because we lose the moral high ground. We have a much weaker case to make for other unilateral invasions (Russia into Georgia for one) now that we have done it ourselves.
The crux of the problem to me is that Iraq was invaded because of ties to al-Qaeda and WMDs. Both of these reasons turned out to be false. There was plenty of evidence from third parties that the claims made by Saddam about nuclear weapons were false. There was also plenty of evidence that al-Qaeda was not involved in Iraq. Little to no attention was paid to that evidence, which strongly suggests (at least to me) that the administration was not interested in evidence that did not bolster it's claims.
I was pro-war at the start. I was tired of Saddam thumbing his nose at the international groups that are supposed to be the governing bodies of international interactions. I was tired of the genocide he carried out. But the more I delve into the circumstances and the more I see how the Iraqi civilians have suffered, the more I can't justify any of the conclusions that were reached and the more I realize that my initial reactions and defense of the invasion were emotional and not based on what was really happening. And I hope I'll never make that mistake again. We've killed so many. We did it in the name of liberation and freedom instead of political expediency. But the fact is they're still dead. We've lost more soldiers than civilians were killed on 9/11. It's just not right. We can't undo what happened, but we should have the ethics and leadership to stand up, admit we were wrong, and move forward with a commitment to rebuild their shattered country.
Part of the argument for going to Iraq was "mobile chemical warfare factories". This was total baloney from the start. The nitrogenous compounds used in these high explosives are EXTREMELY volatile. You can't drive them around in a truck without the most incredible protection. Iraq has some RPGs and some 50 year old tanks. They certainly didn't have the capability to drive around thousands of tons of high explosives. You need sophisticated facilities to make good, pure, high yield weapons. The most Saddam would have managed was a "dirty bomb". To be fair, the people he hit would be screwed. But there was no physical way he could ever have hit the U.S. (excepting possibly our Middle East bases). But the administration said they were a direct threat to America. So there's another non-starter reason for invasion and occupation. I just wish all this information had been so easy to find before the killing started. Maybe the American public would have pushed for more debate before diving into a course that may keep us occupied for many years to come.
Post a Comment