Your Torch Relay 2008

[james]

There's a saying that goes like this - what goes around comes around . What the west protest has done to the torch relay is more of an injustice. There's always a way to settle the Tibet issue by separating it from sports. The world are watching you west for taking the hard way of protest to try and disrupt sport games that belong to almost all people in continental regions.

Where is the tolerance and wit the west claim they have? How would they prove to us they came handle severe situation without violence? Why are the advanced people with easy way to solution? Cos kidnapping white people in Niger -Delta has be seen as a radical solution to government corrupt operation in that part of Nigeria. So, what do we say to this step taking to put off the Olympic torch?

I don't think I buy this idea from the west. With all their wit they could come up with a civilized way to a solution. I disagree with the west in whatever they have done so far in this protest to the torch relay.

[Rob2012]

So not content with labelling all protesters, peaceful or otherwise, as hooligans and ignoramouses as some people have done, you James decide to take gross generalisation to another level and blame "The West" for what we've seen.

[james]

So not content with labelling all protesters, peaceful or otherwise, as hooligans and ignoramouses as some people have done, you James decide to take gross generalisation to another level and blame "The West" for what we've seen.

But, they are Westerners. Or aren't they Westerners?

[barrack]

But, they are Westerners. Or aren't they Westerners?

"The West" is doing this in support of non-West Tibet. Why do you chose not to blame Tibetan monks? Why not the Tibetans who have dispersed themselves in "The West" and have spread word of their cause?

[Rob2012]

But, they are Westerners. Or aren't they Westerners?

Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill were both Westerners but that doesn't mean they thought the same way does it?

Yes, the people who were violent were Westerners, but so were the peaceful protesters and so were the people who came out to support the relay. Blaming "The West" is just as lazy as blaming immigrants or blaming Muslims. Things just aren't that simple.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Rob ♪

[james]

"The West" is doing this in support of non-West Tibet. Why do you chose not to blame Tibetan monks? Why not the Tibetans who have dispersed themselves in "The West" and have spread word of their cause?

Am speaking in regards to the Torch relay. I don't have anything to say about the Human rights violation having something to do with sport (Olympic for that matter) cos am not a politician. I think what Olympism stands for needs to be upheld.

[olympiaki-agones]

I wonder who the hell is going to relay the torch in Pyongyang? Will the authorities allow people go to the streets to see the torch passing by? Do north korean people know what an olympic torch relay means?

[arwebb]

Am speaking in regards to the Torch relay. I don't have anything to say about the Human rights violation having something to do with sport (Olympic for that matter) cos am not a politician. I think what Olympism stands for needs to be upheld.

Whether you're speaking about the torch relay specifically or not, what you're saying is nonsense.

[james]

Whether you're speaking about the torch relay specifically or not, what you're saying is nonsense.

I know it nosense cos it's a westerner that said so...

When few people do anything wrong in developing countries we are all labeled thesame by your bias media. What goes around comes around.

[arwebb]

Ridiculous. To paint this as West versus East is utterly nonsensical. West or East has nothing to do with this whatsoever. To suggest otherwise is as stupid as trying to bring America into it. It's utterly irrelevant nonsense and the sooner we focus on the issues at hand, the better.

[Olympian2004]

I know it nosense cos it's a westerner that said so...

When few people do anything wrong in developing countries we are all labeled thesame by your bias media. What goes around comes around.

It's fascinating how some people constantly rely on only three arguments for their political debates:

1) It's always the West which is to blame.

2) The Western media are completely biased.

3) The whole rest of the world is just the poor victim.

Switching off one's brain and only letting the prejudices flow makes life soooo simple...

[barrack]

Am speaking in regards to the Torch relay. I don't have anything to say about the Human rights violation having something to do with sport (Olympic for that matter) cos am not a politician. I think what Olympism stands for needs to be upheld.

Protesting the flame is probably the best way to save the Olympics as we know it. I bet right now the IOC is really regretting choosing a country based on geopolitics rather than on technical merit. The IOC "took a chance" on Beijing and have learned their lesson. It's just a shame cos this hurts the chances of other New Frontiers like countries in SA and Africa, as I'm sure the IOC will might prefer to stick to familiar territory for a while.

[FYI]

You're comparing China's Human Rights abuses to countries in South America or South Africa? Okay.

[Faster]

It's fascinating how some people constantly rely on only three arguments for their political debates:

1) It's always the West which is to blame.

2) The Western media are completely biased.

3) The whole rest of the world is just the poor victim.

Switching off one's brain and only letting the prejudices flow makes life soooo simple...

You can not deny that the Western media does have a selective bias to the news they cover, though not necessarily on

[barrack]

You're comparing China's Human Rights abuses to countries in South America or South Africa? Okay.

Not exactly. I'm comparing new frontiers to new frontiers. I feel the IOC took a risk with China that so far is hurting the image of the games, and as a result they may not want to take risks for the next few rounds to regain its credibility.

What would have been great for other new frontiers was if everything was perfect over in Beijing so that the IOC can say "oh wow, new frontiers are great, let's go ahead and give South America and Africa a go." Instead, I'm guessing it's more like "well, can't say we didn't try, europe and north america will get the games for a while."

[Sir Rols]

Not exactly. I'm comparing new frontiers to new frontiers. I feel the IOC took a risk with China that so far is hurting the image of the games, and as a result they may not want to take risks for the next few rounds to regain its credibility.

What would have been great for other new frontiers was if everything was perfect over in Beijing so that the IOC can say "oh wow, new frontiers are great, let's go ahead and give South America and Africa a go." Instead, I'm guessing it's more like "well, can't say we didn't try, europe and north america will get the games for a while."

I think it's comparing apples to oranges. Yes, they might all be "new frontiers", but the challenge of China is political _ I don't think there's ever been any concern about the economics and finance _ while the challenge of a South American or African bid would be almost totally that of economics and infratsructure. If anything, the IOC may well think that South America or Africa are a far safer political bet to take next after the problems that have arisen with Beijing.

[mpkwokgsb]

Unbelievable. A tremendously hand-wringing 'poor us, poor us' performance if ever I've seen one. The naivety is quite breathtaking. I mean, what exactly does he expect? The biggest sporting event on the face of this planet is happening in his country, a country whose reputation preceeds it, a country which should have expected the spotlight of the world to be upon it. And what does it do? Recoil in horror at any sign of dissent. History on either side is not relevant. The present and the future are what matter and until the Chinese authorities are sufficiently pressured into change, then the protest and discussion will go on.

I do not agree. The past, present and future are all important. History tells us why people/countries did the things they did, and why they did it shed lights on how people think why they are doing things the way they are today, and what they would do in the future. While I do not agree with all of Xu's points, I do with his point that help explain why a large part of the rest of the world are so skeptical of the motives of the West. Like it or not, it's a piece of history that we just have to live with it in present and the future. Choosing to ignore it in one's thinking and judgement process is equally naive.

[mpkwokgsb]

I know it nosense cos it's a westerner that said so...

When few people do anything wrong in developing countries we are all labeled thesame by your bias media. What goes around comes around.

I so agree with you.... an exception here is an exception and does not represent the majority... while an exception somewhere else is always portrayed as a norm. The number of civilians killed in Irag by the allies or the numbers of people killed by the weapons they sold to their friends in the Middle East probably outnumbered the number of political dissidents in China (note: here I am not saying I support China's teatment on political dissident, I condemn it. All I am trying to do is to point out the hypopcrisy of some governments)

[Olympian2004]

You can not deny that the Western media does have a selective bias to the news they cover, though not necessarily on

Some Western media have, some don't. Judging the situation in Germany alone, I can't confirm that the Western media are completely biassed. And that's what I talked about: That some people allege that all Western media have conspired against China and ignore the media reports which contradict that allegation. For example, the main German TV networks advised their viewers very early in the Tibet conflicts that also the reports of Tibetans about the number of deaths have to be taken with a grain of salt. Additionally, already my regional newspaper has condemned the violent pro-Tibetan protests in Paris. I hadn't the time to check other newspapers, but I'm certain that they pretty much share that opinion.

[AmaniS]

I do not agree. The past, present and future are all important. History tells us why people/countries did the things they did, and why they did it shed lights on how people think why they are doing things the way they are today, and what they would do in the future. While I do not agree with all of Xu's points, I do with his point that help explain why a large part of the rest of the world are so skeptical of the motives of the West. Like it or not, it's a piece of history that we just have to live with it in present and the future. Choosing to ignore it in one's thinking and judgement process is equally naive.

Yes, but he didn't answer the question. He walked all around a question. Maybe I can answer the question. Do I expect protests when Chicago gets the Games? Sure! I have not problem if you where to change the words in my question from China to US. Since he quoted my post, fail to see how I have written anything mean about Chinese people. You want to know what my biggest gripe with the Chinese government is? It is when I look into the eyes of my husband's Chinese colleges and see the hurt in their eyes and the awe in their voice that I, can do the most simplest of things, can have 3 children.

[SJD88]

You've gotta love CNN they lead the morning news with torch protest (and some actor is going to be protesting) then Iraq is exploding (again) and then General Petraeus is testifying in front of Congress. So cheery!!!

[mpkwokgsb]

Yes, but he didn't answer the question. He walked all around a question. Maybe I can answer the question. Do I expect protests when Chicago gets the Games? Sure! I have not problem if you where to change the words in my question from China to US. Since he quoted my post, fail to see how I have written anything mean about Chinese people. You want to know what my biggest gripe with the Chinese government is? It is when I look into the eyes of my husband's Chinese colleges and see the hurt in their eyes and the awe in their voice that I, can do the most simplest of things, can have 3 children.

Dear AmaniS, I have all the due respect to you for your empathy on your husband's Chinese colleagues. Now that you raised the one-child policy that presumably is a crime by the Chinese govt as your biggest gripe, pls allow me to share with you some info that you might not have known, which I do not blame you at all, knowing the evironment that you live in.

Has anyone ever questioned why China started this one-child policy? It's not some ramdom policy that the govt had nothing better to do and created it out of their dream. Up until late 1970, China's net population has been growing at 5% every single year. With a base of 800M (i.e. 4 times of US, 12 times of Germany and 20 times of UK), every single year there was the size of more than all of Canada, 2/3 of UK, well a few of California of NEW BORN to feed, to given them medicine/education, to give them shelter and all the basic needs, let alone the higher level needs that some societies are so used to. Back then China had not even gone into industrialization and the GDP was merely a few tens of US$. What was the option? Give them all the human rights to have how many babies they want, and when babies are born, they cannot even be fed/clothed/ have a shelter/ receive any education that a human should deserve, and yeah the whole family of 4-5 or how many you want it just wait and die together? Or limit the population growth for the collective benefit of the whole society. It's always so easy to criticise by the some countries and their people who have been taking so many things for granted in their whole lives, where there are people around other corners of the world who just fight for survival for their very basic needs. I wonder it's in the hands of other govt (or I should say politicians) who have been criticizing on this policy, what they would have done if they need to manage the population of a new Canada every single year at 1/10 of the resources their countries enjoy.

Indeed, now that a large part of the population has come out of poverty in the last 20 years, and the overall population has started seeing an ageing trend, the government has lifted up the restriction in parts of the regions. I do not blame you if you do not know it. The point I am getting at is, while resources are not unlimited in a society (which some coutnries and their people would have a hard imagining), there are certain individual rights that one have to forego for the collective benefits of the whole society.

Anecdote: AmaniS, I share your empathy when you look at the awe of your husband's Chinese colleagures. When I travel to India and some African nations, seeing all these moms and pas who have had every right to have how many children they want, and seeing the way how these poor children, large and small in 1 single family, are raised, I probably had shared the same, if not more, empathy on these poor people than what you did.

[AmaniS]

Dear AmaniS, I have all the due respect to you for your empathy on your husband's Chinese colleagues. Now that you raised the one-child policy that presumably is a crime by the Chinese govt as your biggest gripe, pls allow me to share with you some info that you might not have known, which I do not blame you at all, knowing the evironment that you live in.

Has anyone ever questioned why China started this one-child policy? It's not some ramdom policy that the govt had nothing better to do and created it out of their dream. Up until late 1970, China's net population has been growing at 5% every single year. With a base of 800M (i.e. 4 times of US, 12 times of Germany and 20 times of UK), every single year there was the size of more than all of Canada, 2/3 of UK, well a few of California of NEW BORN to feed, to given them medicine/education, to give them shelter and all the basic needs, let alone the higher level needs that some societies are so used to. Back then China had not even gone into industrialization and the GDP was merely a few tens of US$. What was the option? Give them all the human rights to have how many babies they want, and when babies are born, they cannot even be fed/clothed/ have a shelter/ receive any education that a human should deserve, and yeah the whole family of 4-5 or how many you want it just wait and die together? Or limit the population growth for the collective benefit of the whole society. It's always so easy to criticise by the some countries and their people who have been taking so many things for granted in their whole lives, where there are people around other corners of the world who just fight for survival for their very basic needs. I wonder it's in the hands of other govt (or I should say politicians) who have been criticizing on this policy, what they would have done if they need to manage the population of a new Canada every single year at 1/10 of the resources their countries enjoy.

Indeed, now that a large part of the population has come out of poverty in the last 20 years, and the overall population has started seeing an ageing trend, the government has lifted up the restriction in parts of the regions. I do not blame you if you do not know it. The point I am getting at is, while resources are not unlimited in a society (which some coutnries and their people would have a hard imagining), there are certain individual rights that one have to forego for the collective benefits of the whole society.

Anecdote: AmaniS, I share your empathy when you look at the awe of your husband's Chinese colleagures. When I travel to India and some African nations, seeing all these moms and pas who have had every right to have how many children they want, and seeing the way how these poor children, large and small in 1 single family, are raised, I probably had shared the same, if not more, empathy on these poor people than what you did.

I didn't say that I didn't know why there was a policy. I understand why, but.....

The people I am talking about are not poor. These people can afford more than one child.

My point is the Tibet is not number one on my list and I don't hate Chinese people.

[Citius Altius Fortius]

@ mpkwokgsb,

may I ask you if you are living in China? You speak Chinese and it seems that you know very much about politics in China.

[mpkwokgsb]

@ mpkwokgsb,

may I ask you if you are living in China? You speak Chinese and it seems that you know very much about politics in China.

Hi dear, hello and thanks for your question... I do not live in China and I live in a part of Asia where there is free flow of information, both from China and other parts of the world. I speak Chinese and there are many parts in Asia where there are people whose' native language is Chinese, such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Malaysia. I cannot say I know a lot about polictics in China, it's just it's closer to my country and I pay more attention to what's happening there, and of course share with people in the forum.

nice day.