digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

China deploys 94K security personnel to the 10500 athletes

independent.co.uk — After the protests that greeted the torch relay, China is getting ready to put on the greatest show of security the world has ever seen. Clifford Coonan and Richard Osley report

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • redwinging, on 04/13/2008, -39/+1last digg unless this becomes a mutual thing
  • Pogojoe, on 04/13/2008, -16/+3Nice article emberjohn. Dugg
  • str3ama, on 04/13/2008, -13/+49I'd say that the 2008 Olympics should be cancelled, but that wouldn't be fair to the athletes. It's a real shame, considering China promised that by the Olympics they press would be given freedom for speech and access, and no more human right violations to be observed by Amnesty International. They've gone back on all of these, and the Olympic village and surrounding hotels intended for tourists will be the only places that press can roam freely - the great wall and other tourist attractions will also be open and heavily secured, including 'fake' locals [mentioned in Epoch Times] who will be used to give off a cleaner more friendly vision of China. I'm just waiting to see what happens when a few reporters manage to escape the yellow tape and report on the more hidden areas of China..
    • ncairns, on 04/13/2008, -19/+17***** the athletes, they can miss the fame and glory for four years - most of us never get that.

      I'm more concerned about the Chinese citizens and Tibetans.
      • blahtastic, on 04/13/2008, -11/+18***** athletes is a terrible thing to say. They devote most of their life to their sport, and in some of the sports they don't get that many years where they're really eligible (not that there is an age restriction, but how often does one see an old swimmer or gymnast?). Another 4 years might mean someone misses their shot.
        • ncairns, on 04/13/2008, -7/+32I devote my life to computer science. I work seven days a week, usually ten hours a day. I never get accolades and praise for writing a particularly good program. Nobody gives me a medal for that *****, and I sure as hell don't get endorsement deals and merchandising rights. Do I not work as hard as they do? Or is it just that my profession is less glamorous and spectator-friendly? Scientists do more for the world than athletes ever have, and they're paid like *****. I have friends in theoretical physics who are $100,000+ in debt from school loans who are making under a third of that a year, and I know geneticists even deeper in the ***** and making even less!

          And somehow I think that even regardless of all that human rights take precedence over making a nice show for athletes to show us how much ***** they can lift, or how many goals they can make, or how fast they can run or swim. I'm just silly like that.

          ***** athletes. ***** 'em.
          • ssn697, on 04/13/2008, -3/+9I got paid handsomely, in Pre-IPO stock, for my work long ago. There is a TINY, TINY fraction of Olympic athletes making money off their sport. They do it because they love what they do (which I assume is why you chose your profession). It is close minded to belittle their choice over some preconception you have regarding ten thousand individuals.

            Might houghty-toughty of you to post the comment above. "I am a scientist, therefore you athletes are unworthy. Your life long goals and dreams do not matter".

            We have had DECADES to tell China to stop it, yet we give them most favored nation status, an import their goods like it is crack. Yet boycotting the Olympics is some lame ass answer now? Yeah, ***** the athletes, but the rest of us can continue being jerks.
          • dabestdefense, on 04/13/2008, -1/+5Sorry, a majority of us here could make the same complaint: “I work harder than a stinking athlete and my contributions to the world are more valuable, screw them”. But the fact that most of us can claim that only proves how invaluable we in the scientific community are as individuals. You may work harder than any athlete true. But there are disabled fast food worker who put your efforts to shame and simply make minimum wage. Unfortunately effort does not equate to value. Generally working “harder” will get you farther, but the hard fact of life is that our innate abilities will limit us.
            The athletes are valuable because they are rare. Their triumphs are valuable because they only come once every four years. If people were running world competition 1600Ks every day, winning one would not be worth an endorsement deal. Computer science triumphs are valuable as well, the Googles, Facebooks, Broadcast.coms, Yahoo!s, MySapces, Youtube, Microsofts of this world make more money than most athletes. The top earning athlete Tiger Wood’s +100 million pales to Bill Gates billions. Sorry whining about talents in Computer Science over athletism will get you no sympathy.
            If your theoretical physicists friends are worth the weight they will make their fortunes and earn those noble prizes. If not, they will end up better off than a second place athletes with no endorsements and no highly fungible skills other than lifting heavy things or running fast. Athletes risk more, therefore the rewards are greater.
            Fortunately, scientific discovers often happen in parallel and alone in multiple places throughout the world. While we up lift the Einsteins and Newtons, we can find that there were others who made the same discovers, sometimes even before those who go down in history with the credit. I am really not worried about the starving scientists, we will advance.
            I am an engineer and amateur athlete. Neither will probably gain me fame and fortune, and I am all right with that. We all need to learn to be happy with ourselves. I would be a hypocrite to claim I take that advice all the time, but I know when I begin to cut others down it is not them I am angry with but myself who I have failed.
            A majority if not all the athletes did not sell out to China when they allowed China to host the Olympics in the first place. They should not be punished for the Olympic committees greed or short sightedness. In addition there seems to be more hypocrisy in the protesters than anyone else anyway.
          • ncairns, on 04/13/2008, -4/+5@ssn697

            Don't give me that crap - I don't care what anyone does, whether you're a mathematician or a garbage man, your profession yields very little intrinsic insight into who you are as a person. I knew a cafeteria worker at MIT who probably could have taught most of my classes.

            I don't have any statistics, because I don't think any really exist, but I seriously doubt less than a majority of Olympic athletes are making money off their sport. To get to the Olympic level you have to do nothing but train in your chosen discipline for years. Many, and I'd guess most, of the athletes are sponsored by corporations or private parties. Moreover, the USOC gives prize money to all medal-winners, nations generally pay their Olympic teams and winners, and individual sports organizations have awards for winning teams and single athletes. That's not even taking into consideration endorsements, which while most visibly awarded to the highest profile athletes can go to pretty much anyone at the Olympic level.

            And, yes, I absolutely think it's legitimate for scientists, among many others, to be pissed off about this kind of crap. Not necessarily Olympic athletes specifically, but sports in general are placed on such an inflated level, in the States especially. I read somewhere that the average salary for a college football coach is $1,000,000 a year. I mean, what the ***** is that!? I don't know how much professors are making, but it's sure as hell nowhere near that!
          • nogayskthx, on 04/13/2008, -2/+3attract millions of spectators willing to buy tickets to your MIT exhibits then talk....
          • theboywonder, on 04/13/2008, -3/+4Likewise, there are many football players being paid over £100,000 ($200,000) A WEEK in the football premiership here in England. Granted, they are at the top of their sport but still... £100,000+ a week? No person on this earth deserves that kind of money, unless they're pioneering curing AIDS or something along similar lines...
          • str3ama, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1I think the point you're missing out on is not the accolade, but the opportunity to do what you've trained and practised for. You go to university for 4 or more years to get your degree, all that work and education - and then you finally land the job of your dreams - now imagine arriving there to go work - but someone comes out and tells you your employment has been cancelled because some high up executives were caught embezzling money.
        • Heiminator, on 04/13/2008, -2/+6i think its better for an athlete to miss his shot than for a tibetan to get shot...
        • digf, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1We should read more to avoid being the tools of somebody:
          http://kadfly.blogspot.com/2008/04/few-more-pictur ... read what Kadfly saw in tibet
          http://forums.invisionpower.com/lofiversion/index. ... a non-voilence protestor
          http://avoidbeingfooled.blogspot.com/2008/04/do-yo ... about dalai lama, here is an old man knows more than you
          http://avoidbeingfooled.blogspot.com/2008/04/updat ... truth behinds "Beijing orchestrating Tibet riots"
          http://avoidbeingfooled.blogspot.com/2008/04/truth ... truth behinds "Edited Photo Proves China Faked Tibet Violence"
      • mooseontheloose, on 04/13/2008, -11/+5That's why you've boycotted goods made in China, right? Right? OK, that's what I thought. Now shut the ***** up.
        • ncairns, on 04/13/2008, -2/+13Please, boycotting Chinese products is stupid. I lived in mainland China for about a year, and you know what I found out? Now, this might blow your mind, but the average Chinese citizen - the people whose families are fed by Chinese exports - isn't too fond of their oppressive, totalitarian government. Go figure. I find it makes very little sense to punish them for their government's arbitrary decisions. The Chinese government isn't going to be hurting too much if McDonald's cancels their Happy Meal toy contract, but a lot of Chinese citizens probably will be.
        • nycmac247, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2All-or-nothing thinking sure is a great cop-out; isn't it? Are you now going to tell me to accept Jesus or you'll march me into an oven?
          OR is your Bill O'R STFU something that gets you off b/c you yell that at your girlfriend before you beat her for being a "stupid whore"?
      • bongle, on 04/13/2008, -7/+3And ***** over thousands of athletes would free Tibet how, exactly? As Mooseontheloose said, we're all supporting China's regime through financial means by purchasing their products and investing in their companies. Destroying the dreams of the athletes that have qualified for the Olympics will just piss off the people in charge, piss off the athletes, and do nothing to encourage openness or a reduction in human-rights violations.
        • ncairns, on 04/13/2008, -3/+5Ever been to Beijing? Most people haven't, but a lot of them will be going there for the first time this summer, and what they're going to see is a facade of tranquility and accord the Chinese government has spent the past five years carefully appliqueing. The Beijing Olympics are an attempt on the part of the Chinese to self-initiate themselves into their role as a new world superpower, and adorn themselves with the sense of modernity and legitimacy thereby implied. Except that the Chinese government is not modern and it is not legitimate. It is oppressive, broken, and antiquated, still fundamentally built around the Maoist regime which justified itself by brutally squelching any call for change. The Olympics can either open the world's eyes to that, or close them.
        • bongle, on 04/13/2008, -3/+2Which is exactly why they Olympics should go forward. I can't imagine the media reporting about governmental and social issues is going to be terribly pro-PRC during the event (judging by how it is now), so the Olympics happening is only going to be a net negative for China in PR terms. If you do a boycott, the regime will become massively defensive, (more)hostile to western interests, and even more resistant to change than it is now.
          • ncairns, on 04/13/2008, -3/+2Oh please, you think China would have campaigned to get the games if they didn't know they could put a happy face on them? The Chinese government is arguably the best disseminator of propaganda in the world. Having a million people flow into Beijing to watch the games, and potentially billions of viewers watching on television around the world, is good PR by its own merit - especially when you consider how many important politicians will be attending. It will be a symbolic milestone for China's gradual ascension to a seat of real power.
          • bongle, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2Why can't I reply directly to your comments?
            China is ascending to power anyway. 10% annual economic growth and more than 1 billion citizens guarantees that. Whether or not there are symbolic milestones or not, they're become more powerful each year.
            It is only good PR if the coverage isn't interspersed with "now, here's Brian to talk about the pollution and how it affects the athletes", "a pro-tibet protester attempted to tackle the leader in the marathon" and "more on that romanian gymnast who was taken for questioning yesterday". A 4 month run-up of stories commenting on Tibetan crackdowns, environmental problems, press restriction, and general oppressiveness will probably do much more to hurt china's reputation than 2 weeks of folks running quickly. You know that there are going to be protesters getting themselves arrested (if they fail) or causing spectacular problems for the olympics (if they succeed). I can't imagine any way these Olympics aren't going to be a *****. I just hope the people I know that qualified don't get muniched.
          • ncairns, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2China is ascending to power on the backs of its people. As I said, they generally hate their government, although they wouldn't be caught saying it to a stranger. Since there are a billion of them, they have the power to overthrow their government. They want to desperately, they've flirted with the idea for decades, but they've never managed to foment the general will to see past the danger. Lately, though, there's been something in the air. The Chinese couldn't do anything about their government for a long time because, although they were starving off by the millions because of government-manufactured food shortages, they knew things could be made to be a lot worse. If they did manage to take control of their country twenty years ago, their economy would have collapsed completely - they simply didn't have to infrastructure to subvert state control. Now they do. Several times over, in fact. The Chinese economy has so much inertia that it would likely keep plowing ahead right through a major uprising, or at worst would sustain the blow without any lasting damage. The Chinese people are starting to feel like they can bring the pro-democracy protests of the '80s to fruition.

            And then China is awarded the Olympics. Can't you see how ***** demoralizing that would be for an oppressed, downtrodden people? To basically have the world validate their government's policies by giving them the most visible, heralded international event in the world? An event that stands for unity and freedom, no less? Even if the Olympics didn't help to shift the world's perception of the Chinese government for the worse, they certainly will for the Chinese people.
          • str3ama, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1I think the fact that propaganda is so readily pushed on the people is enough to show that the people aren't happy with the present situation, putting an embargo on them or boycotting their products is more hurtful to the people then the leaders of the country. Embargo's and boycotts simply don't work on countries, it works on companies and corporations, but not on a country - it actually makes things worse, since the government will use the embargo as a way of rationalizing how trivialized and persecuted the country is.
    • NoStoppingUs, on 04/13/2008, -4/+27im still wondering who in the ***** thought it would be a good idea to have the olympics in CHINA
      • vertinox, on 04/13/2008, -1/+13The IoC official who got the money in the brown envelope.
        • sovietninja, on 04/13/2008, -0/+5Here's an example of the Olympic being run for profit: From Mitt Romney's Wiki page:

          On February 11, 1999, Romney was hired as the new president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Romney revamped the organization's leadership and policies, reduced budgets and boosted fundraising. He also worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by coordinating a $300 million security budget. Despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the Games ended up clearing a profit of $100 million, not counting the $224.5 million in security costs contributed by outside sources.
      • fluxion, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3im still wondering wtf thinks it's wise to run the torch through Tibet on it's final trip?

        i mean how could that POSSIBLY end in anything other than renewed violence and protests?

        China is being pretty obstinate here.
        • str3ama, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4It's a PR move, they'll send in tons of armed security not in uniform of course. They'll invite the media and they're will be a highly organized spectacle as it appears Tibetans praising China waving miniature China flags and giving accolades to the Olympic parade.
    • stonebear, on 04/13/2008, -6/+6However disappointed the athletes would be, the right thing to do is an international boycott of the Olympics; there is so much more at stake than the athletes. It is the 1936 Munich games all over again, and hindsight shows clearly that, if the international community had stood up to Germany in the 1930s, WWII might not have happened on the scale it did. But no, it stood back and said: "Maybe Germany is on to something here, see how she prospers!" It has the opportunity to stand up to China now, and should not shirk its responsibility as it did then. People today recoil at the grandiosity of the German games which came at a such massive price of European human rights, why should they not feel the same about this Chinese monstrosity coming at as great an expense in Asian human rights. How is a Chinese or Tibetan life worth less than that of a European or Jew?

      But he Olympic problem lies not with China, but with the Olympic committee; that is where the buck should stop. It has obviously become desperately corrupt, if it is willing to place the Olympics based simply on the eagerness of the host country to commit any brutality or deception for a grander spectacle. No Olympic games should take place until the Olympic committee has been reformed, and has realigned itself with the higher purpose the Olympic games are supposed to embody.
      • bongle, on 04/13/2008, -3/+3Hahaha
        "If only we hadn't had that sporting event in Germany, then WW2 wouldn't have happened!"
        If the world had stood up and protested as Hitler annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, THAT might have stopped WW2 (or arguably, just sparked it earlier). Not sending their athletes to see who can run the fastest wouldn't have done *****.
        The Olympics are simply a sporting event. Having or not having them is not going to affect the course of history. IMO, having them will have a more positive effect, as the world is already fretting about human rights a full 4 months before the games. A boycott would stop all this diplomatic pressure that China is feeling.
        • stonebear, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3Please don't misquote me. What I actually wrote was: "...hindsight shows clearly that, if the international community had stood up to Germany in the 1930s, WWII might not have happened on the scale it did." Obviously such a gesture of international disapproval would not have been enough by itself, but it would have been a good place to start. Just a slap in the face, but if the world had slapped Germany around a little early on, perhaps it would not have had to beat the daylight out of her later.
      • ssn697, on 04/13/2008, -5/+3Yes!! Boycotting the Olympic games is the right thing to do, as we import hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods every year. Forget that! Let's make sure we send a powerful statement by stopping some athletes from competing!

        We have had the chance to "stand up to China" for decades, but you think boycotting the Olympics is the answer. This whole Olympic boycott, crap, and the people it brings out in mock dismay, is officially boring now. How many letters did you write to Congress about most favored nation status, the trade imbalance, etc.?

        Knee jerk week on Digg...
        • ncairns, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3Like I already said, boycotting Chinese products hurts the Chinese people a lot more than it does the Chinese government. They already have a pretty tidy surplus - about $1,000,000,000,000 last I heard. The import contracts China has are supporting Chinese workers and their families far more than the government. The best way to bring about democracy in China is by supporting the Chinese people. Not through military force or economic incentive, but through refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the Chinese government.
      • Wrangler76, on 04/13/2008, -3/+0"It is the 1936 Munich games all over again, and hindsight shows clearly that, if the international community had stood up to Germany in the 1930s, WWII might not have happened on the scale it did." You sir win the "stupidest comment of the year on Digg!" Award!
  • macmangb, on 04/13/2008, -14/+4Are those security forces there to protect the athletes or China? I think if an Athlete were to protest against this murderous regime during the olympics these goons will take them for reeducation.

    Remember China is a terrorist government, responsible for enslaving Tibetans and commiting mass executions and have been many times linked to muslim extremists.
    • alclone, on 04/13/2008, -6/+11Tibetans have enslaved their population for thousands of years. When the Communists took over, serfdom/slavery ended in Tibet.

      Go learn some history boy.
      • vertinox, on 04/13/2008, -3/+8What? How is this any different from any ancient nation anywhere? Hell... Western Europe had serfdom for centuries, but no one used it as a context for invading Russia when they still had in it in the 1800s after everyone else abolished it.

        If Serfdom bothered you that much, why not setup a democratic government and then leave? Its like if the US invaded Iraq on the current pretense and then just said "Iraq is the new 51st state annexed into the union!"
        • digf, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2ok, then free New Mexico, Hawaii, .......
        • digf, on 04/13/2008, -2/+3btw, one thing you (vertinox) should know:
          China put more and more money to modernize Tibet
          but the US is plundering more and more money from Iraq by stealing their oil.
      • userperson, on 04/13/2008, -3/+2A) don't confuse nations with their idiotic government.
        B) Tibetians should be free as all people should be free. Free from Chinese armies as well as Tibetian Monks.
        C) Tibetians may have enslaved their population, but China has little qualms about enslaving and sacrificing i.e. KILLING large portions of its population.
        D) Tibet has been vanquished for decades, all their is, is the Dalia Lama and couple of Monks living in seclusion. I'm not afraid of them.
        E) China's government is large and in charge. If you're Chinese, and unless you can tell me different, be afraid, be very afraid. http://is.gd/5Ir
    • userperson, on 04/13/2008, -3/+2I think they're inpart to protect the Chinese citizens -- from free speech.
      http://is.gd/5Ir
    • 007kz, on 04/13/2008, -3/+7Stop your typical ignorant hippie talk. China, no matter how bad, is NOT a "terrorist government". Do your research before slapping your own lables on governments that you're not even famaliar with. If China were a terrorist government, it wouldn't be in the UN, it wouldn't be trading with all the biggest and most powerful nations in the world, etc. etc.
      • vertinox, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2I thought linking China to terrorism would be more from the same people who linked Iraq to terrorism. Well... Its dumb both ways.
    • chenyu768, on 04/13/2008, -1/+7Wow muslims now huh? and terrorists huh? So we must have been behind 9/11, bin laden, saddam hussine too huh? So we've been going to other countries and bombing their population huh? stripping other countries of their natural resources huh?
      Don't forget, I've never heard the Chinese government lie to me with my own ears, but i've heard the US goverment lie to me many many times, yet we still believe everything they feed us. Sheep.
      • sovietninja, on 04/13/2008, -4/+2Move back to China? I'm sure they will take you back with open arms since the US government lies to you all the time! While you are there please look up Tienanmen Square on Google China, ok? Bon Voyage!
        • chenyu768, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1i was there buddy, tiananmen. I am the first to admit china overreacted, but it was no where near the blood bath America describes it as. In fact i've never seen anyone shot or pictures of anyone shot by the army or the army shooting into the crowd. In fact i remember most of them being sympathitic. (i mean if China wanted blood, wouldnt they of just ran the guy over with the tank?). Anyways i've never seen any photos of Chinese soliders shooting students. I dare you to find one, since there were so many foreign journalists there im sure one picture had to get out of the "many" people the government killed. And i do go back to China all the time, in fact once a year. The time from i moved in 89 to now there is nothing in China that is the same. I no longer wait in lines for food, no longer am i allowed only 2kg of meat a month. China is westernized that when i go home its nothing like i remember. People are happy, satisfied. We party, go clubbing, drink, eat, never do my family tell me how oppressed they are or the chinese people, nor do i see any of this oppression when i visit. ( and yes i go everywhere. My mom's family is in Harbin and I grew up in Hangzhou and i also usually visit my dad's family in JiLin and HuBei, so thats pretty much all of China)
          I'm just trying to say, how what you feel if you live in another country and they tell you that the American people are oppressed, they are living in fear everyday, that our government somehow suppresses our thoughts, and that we are all somehow too stupid to see the truth (i thought stereotypically we chinese were suppose to be smart) and that we all secretly hate our government (ok maybe we do), you cant sit there and say nothing. Just visit China sometimes, you'll feel differently i swear.
          • sovietninja, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1You seemed so disenchanted with the US, and you painted a pretty picture of China, so why are you here if you think the US government is lying to you? I would probably never visit China, just on the basis that I wouldn't feel safe. Their human rights record isn't the best and I don't feel I would have any sort of diplomatic immunity as an American citizen. I might visit Macau someday, but once they start building hotels for overnight stayers that aren't VIP suites.

            And regarding Tienanmen Square, I'm saying the Great Firewall of China essentially blocks any references to the student riot. This can be clearly seen on Google China. I'm not saying anything other than that, so I'm not sure why you got all defensive about it and again made the conclusion that I believe that China wanted blood??? Where did that come from? Maybe your stereotyping me and putting other peoples words in my mouth or something? That last thing you said, "how what you feel if you live in another country".... I didn't understand what your trying to say, I think you missed a word or something becuase it doesn't make sense to me even retyping it.

            Oh and the bon voyage? that's me being a dick, sorry :)
          • sovietninja, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Just because you didn't see anything, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The mayor of Beijing Chang Ka- mun admitted that people were killed ""I cannot deny that about 300 to 600 people were killed in Tiananmen Square then. " From the Standard a HK newspaper. An elected official stating that people died is more credible than what you wrote, so I would believe the Mayor of Beijing first.

            And China does censor its Internet and you can find a multitude of articles regarding that so you can learn more about it. The BBC news site, which is also blocked in China, has a couple articles regarding Google censoring itself due to Chinese law and regulation.

            So I'm not pulling this out of my ass or anything, you can find the information online, that is, if your not in China :)
            And here are images which show injured and dead people and even someone who was crushed by a tank:
            http://www.cnd.org/June4th/massacre.html
            http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-6-4/42313.html
      • userperson, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2Yeah the U.S. gov't is bad, no doubt ... but if you think they're the devil, you really haven't been paying attention. The Chinese gov't has probably killed more people than the Nazis, the Russians, Maybe even Christians. A whole hell of a lot of people.

        That's all fine and fun... /s maybe in a numbers game someone else 'wins', but the Chinese gov't will not only gun down peaceable protesters, but squash them with Tanks. These are their own people!!! not Tibetians or some other ethnicity.

        Not that such differences should be paramount, but usually such distinctions are what is used to dehumanize 'the enemy'. "It's okay because he's not like us, he's evil and would harm us, if we didn't harm him first." I don't want to imagine the level of brutality that must be inflicted for people to have to gun down others who are really no different than themselves because some people told them to. Yes I know, some irony in relation to the current U.S. situation, but would you go to another U.S. city and mow down innocent disarmed civilians, just on order? Then round up some more protesters and execute them on television?

        The whole thing make me want to vomit. http://is.gd/5Ir
    • HaloZero, on 04/13/2008, -1/+4Actually China hates Muslim Extremists, they have a bunch of trouble with them in their Wetern provinces that have some Muslim minorities. They're trying to get people move there to displace them. They do support Iran, but that's only because they want oil.
    • chenyu768, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1He's the same person that was protesting Free Tbet with a listen to the Dalai Lama sign.
    • Wrangler76, on 04/13/2008, -1/+0Macman, you have now said that there are public executions of the mentally disabled on the streets and that the Chinese people enjoy seeing it, that China has a terrorist government, that China is linked to Muslim extremists, and that they enslave the Tibetans. I'm not sure if I should be thankful that this is the only time you've been dugg DOWN...
  • Winston84, on 04/13/2008, -6/+55They have to protect the Olympics against Dalai bin Lama and his WMB's ..(Weapons of Mass-Buddhism)
  • Ruler4you, on 04/13/2008, -4/+10So, 8.9 paramilitary types to protect each athlete? that makes perfect cents. Yes, I did spell it correctly. This is NOT about competition except in the sense that the competition brings in money. Taxes. And yes even an underground economy will develop around the games. But that is what this is about, not competition. Billions of dollars are at stake every two years, now, summer games then in two years the winter games. That way they even out the revenue flow, it's not all bunched up in one four year cycle.
    The point of the security over kill (pardon the pun) only brings to clarity the fact it is all about transferring money from one hand to another. Making the (any)economy move.
    I'll bet there will be that many intelligence operatives running around trying to learn what changes have 'really' occurred in China.
    One thing is for sure, it isn't about the competition any more, if in fact it ever was.
    • Neoanarchist, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2In Olympia is was about the Gods, so I don't know that it was ever ABOUT competition, thats just a part of it.
    • HaloZero, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2I really don't think they're going to paramilitary...... I think they're going to be security guard guys/cops.
      • sovietninja, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1In China, that's their militia...
    • tim04, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1considering that there's going to be many more people attending the Olympics than just athletes, I don't see anything wrong with 94k.
    • DeathMote, on 04/13/2008, -0/+0Spending money on the Olympics to "bring in money" is better in my eyes than going on a war destroying another country to "stimulate the economy". Is there a lot of money changing hands? Yes. There are corporate sponsorships etc, but hosting the Olympics is more a point of pride than making a lot of money. It's not cheap to build all the stadiums and infrastructure.
  • TomK88, on 04/13/2008, -1/+12Why are they comparing the number of security to the number of athletes? Isn't the total number of people in attendance a much more important number? Although I don't agree with MANY of China's actions, I don't see how having a lot of security can be seen as a bad thing. Would you rather they have a tiny security team that would make the entire event much less safe?
    • Neoanarchist, on 04/13/2008, -6/+1Safe is a relative word, and it's worth to athlete's and fan's eyes is different depending on who's perspective you approach the issue from. If it's safe from the citizens perspective, great, thats the goal. If it is, however, safe from the Chinese governments perspective....well we've seen what they consider safe (internet filtering, Tibet occupation, human rights violations). You've got to read between the lines (sorry for the cliche) and see that they're using euphemisms on purpose to lure people into the same thought process you've just displayed. That's not to say you're wrong, just that you're not looking at the whole picture.
      • TomK88, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3What are you talking about? The number of security staff on hand has nothing to do with any of what you just said.
  • Picer, on 04/13/2008, -3/+10"put on the greatest show of" fear and oppression and greed for land
    • karolisonline, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3+660 000 PMP or what they're called...
  • B3eeR, on 04/13/2008, -3/+194k only?
    • digf, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1yes, much less than the soldiers in Iraq.
  • Liability, on 04/13/2008, -3/+194,000 guards? Sounds like a great time!
  • bitterscream, on 04/13/2008, -7/+2"The willingness of the torch's minders over the past week to weigh in and protect the flame – even on foreign soil where the guards have no jurisdiction"
    Question to Americans. As a foreigner who would like to visit your country again, do I have the right to protect myself and my property while in your country?
    • pinguwin, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3Yes, you do. But a foreign police officer or paramilitary figure has no more rights in the country than a regular tourist. Ask this question, how do you think the Chinese would react to their citizens being roughed up by plainclothes military forces of a foreign country? The other issue is that the levels of force permitted to protect persons and property differ. If I threaten you with severe bodily harm, you can use much greater force than if I steal your suitcase.

      Bitterscream, good question, you're always welcome to vist!
      • Wrangler76, on 04/13/2008, -0/+0Care to share a video of the guards going beyond preventing people from jumping the torchbearers? I think the CHinese would not care at all if they see their own acting like morons trying to grab the torch from torchbearers. Expect to be stopped if you're going to try something like that. :
        • pinguwin, on 04/13/2008, -0/+0I have no problem with the *police* acting towards the protester (though if the torch was anywhere near where I was, I would be out there). The issue I have regards the propriety of foreign security forces. It's not that they are Chinese, I would ask the same question if they were Spanish or Tanzanian.
          • Wrangler76, on 04/13/2008, -0/+0Oh alright, well what if the police themselves are not adequate for the job. I.e. In Paris, where several protestors managed to reach the disabled girl holding the torch and gave her bruises and scratches until the regular police finally tackled the protestor? And like I said, the police have been much more rough on protestors, tackling them while I have seen about zero proof of the Chinese guards doing anything violent beyond pushing/blockading. Even when Majora Carter whipped out the TIbetan flag, they grabbed the torch from her but let the police push her into the crowd. Stop trying to villainize EVERY aspect of this event ffs...
      • bitterscream, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1I agree with you, however in practice things are a lot different. I am sure that the 'flame protectors' were given special clearance by some agency in the government. This could be similar to the type of clearance Blackwater is given in Iraq. As part of the agreement for the flame to come to San Fran, these protectors may have had to be contracted by the local police enforcement. Neither should be allowed.
        • Kanidia, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1This is an international event with a lot of security threats. Of course the police should be involved.
  • sndream, on 04/13/2008, -2/+11What's the number of security personnel to athletes in let say a football(soccer) game in Scotland???
    Don't tell it's less than 9 to 1 especially when it's home team versus the "Other team".
    If we want Chinese government to start listening to our call for lack of civil liberty in China, we need to stop mud slinging and start being fair.
    • chenyu768, on 04/13/2008, -3/+5"We are not against you – and I'm not seeking separation." Chinese President Hu Jintao said he was ready to meet the Dalai Lama but accused him of trying to "ruin the Beijing Olympics". He said talks could open only if he desisted from trying to "split the motherland" and "incite violence".

      Also we need to understand what the hell is going on there. The Dalai Lama clearly says he doesn't want separation, then what's with all the white college kids last wends day throwing water on me and calling me a gook and telling me to listen to the Dalai Lama and Free Tibet. Shouldn't they listen to the DaLai Lama, and stop protesting, stop throwing water and calling us racial names while all we wanted was to see our torch? yet when i tell these people what the Dalai Lama really wants, they call me liar.
      Nothing against protesting, but please people learn about your subject first, and take care of things that we can con troll, like stopping the real travesty, the war in Iraq
      • sovietninja, on 04/13/2008, -3/+2Please watch the interview where he says, that he believes in democracy and that he cannot tell protesters to "Shut up".

        The real travesty? It's called Chinese oil company sponsored genocide in Darfur. The war in Iraq? Come on, why don't you join the US military and help enforce the peace among the various religious sects fighting one another? Or maybe you should learn about your subject first, and find out that the US is not in Iraq to conquer it and kill everyone, but to help the Iraqis get their ***** together and form a stable government.
        • chenyu768, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2learn about my subject?
          K well first i was told that Saddam had WMDs then its was yellow cake, then it was because Iraq had ties to Al Qaida, then it was because he tried to kill Bush Sr, then its to serve democracy, and now it's for the people? Dude we went in there cuz we wanted oil. And within the first three days of the Iraqi Invasion, Chevron got the first shipment of oil from Iraq.

          Dude open your eyes man, the real travesty is that you claim the Chinese people are brainwashed while you gobble up every piece of information that the government spoon feeds you. Dude you know us Chinese people are way smarter than you and trust us when we say we can smell ***** from the truth, even in our own country. You obviously been rolling around in your own filth for so long that you no longer can smell the ***** that you are covered in.
          Why don't you tell me that china is a terrorist state and connected to Al Qaida?
          And i'm not for the war in Iraq and have had 4 friends die in it fighting for some BS. you obviously believe that we are doing good in Iraq, why don't you go?

          So the Dalai Lama believe in democracy so, is that at the cost of the truth? Is it possible to perhaps for the Dalai Lama to explain his position and perhaps telling the protesters that well techniqally we dont want to Free Tibet, we want to unifiy Tibet. Is telling the protesters what he wants (obviously the protesters wants us to listen to the Dalai Lama) and perhaps they would not, oh throw water at Chinese people, put bullhorns to our ears and shout at us liars, call us racial slurs and degrade us, and how about not grabbing and ripping our flags when all we wanted was to see the olympic torch. He has no right to tell the protesters the truth and for them to stop attacking Chinese abroad, but he can tell the protesters to protest China under false pretenses?
          • sovietninja, on 04/13/2008, -2/+1"You obviously been rolling around in your own filth for so long that you no longer can smell the ***** that you are covered in."
            Most of the ***** that I'm covered in says "Made In China".
            "Why don't you tell me that china is a terrorist state and connected to Al Qaida?"
            Nope. China is a Totalitarian State, which represses its own people and Tibetans.
            "So the Dalai Lama believe in democracy so, is that at the cost of the truth?"
            WTF DOES THAT MEAN? He said that he believes in democracy, so he cannot tell people to shut up and stop protesting, something a nondemocratic state like China has no problem doing! How the hell did you misunderstand that?
            Your telling me to go to Iraq to do good? You said you want to stop the "war in Iraq". So I suggested that you go and help end it since that's something that can be "con troll". I never said you were for the war in Iraq. Just suggested a means of "con troll" ing it.
            And if you believe all the things you initially stated were lies and the basis of your knowledge of the subject, how can you argue with me with the same knowledge that you believe is a lie and false.
            "Dude open your eyes man, the real travesty is that you claim the Chinese people are brainwashed while you gobble up every piece of information that the government spoon feeds you. Dude you know us Chinese people are way smarter than you and trust us when we say we can smell ***** from the truth, even in our own country."
            Never claimed that Chinese people are brainwashed. If you believe the media is part of the government and is spoon feeding me your wrong; America is not a socialist state, therefore I have to spoon feed myself :)
            That thing about "Chinese people are way smarter than m"e BS, clearly doesn't apply to you. You just feel like your victimized and have gone trolling in every China related submission on Digg.

            So now that your done personally attacking me, would you please tell me that Darfur is not suffering from China's need for oil? And that the money given to the Sudanese Government is not being used to purchase Chinese copies of Ak-47s to outfit the Janjaweed militia? The same Janjaweed who are paid by the same Chinese funds provided to the Sudanese Government in order to secure the contract to build the oil pipeline infrastructure in Sudan? Can you prove that China did not provide military security along the pipeline infrastructure in Sudan?
          • chenyu768, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1Let me dissect your argument buddy.
            1. "You obviously been rolling around in your own filth for so long that you no longer can smell the ***** that you are covered in."
            Most of the ***** that I'm covered in says "Made In China".
            So your there bashing China, I'm sure you've screamed "boycott China" yet everything around you as you stated say made in china, so we've just proved that your a hypocrite.
            2. Nope. China is a Totalitarian State, which represses its own people and Tibetans.
            Totalitarian is defined as a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. hmm, that's stuff of science fiction. That is the goal probably of every government, and if we look at America we have the FCC, the FTC, unions, the FED, and countless regulatory governments that control everything that we buy, sell, read, watch,and listen to. I'm not saying that China doesn't do the same but i know that China has far less regulatory bodies than that of America. So if we're gonna say China is totalitarian we would also have to incorporate America in that.
            3. "So the Dalai Lama believe in democracy so, is that at the cost of the truth?"
            that means that if you know something that people are saying is untrue, do you stay quiet because you believe in democracy and you can not tell them to shut up? or do you use your influence and let the people know the truth? Democracy does not mean that the truth can not be spoken, or does it in your mind?
            4. Your telling me to go to Iraq to do good? You said you want to stop the "war in Iraq". So I suggested that you go and help end it since that's something that can be "con troll". I never said you were for the war in Iraq. Just suggested a means of "con troll" ing it.
            Actually i said that the war in Iraq is the real travesty, where hundreds of thousands of Iraqis civilians have died and thousands of our soldiers also, and we as American can do something about it, like not electing Bush the second time. So why don't we divert our energy on something that we can control? And "help enforce the peace among the various religious sects fighting one another" why are we there in the first place? i thought it was the WMD and not helping the religious sects fighting each other. Wow so what the hell are we there for now again, I'm so confused, i can't keep up with the reasons, can we just stick to one?
            5. And if you believe all the things you initially stated were lies and the basis of your knowledge of the subject, how can you argue with me with the same knowledge that you believe is a lie and false.
            wtf are you talking about? I obviously know the subject better than you, you don't even remember why we went into Iraq, something that you obviously think you know a lot about, and you want to argue about China? What is it that you have against China? Why do you hate us?
            6. Never claimed that Chinese people are brainwashed. If you believe the media is part of the government and is spoon feeding me your wrong; America is not a socialist state, therefore I have to spoon feed myself :)
            The media is not part of the government? So we choose not to show the coffins of our soldiers? And what does socialism have to do with media suppression and government control of the media? Isn't that more of a totalitarian trait? Of course America is not a socialist state, it isn't anti-capitalist, no we worship that as god above ALL ELSE. neither can we say about China, because in terms of capitalism and privatization, although we haven't sold the government to big corporations like America has, but i say with the massive privatization during the past 2 decades, no political scientist would dare use the term socialist to describe China. And i suggest you get a nanny cuz you obviously can't spoon feed yourself, cuz most of what you feed yourself is obviously ending up on your bib.
            7.I can't not deny that people are probably suffering from Chinese investment in Sudan, but hey China owns 40% but India owns 25% and Malaysia owns 30%, together that's more than China's stake, yet we are not protesting them. Are we sure we want to bring this genie out of the bottle? Economic investments by one country in another that causes suffering of the people in the other country? hmm, Brown and Root, Haliburton, Dole, Goodyear, Chevron, C&H, Coca-Cola, Conoco, Texaco, dude we've ***** up south America.

            And you attacked me first, why dont you talk more about why we are in Iraq?

          • sovietninja, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1I never attacked YOU. You said the OP didn't know his subject, but based upon what you said it seemed you didn't know the Dalai Lama's stance, so I called you out on it. I said watch the interview with the Dalai Lama as to why he won't tell people to "Shut up". Also it seemed to me that you believe we are still looking for WNDs in Iraq and that is the reason why we are there. That clearly isn't the case today, mostly providing a security force and helping stop sectarian violence in Iraq is the reason why we are still there. So I called you out on that too. And whether we went in there for oil or not doesn't change the level of sectarian violence, hence not needing to mention it.

            You pick and choose how to misinterpret what I said. I don't know if your arguments are just you trying to sound smart or if your just trying to be a dick to me. Yeah we went into Iraq on the basis that British and American Intelligence suggested that nuclear and other WMD were in Iraq. Those WMDs were never recovered. Since then, Iraq has been in turmoil over sectarian violence. That is what is going on today, the travesty you speak of. I'm not sure whether if us being there or not will make the problem go away, but it seems to be stabilizing with a larger American presence there. I'm sure a military presence outside of the African Union would also help Darfurian refugees go back home too. So that is how we can control the region, bringing up the initial reasons for why we were there in the first place don't mean anything since no WMDs were recovered right? Clearly the situation in Iraq is different, we are not fighting the sovereign army of a nation state, in this case we are even training it. But the current situation is one of sectarian violence, hence the necessity of US forces to stay there as a stabilizing agent.

            I'm not gonna waste anymore time going point to point about how misleading your statements are. Stalin was considered a totalitarian ruler, China's rule over the Chinese people is also viewed as totalitarian in comparison to other nations. If you had continued reading the rest of your source, wikipedia, some people believe China was under totalitarian rule previously. It is not science fiction unless you view things in absolutes.

            You constantly state that your not sure what the truth is anymore regarding what the US government says and that your confused, so on that basis your arguments are based upon what your believe to be lies or misleading information. So I pointed out, that if you don't know what's the truth/reasons, why are you using that to argue? And again there is no need to say you know more than me. I'm a political science major and I deal with Middle Eastern politics everyday.

            And really the media is not part of the government. The media is run by corporations which are not part of the government, unless you consider C-Span and the like to be media. The lack of journalists on such channels tells me that they are inherently different from the mainstream media. And that whole thing about not showing coffins of our soldiers is an Executive Order, and not the personal choice of the networks. I disagree with the nature of the Executive Order, but many political scientists attribute the failure of the Vietnam War to the public disenchantment with the live images of war being shown on TV including dead American soldiers.

            I hope your snide remarks is your sarcasm showing through, but you must realize there is sarcasm when I said "Made in China". And the whole being spoon fed few right over your head. You mentioned I should get a nanny to spoon fed me. Well if this was a socialist state, the government would provide this nanny for me. And if you said the government spoon feeds me, it would be both a nanny and a socialist state. That was the pun but you took it literally and then made a sarcastic remark which I hope is not truly how you feel. And again I'm not saying China is socialist. I'm not sure were you got that from when you so vehemently defended China not being a totalitarian state which I did claim. Do you see where you made the conclusion that I believed China to be a socialist state? Because I don't.

            oh and here is the link to the interview, perhaps it will give you more background on what I was trying to say from the beginning. He clearly states that he doesn't want to break away, but that under his understanding of principles of democracy based on Lockean theory, people have the right to protest and therefore he cannot say "shut up". < you will see those are his actual words

            http://mediaanswers.blogspot.com/2008/04/nbc-night ...
          • chenyu768, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Wait wait wait, so i misinterpreted what you said?
            back to the board.
            Dude i never said we are looking for WMD, in fact my whole argument is that we are there for oil. Not WMDs or Al Qaida, or Helping the people of Iraq, those are all things that they tell you so you can go alone with it, unquestioning (kind of like "we've always been at war with Eurasia" Orwell read it, and no the book is not about big brother). So obviously since you now believe that we are there to liberate the people of Iraq, you no doubt believe in the Al Qaida connection, and the WMD story that the government fed us. While i on the other hand saw through the ***** the first time, instead of making excuses to explain why we are still there when every reason given to us for being there is false. So thank you for calling me out, on the fact that I've never believed them, and thank you for calling yourself out " believe we are still looking for WNDs in Iraq and that is the reason why we are there. That clearly isn't the case today" so from that quote you've obviously believed in the story for WMDs, and we are not looking for it today because we found out the information was completely made up, as in a lie. Yet you were able to swallow that lie and move willingly to the next, which is 9/11 Al Qaida, which when found out that there were no AL Qaida before we attacked, you are still willing to believe in the next lie which is we are there for its people. You can fool some of the people all of the time, i guess they were talking about you.

            And do you know that Dalai Lama's stance? does he not want to reunite with China? He has said it over and over again, and he said he supports the Olympics and China. These are his beliefs, he just restated them last week. So i ask you if these protesters are for the Dalai Lama, and telling people to listen to him, shouldn't they be the first ones to do so? for instance listen to the Dalai Lama and stop the protesting of the Olympics and China. Can you point to me where the Dalai Lama said he does not support China and it's Olympics? I can't tell you to shut up, but i can correct you on what is the truth.

            The only reason i bring up Iraq is because you said "Or maybe you should learn about your subject first, and find out that the US is not in Iraq to conquer it and kill everyone, but to help the Iraqis get their ***** together and form a stable government." Considering you are a Poli Sci major, i thought that you would of have known that the reason why we were in Iraq was not to help these people get their ***** together, but as you have admitted under false pretenses that keeps shifting. And this ***** that we are helping them to get together, could it be the same ***** that results from the bombs and the occupation of their home land? To me it's kind of like, i call the cops on you because i tell them you are selling heroine, but then it was a lie, but then i say you know the people who make it, and stay at your house looking after your kids and wife and when asked why I'm there, i don't mention all the BS that i did that caused the situation, but instead i reply "oh just here to help Bob's family through the hard times"

            you said that the media is not controlled by the government yet you admit that there is an executive order which controls what can be shown on TV. And how many people own all of the news in America now? with CNN and CBS about to merge, I'd say 4, 5 tops. I'm not saying that the government owns the media, no Big Corporations like GE and Exxon does, and they own the government.

            well you said you spoon feed yourself, yet you regurgitate what the media tells you, as supported by you we not looking for WMDs anymore, no its the people now remark. I'm surprised that you as a Poli Sci major, is so easily swayed by the media. I also am Poli Sci, but it is my minor, Int'l Business being my major, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you should be more schooled in the subject. Yet by your eagerness to accept what you read and see, and so i question your ability or perhaps your instructors ability to motivate and to think for yourself. didn't you ever debate for the other side in Poli Comm, or learn about the the political spectrum in Int'l Politics (i say that because of your totalitarian remark, no political scientist or teacher will ever call China totalitarian, communist, nor would they call America democratic).
            Since your a Poli Sci major then you must have read Orwell's 1946 essay on politics and the English language, then if you have can't you see that your comments are full of the very thing that he is preaching against, which is less and less words and more and more meaningless prefabricated proses "sectarian violence, totalitarian state, Democracy, communism". You bring up Locke to defend the Dalai Lama, which i find very interesting. But isn't Locke famous for saying " Life, Liberty. and the pursuit of Property?" Which is kind of funny considering that he probably tells the slaves on his land to shut up all the time, kind of like Tibet and the Dalai Lama before China kicked his ass out huh? And Locke obviously wasn't talking about the 95% of the Tibetan population which could not own land.

            Send me a shout, I'll give you my email. I just don't check digg that often, only on slow days like these at work.
          • sovietninja, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Lockean theory is deeper than just "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property". I sent you a friend invite thing. I can't send you a shout unless you accept it.
          • sovietninja, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Again, your either not reading my statements completely, or your purposely taking my words out of context. I don't care if you are smarter than me, however, I do not like when you take my words out of context. I can't discuss something with you if you keep doing that.
            This is what you said :

            "So thank you for calling me out, on the fact that I've never believed them, and thank you for calling yourself out " believe we are still looking for WMDs in Iraq and that is the reason why we are there. That clearly isn't the case today" so from that quote you've obviously believed in the story for WMDs, and we are not looking for it today because we found out the information was completely made up, as in a lie."

            This is what I actually wrote:
            "Also it seemed to me that you believe we are still looking for WMDs in Iraq and that is the reason why we are there. That clearly isn't the case today, mostly providing a security force and helping stop sectarian violence in Iraq is the reason why we are still there. So I called you out on that too."
            So if you read that carefully you will see that I said that I believed YOU thought we went to Iraq to look for WMDs. Not that I believed it, but that YOU believed that. I know now, you also think this was about oil from the beginning. I did too and that was the reason why I protested the war when I was in high school and received a truancy ticket.
            But the present situation in Iraq goes beyond what we both believed to be the initial scope for the war, that is, securing oil in the Middle East. I knew for certain it was a lie once Colin Powell left the Bush Administration. However, the American people don't control the military, the President does. Whether he should still have that power is arguable. I don't think he should. The protections setup in the Constitution are too old to deal with the technology of today, something our Founding Fathers couldn't have imagined to be a problem.
            Today's situation is worst than under Saddam's Hussein's rule, becuase under him, sectarian violence (that is different sects of Islamic Iraqis fighting each other for control of the current government) really did not exist.
            Can we agree on the fact that the current political situation for Iraq is basically a civil war? And can we agree that the President is to blame for this situation, based on his decision to preemptively strike Iraq on faulty evidence?
            Whether America should provide a police force for stabilizing Iraq is something we can disagree upon. You don't know this, but my father is a Vietnamese refugee. Had America adopted a similar policy such as the one used in South Korea, there would still be a South Vietnamese government. Sadly, unlike the Koreans, Vietnam didn't really have anything to offer the U.S. I hope America will do what it can to stop the mess it created in Iraq.
            So now do you understand me? Doesn't matter why we went to Iraq in the first place. Who cares what the lies were. It doesn't change the ***** up situation in Iraq. We broke it, so I believe we should fix it. However, if you don't agree with America fixing it, thats ok. But then how can the war in Iraq ever end? If America pulls out its troops, that would benefit us. But it will not end sectarian violence in Iraq. Did pulling out of Vietnam, create a democracy? Nope. It's Communist as well.
            Maybe you don't see a distinction between the initial strike against Saddam's army and the current occupation of the country. For you there is just a single war.
            But for you to understand me, you will have to see it as two separate wars. The first war, we went in, beat the ***** out of the Iraqi Army, captured Saddam, created a provisional government, and then there was the creation of the current Iraqi government. That is the first war.
            However, now there is another storm brewing over different sects not agreeing on the legitimacy of this government. This is another war.
            Rebuilding Iraq was not as simple as the idiots in the White House thought. This is why Iraq is such a hell hole. So should we just extract the oil and go? Or should we be responsible for out actions and do what we can to stabilize Iraq? I think we should be responsible. I think the world does too, which is why there is very little involvement by other countries to help the US in Iraq. Its the mentality of, we told you not to go, you broke it and now you want our help? Maybe if we leave the international community will go in and help fix Iraq, but no one has promised that. When we left Vietnam, no one came in to try to help the Vietnamese people either.
        • sovietninja, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1Wow what happened to the link? http://mediaanswers.blogspot.com/2008/04/ nbc-nightly-news-with-brian-williams.html

          Take out that space for the URL to work, not sure why Digg is automatically cutting it off.
      • xgoing, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1As a citizen PRC,i think i should help debunk the myth,here i list some information from foreign sources.
        Human Rights status in PRC:
        Assessing Human Rights in China: Why the Double Standard? -by Randall Peerenboom (Professor of Law at UCLA School)
        Link:http://repositories.cdlib.org/uclalaw/plltwps/5-22 ...

        PRC's activities in Africa:
        Africa: Is China the Greedy Tiger It's Often Portrayed to Be? -by Firoze Manji
        Link:http://allafrica.com/stories/200804071981.html

        Let me remind you,EU condones Turkey's genocide of Kurds,USA condones mistreatment of people by dictators they installed(notably Pinochet).
        While Tibet is actually freed from repressive Theocracy.
        If you have a urge to condemn china for Human Rights violation against minority,look at Xinjiang instead,CCP's policy is well known(at least in PRC) being benevolent to Tibet,while relatively more strict(or harsh) to Xinjiang.
        Unfortunely,Xinjiang's separatists have been labled "Terrorists" "Islam Extremist" since 9/11,and their act fit Washington's definition of Terrorism perfectly(attack civilians,hijack planes, and being Muslim).
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7286028.st ...

        If you think tibetans life is terrible,i suggest you travel to tibet and look for yourself.
        Here i present you a chinese traveler's witness,shortly after Lhasa riots.
        http://www.517sc.com/bbs/dispbbs.asp?boardid=14&re ...
        And before you conclude these smiles are fake,take the test below.
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/survey ...
    • Elohir, on 04/14/2008, -0/+122 on the pitch, 10 substitutes, say 8-10 coaching staff. That's about 40 people.

      You think there are 390 security staff at a football match?
  • alclone, on 04/13/2008, -3/+14You people have to consider how many terrorist groups that are targetting China. The Olympics has drawn a lot of terrorism throughout history and it wouldn't be surprising if terror groups will step up. The western provinces of China are horribly nasty.
  • Loulou07, on 04/13/2008, -4/+4Since Los Angeles the Olympics are big business and now they even support tyranny and oppression. Back to 1936 Berlin Olympics, no doubt our elites are preparing us for more massacres.
    • atact88, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1It's to prevent 1972 Olympics, where Palestinian terrorists killed Israeli athlets.
      • Loulou07, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1Yes all organised by mossad, for a good cause I am sure, and Antebe too by the way
  • LilBoyLuver, on 04/13/2008, -2/+30"The Chinese Government estimates total cost for employing the large number of security personnel to be around $94,000."
    • fluxion, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2because they had to buy them new outfits
  • userperson, on 04/13/2008, -3/+3Guess you should leave you Tank Man T-Shirts at home.
    http://is.gd/5Ir
  • anogenic, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1394000 isn't that big of a number considering the size of an event like the Olympics. Athens 2004 had 45000 planned, and this number went way higher due to terrorist menaces.
  • gab00n, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4But can they handle box cutters?
  • D3koy, on 04/13/2008, -5/+20I don't know how effective 94k Chinese guards will be...I mean one guy stopped half a dozen of their tanks...
  • Vigacmoe, on 04/13/2008, -3/+8Criticize this, criticize that, what's wrong with 94k security personnel? Isn't a secure Olympic a good thing? What the ***** are you expecting?
    • Liability, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1A terror FFA?
    • digf, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3hi, Vigacmoe, There are some diggers employed by some organizations. Their job is to post anti-China articles and digg them. Be used to it.
      • dunnduggit, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Proof please. I could say you were being employed by the chinese government looking at your history.
  • 007kz, on 04/13/2008, -7/+16Do people even THINK before typing anti-chinese government comments just because you've looked at an article that contained the words "olympics, "China", and "security"?
    China is going to face one of the BIGGEST security threats in Olympic history thanks to human rights, Tibet, Darfur, environmental, and many, many more activists. And don't tell me how "peacful" they are; if they're able to violently try to snatch and extinguish the torch during a torch run, then they can do much more during the actual Olympics.
    Are the activists' motives right? Yes. Their actions? Not so much.
    This is why it makes perfect sense for China to up their security way more. Beijing is one of the most populated countries in the world, and when you have that many people, a lot of crap can happen.
  • missingnoh4x, on 04/13/2008, -3/+85 bucks says the guards turn on any athlete that speaks out against China's actions towards Tibet. They've already barred a few athletes from competing for exercising free speech.
  • HaloZero, on 04/13/2008, -1/+10I don't understand what's the big deal about this..... I mean sure interesting fact but other than that. I doubt China wants something to happen in their country like what happened in Munich.
    • Emnsta, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2what happened in munich?
      • HaloZero, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1.......... Seriously? Munich, PLA attacks and kills a bunch of Israeli athletes? Germany just got humiliated, they had a massive reorganization of their police forces afterwards I think.
    • Loulou07, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1Yes the biggest propaganda, black op from Mossad
  • clesch, on 04/13/2008, -3/+1kekeke, zerg rush!
  • HanSolo69, on 04/13/2008, -3/+2Nice spam emberjohn. Definite bury!
  • pinguwin, on 04/13/2008, -2/+1Seriously, I wonder what rights the Chinese have to restrict what people wear. What if a person has a tankman, Tibet, or Xuighur shirt? Can they make them take it off before they enter the stadium? What if they wear it beneath an outer shirt, will they make them take off outer layers and inspect their clothing? What if someone wraps a shirt around their calf and puts it on inside.

    I don't know what agreements there are with they olympic committee. Does anyone?
    • JointVenture, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Yes they can. You cant do a google search on the Dali Lama.
  • harmonik, on 04/13/2008, -3/+91. Hire 94,000 "security" personnel
    2. Capture 10,500 Olympic athletes
    3. ????
    4. Profit!
  • fearziz, on 04/13/2008, -8/+1china can go to hell
  • sovietninja, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2This article is so badly written: First they state the following:
    "Chinese authorities, who have a lengthy track record of keeping the streets safe and a lid on dissent. Public demonstrations of protest in China are illegal and China is ruthlessly efficient at dealing with protest within its borders..."
    Followed by:
    "China is freer now than it has ever been... They have money in their pockets and they can express their views relatively openly on the streets."
    So which one is it? They can express theirs views freely or is there a lid on dissent. I'm also surprised to see that Faux News didn't write this. The writers claim that dissent on streets is illegal yet Chinese are freer than ever becuase they can say what they want to on the streets. These claims negate each other, or I missed the /sarcasm.
  • VINLANDER, on 04/13/2008, -2/+1Rule China!
  • Ruger11mcrdpi, on 04/13/2008, -0/+11As a Marine stationed in Europe at the time I was part of the security for the Athens olympic event in 2004. I usually wouldn't comment here, but let me just say it's not like 94K soldiers are going to be in a big group or have 8.9 guards on every athlete. I was almost 200 miles away on Crete, and was part of the security force there, but I would be included in the total number of "guards" if you want to call it that. I am sure the number 94,000 is refering to the total security effort in the region, from increased airport security, hotels, boosting police presence in and around the olympic village area, upping nearby military bases and having several disaster response teams spread across the broader (250+ mile) range where they'd be safe from a WMD but able to respond quickly via helicopter. Just hoping to clear this up a bit.
  • karolisonline, on 04/13/2008, -8/+2***** the china, from the economy and population growth in India and technology growth in Japan and they attitude toward China, China will be destroyed in 30-50 years. in 10-12 years India will have more citizens than China and they have little (really not so little) bit smarter average citizens and Japans/S.Koreans have mechatronics (robotics) advancing in a very high speed, so in those days this woun't be matter of how big is Your stupid army, it will be question of how much energy do You have to power your war machines and china only has ***** coal plants..
    • bongle, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3Life is not an RTS.
    • mrzack, on 04/13/2008, -0/+5you're not so smart yourself.
      • karolisonline, on 04/13/2008, -2/+1and You read to few history books
        • mrzack, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1how would you know? I'm smarter than you.
    • Kanidia, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Sources? Your ability to express your ideas compromises the authenticity of your claims...
    • umitseric, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Barely readable... "China will be destroyed in 30-50 years." thats a pretty extreme claim...
    • blackdude, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2"the china"

      Did Bush join digg?
    • kleash, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Wow, this really shows how much you care for human rights
  • macwac, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3The Olympics has always been about politics.. anyone who pretends its not, is stupid. Olympics is and always has been a small little mafia who often if not always sway their opinion towards lobbyist. Its all about $$$ and nothing about sports.. sports is the facade they give off to everyone else. Sorry guys.
    • unionaire, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1ugly truth man, ugly truth
      if it weren't for the benefit of publicity and $$ it will bring in (or at least they believe so) to the region holding the event, who cares about it?
      Name ONE supports event that prosper without business sponsorships.
    • digf, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1yes, dirty politics, dirty politicians, and some stupids are willing to being the tools of these dirty politicians.
  • mrzack, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2very good, China is showing the world it has become a premiere super power, not even western fake democratic leaders dare criticize China, which goes to show you how much monetary and power China has influence and wield over the world....
  • tufftugg, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3 The good thing, is that the free world is learning how to control the herd. Not much difference from the Chinese security forces beating on protesters, and the Democratic security forces beating on protesters. Take a bow free world, your owned.
  • JointVenture, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1I see the PR firm the PRC hired last week is getting busy.
  • deadapostle, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1It's not as though the security personnel is only for the athletes. There will be a hell of a lot of people at these events. Certainly more than a million people, making the spectators/security ratio 10:1.
    This website http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/fasworldwide/2006/07- ...
    projects 7 million spectators and 270,000 officials, players, and staff in the Beijing area. That's a 77:1 ratio. Hardly overkill.
  • unionaire, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1perhaps you all ignore the fact that china has a population of 1.3billion? perhaps you all ignore...even WITHOUT all the foreign visitors, there will still be vast amount of PEOPLE coming to this event? The Olympics 2008 will have the greatest number of people attending the live event in history.

    All this simple truth you have to ignore, but link it to the issue of Tibet ONLY? that's just ridiculous. not like it is nothing related to that, but if you assume that is the biggest reason behind all this, you're retarded.

    And the reason why they are doing this, is really really ***** SIMPLE! ---- because they CAN!
    • jnoodles, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1China does have a big population. But most of them cannot go to Beijing let alone pay for entrance into the Olympics. We're not talking about a big field with people running about - the stadiums do have a finite capacity.

      But, you know, maybe we ignored that while being retards.
  • EnergyEinstein, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1The 94,000 security personnel is a great idea - they can protect athletes from potential kidnapping or real threats of terrorism, AND they can prevent and squash all instances of pro-Tibet / pro-Freedom!
    • EnergyEinstein, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1I'd also want to add that I believe the Olympic committee perfectly planned this - Tibet and China's human rights violations has never received so much exposure ever, ever ever. China will do a good job making most things unseen, however, some will get through - and the stuff that does get exposed will be the most violent.
  • dho331, on 04/13/2008, -1/+0At least they have 94,000 security personnel, with that number, I would say that the United States is DOOMED.

    1 day later :

    News Flash : Security Guards were actually soldiers trained to kill at the Olympic Games, Bush declares as act of War.
  • Erythroxylum, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2You can hardly blame them. Moonbats/activists/whatever are - despite their claims, often to the contrary - exceptionally violent, intolerant people. I think it comes from all of the pent up frustration. That and the psychiatric disorders.
    • HappyScrappy, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1I am saddened to see that people like you exist.
  • dizilbdog, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4I wonder how many American activists will be thrown in jail, and then forgotten or even beaten or killed for protesting. This Olympics could turn into major problems..
  • Wrangler76, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2Amazing how even an article about the number of guards China will be using for the olympics, which isn't even surprising, is turned into another anti-china oppression, genocide, communism, tiananmen, tibet, human rights, comment section.
  • HappyScrappy, on 04/13/2008, -0/+294,000 people is peanuts in china. Last visit there, I think I saw about 1,500 people patching a pothole in the road.

    Okay, I exaggerate, but with so many people, labor is very cheap in China. I'm sure they'd hire more than 94,000 security guards if they could work out the logistics.
  • troycott, on 04/13/2008, -2/+1I can't believe Toronto lost out to this facist regime to host the Olympics.
  • boxxa, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1well its not like china doesn't have the man power
  • compucomp2, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3So if we provide security, it's proof of oppressive government. If we don't provide adequate security and Atlanta 1996 happens in Beijing, we'd be an impotent government. What a crock of *****. Western hypocrisy and imperialism at its finest, and you worthless trash on Digg lap it right up. Get out of your mothers' basements and get a ***** job.
    • JorgeGT, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1COMRADE! What are you doing reading this brainwashed, imperialist, hypocrit, corrupt, imperialist, capitalist, democratic, WESTERN website?!?!?! I saw your profile and history in Digg and you happen to comment a lot! Even if you state the pure, bitter truth about our glorious homeland and the evil westerners, I fear that you're wasting your time in this vicious website when you could be working hard for the advance of our Great nation, the lighthouse that rises about mankind's blindness!
  • starkistuna, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1Yes but the 94,000 guards will be Spartans!
  • cbartlett, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the number of guards be compared to the number of spectators, media, protestors, etc. that will be there? 94,000 may not be many when you consider the millions of people who will be descending on China.
  • falafelkiosken, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1security for WHO?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.