US President Bush will be going to China for the opening ceremony of the 2008 Summer Olympics on August 8th.

Some say this is a bad decision. They want President Bush to abstain from attending the opening ceremonies or any part of the Olympics in Beijing because of China's human rights violations. In particular, the recent attacks on Tibetan Monks.

I say this is neutral diplomacy. We are sending teams of US athletes to China to represent our nation. Our president should be there to show support for those athletes and for the games as well. It is not so much good diplomacy as it is the right thing to do for our team.

For President Bush not to attend over political reasons would be an act of bad diplomacy. The Chinese are hosting the games and our athletes. We should be the good guests and send our president. For him not to attend would be just plain rude.

After all, we are participating in the games if the president attends or not. If we were going to use the Olympics to make a statement against China, we should not be in the Beijing games at all. That is not what the Olympics is about though. This is about national pride by athletic competition, not by political posturing.

I really have no opinion one way or the other whether Bush should go to China for diplomatic reasons, or not. I don't think it will matter one way or the other, like it won't matter of Chavez goes, or Gordon Brown goes.

Bush certainly doesn't give a tinker's damn about human rights, so China's violations in that area don't enter into the equation.

He does have an interest in China using more oil and in developing better business relations with China, so on that basis, I'm going to say he will definitely go.

Good luck in the games USA, and God Bless America.

It wasn't the United States that decided to let Beijing host the games in 2008, nor was it the decision of those American athletes who will be competing for medals. That was the decision of the International Olympic Committee. If anyone has a problem with the location of the 2008 Summer Games, I guess they should direct their ire at the IOC. I,for one, would prefered that some other country had been awarded the 2008 games, but nobody asked me.

As for the President of the United States attending the opening ceremonies to see the U.S. Olympic team proudly marching into the stadium behind the Star and Stripes, I guess I don't have a problem with that at all.

Our Mandarin speakingPrime Minister Kevin Rudd will go to the Games. So wil most of the Australian media. It is was not that I have recently visited Beijing I will go as well. I have been to seven Olympic Games. While politics influences the Olympic Games the aim to to transcend this to a higher plane of peace and harmony.

On the whole I saw this in Melbourne, Tokyo,Moscow,Seoul Alanta and Sydney.There was a brutal intrusion of politics in Munich but on the whole the Olympic Games have lived up to their ideal.

Go Aussies.

Keep politics out of the Olympic games!
Even the Greeks stopped their wars during the games. Tibet is a huge problem and must be solved somehow...eventually, in a QUIET way, China and Tibet will find a solution.

Actually it is very interesting to watch China signing up for capitalism while still under a communist flag. They still have about a billion people living in poverty (that is over three times the US population),
Only capitalism can get these people out of their current way of life.

Athletes who participate in the Olympic games do not represent the United States of America. They may be Americans but they do not represent the United States. We do not put forth a national team as other nations do.

Chocolategeni. I do not know where you get your figures The population of China is 1.3 billion , a fith of the world's population. The USA is only 5%

According to the State of China atlas is 44.7 on the table of less equal.USA is 40.8 not much better.Enployment is growing but 1,329m is in townships and village enterpries. The number in private sector has increase by 70% but is still very small.

Chinas poor may be higher that the USA because of its population but so is its middle class. This is define as those with households assets over $18,000 and has grown from 15% in 1999 to 18% in 2003.It also has many free services not found in the Capalists world. I think a combination of Socialism and Capitalism is require. Capitalism has not solved poverty in many countries.

I'm glad you pointed this out Aus...some poverty reports actually list the USA as having more poverty than China... according to the Chinese..
(http://www.gov.cn/misc/2007-03/08/content_545466.htm)

I have been to China...you have alos been... My own anecdotal experience tells me the poverty in China far exceeds any in the USA...

As far as Tibet,national self-determination for Tibetans is what Tibetans want, and they are the only ones who can achieve that. Should the U.S. support their efforts? Of course. But not with military force, and not with massive monetary aid to Tibetans either because frankly whether Tibet is part of China or independent matters not one whit to the national security of the U.S.

And your experiences are most probably correct, CG, because China's population is much larger, because so much of China is still midieval agrarian and because China, as a nation, is doing little to change that. China is concentrating on industrialization as its entry into current globilization. Industry is centered around areas that have proven to be the most profitable to industry.

If the Chinese peasant (and my ancestors were Irish and German peasants, so I'm not disparaging peasants,) can earn more money boiling down the metals from the world's technological waste than through farming, they'll do so even though it not only kills them but also it contributes to overall air pollution. If the cloth manufacturers dump their chemical waste into a convenient river or stream, that's much less expensive than having it hauled away to a toxic waste dump.

It is ironic that China is trying so desparately to enter into the Capitolist world economy while still remaining under a Communist government. The USSR couldn't do it and broke up into several independent states based on historic ethnicity and languages. China is a sprawling country that has never, as far as I know, consisted of seperate states. China has always been eastern China with everything else to the west sort of falling behind it.

I need more explanation of this.

Are they private athletes? Are they sponsored like NASCAR and wear Valvoline and Budweiser stickers on their outfits?

Who do they represent, the Olympic Committee? I know the games have long since stopped being amateur competition, but I'm thinking now an Olympic Season, touring track teams, pole vaulters etc. Like a basketball season or a football season, we have an Olympic season.

Someone call Miller Beer, see how much ad space they want to buy.

The U.S. did change the conduct of the Soviet Union and China by resuming diplomatic relations with them, and it was a Republican President, Nixon, who had the wisdom to do that.

Dax,
Meaning not a dime of taxpayers money goes to fund an American athlete competing in the Olympics. US athletes are privately sponsored, fund their own way...given private grants. Other countries, for instance Canada has a carding system, where the government "pays" the Canadian athletes. AND other countries National Olympic Committees provide funding for their Olympic competitors. In contrast the US Olympic Committee provides only training centers for American Olympic athletes...but not funding. The US athlete competes in the Olympics as an individual....just like if he/she were competing in a regional AAU event.

Thank you CG. I'm guessing 95% of those watching the games think of the athletes as America's team, and they will certainly be sold that way.

The NBC Olympic coverage doesn't say much about the various sponsors of the athletes, unless those sponsors have bought commercial time.

I see what you're trying to do. You're trying to say that if the US does not financially sponsor the US Olympic Team, then the US Olympic Team does not represent the US. Horse puckey.

Aside from the US Olympic Team being the US Olympic Team, it is sponsored in part by donations from US citizens.

As for naming sponsors, in .24 seconds I found out that AT&T, Bank of America, VISA, Minute Maid and Anheuser-Busch are sponsors of the US Olympic Team. Having watched the Olympics on TV, I know from said TV watching whom it is who sponsors the US Olympic Team. They advertise, right there on the TV during the games. Having the occasion to venture out from under a rock in cave, I can also see who is sponsoring the US Olympic Team. Corporations who do are quite fond of plastering "Proud Sponsor of The US Olympic Team" all over their products.

But not all over the uniforms, Nascar style, of the players.

And why would Americans donate to the Olympic teams that are sponsored? Why should I donate money when Coca Cola is gonna get the credit for it? I don't give money to organized baseball, or NASCAE or my favorite soap opera, because I know these things are paid for by sponsors. If I like the show, I might buy the sponsor's product. If I like the Olympics, I buy the sponsors product AND help the sponsor pay for its advertising by saving it the dollars I've contributed.

No, I am saying that the USA is one of three countries that does not have a "National Olympic Team"...anymore than the USA has a National Nascar Race. All funding and competing at the Olympics is not supported by the state by any means.

Only 6% of funding for athletes come from the USOC...(2004 IRS Form 990). An Olympian must obtain his funding through sponsorship (competing with professional athletes for lucrative deals), trust funds, private funds, personal funds and or donations.

This is probably a difficult concept for you to grasp, but other countries "pay' their athletes...making their Olympic team- their national team. This is just a fact, not a judgment toward our system. In fact, our private system has worked quit well...

lizabeth, It is true thare is a division in China bewteen the rich and the poor. The western regions are still poorer that the east. This is partly because most of the big cities are in the East The rural urban gap has change over time it was 44% in 1980 rose to 58% in 1985 but has falling since to 35%. China still relies on the rural sctor for most of its food. Rural household consumption is lower tha in urban areas. However the government are trying to close the gap. Many of the Central and Western regions are rich in natural resources but poor in infrastruture. The government is trying to reduce this gap. According to the World Bank the number ofd people in poverty declined from 490 million in 1981 to 88 million in 2002. However this has fluctated over the years.

CHINA IS A DICTATORSHIP. so was the USSR when it gain the Games in 1980.
Surely being a democracy or even rich is notr a requirement to have the olympic Games.

Eh, at least we pay lip service to human rights.

Reading. It's the bomb.

human rights abuses.. and the incredible toll China is willing to pay in environmental damage .. it's truly a travesty that the Olympic committee allowed for these games to be played in China..

See www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23373004/ for article..

we humans have some f*d up priorities...

To get back to the subject let me say I agree with Stone There is no doubt that China is a dictatorship, Its action over Tibet and its inaction over Darfur Sudan are a serious breach of civil rights. But how would a boycott by the American President help change this position.

It was tried In Moscow and did nothing to change the position. It just robbed so many atheltics of their one chance to represent their country. Things did change with time, The USSR callapse and countries like Estonia which were hosts to yachting did get independence.It might have got it quicker if Americans like myself visited Tailin.

The Olympic games have not always produce peace or improve civil rights. But on the whole they have done more good than harm. The Melbourne Olympics was held just after the Soviets repression of The Hungarian revolution. It did publized the Hungarian cause and the sympthay engender did help it get independence.

The Tokyo Olympics brought Japan back into the civized world. The Mexico city Olympics did advance black Power. THe 1988 Seoul Olympics did hasten better relations with Noth Korea. Both Koreans march as a united team in Sydney.

The Munich Olympics seems an exception. Howerver the outporing of revulsion after the massacre did advance respect for Israel.The Atlanta olympics brought the Southern states to be more accepted as part of the USA. After The Sydney Olmpics aboriginals rights were advance leading to the apology.

All these were achieved because visitors from other countries attended. If Bush and Rudd did not attend how could they speak up for civil rights in China. If America boycotted the Games how could a runner from Sudan be the USA flagbearer. The Olympics do give a stage to advance peace and civil rights. It is up to us to use it to achieve the maximum benefits without destroying the Olympic movement.

Wandering Spryte how would not giving the games to China improve its environment. It is true statdiums were built in place of houses but most have been built to present environment standards. Beijing has at last tackle its pollution problem because of the publicity engender by the Games. Human rights problims. have not been solved but how would they be advanced by staying away.

I don't think there was that much serious talk about the US boycotting the Games. I mean, how could we? China is our largest trading partner. Both of our economies are so intertwined, it's getting harder and harder to see how one could exist without the other.

Are they Communists? Absolutely. But they're far different than the Communists of the Khrushchev era. They're Capitalistic Communists. I work amongst Chinese(the non-American types, here on biz) nearly every day and they're far different people then what I imagine the old Soviets to be like. I think the old Soviet Union was a very closed country, unlike China. The Soviet Union was far, far more controlling of a government than what the Chinese are and I think that in my lifetime, I'll see something far closer to a democracy in that country.

I think it's inevitable.

To those of us who are older than you, Stone, we'd like to see a Chinese democracy sometime sooner, thank you--fine. And I think younger Chinese people such as apaul would also like to see it sooner, although I imagine you're of an age.

I really don't think Mr. Bush's presence makes any difference. He's done so much damage to the United States' reputation in the rest of the world that what he does or doesn't do holds no more importance than a huge yawn.

Bush landed in Beijing earlier today. Our George was welcomed with a wait of 3 hours on the tarmack, while going through immigration proceedings reserved for the common tourist. Heads of nations, and the leader of the free world would usually get the red carpet treatment. It certainly was not the welcome he expected or should have received from our bankers...who treated him as someone from the American provence.

No, CG, we don't have a National Olympic Team the way other countries do--but we have National competitions that are designed to filter the less-than-the-best from the best and our best go on to compete in World Championships. We don't have national training schools that often take very young potential athletes away from their homes and families with one goal in mind--to train them to achieve World Championships or Olympic Gold.

What we have is a collection of superb athletes taken from discrete competive 'teams' and welded into one team.

Other than relays, how many of the 'teams' function as a team?

The competitions are, in reality, individual competitions--even the individuals within a team are competing against their 'team mates.'

The Olympics are a display of the best-of-the-best, as they should be. The Games bring together the athletes under one 'tent', so to speak, made popular--and political--since the advent of television.

That's a very bad question. There's soccer, volleyball, basketball...

CG, can you please source this for me? I'd like to read or see it in its entirety.

Thanks.

You're right, Stone--my bad. I just don't always think of some of the 'newer' sports when I think of the Olympics, possibly because so many of them (team sports) are made up of professional athletes.

I did like Yao Ming and little Lin Hao leading the Chinese delegation. I'm glad Lin Hao was included.

I viewed the piece on an evening news piece, yesterday. Here is a "shorten " video of the news item. Here is a video. It's at the end of the video...and not as long as the news piece I saw last night, either Keith Olberman or Chris Mattews.

http://video.aol.com/partner/cbs/bush-harshly-criticizes-china/jLTKrkU9jQfEo5jjB5BB35qxH3f3ioxk

I think that is a little unfair, Liz. Nations with "national" teams of the sort you were describing are sending professional athletes. Why should the US not do so? These other nations have full time athletes who are paid by their governments and afforded the best available training facilities and coaches. They are in every sense of the word professionals. I think it is unfair to suggest the US teams consisting of professional athletes are somehow worthy of denigration.