You're sort of missing the point of the Olympic Games if you think countries should be using boycotts of them as a vehicle for public policy. Part of the premise of the games is that the participating countries disagree, sometimes violently, and yet we have the games peacefully anyways.
Perhaps that is the point of the games from the original organizers' perspective but it certainly isn't the true goal of the present organizers. I do not share your view and consider it fine for someone to advocate for a boycott.
If the games were to be held in North Korea then this would be morally reprehensible in my view. Such an evil regime should not be rewarded with hosting them. Russia does not rise to the level of barbarity of North Korea, clearly. But I think a compelling argument can be made that it is morally wrong to hold them in Russia (and the U.S. too).
Russia, US and North Korea aren't very much different. Collateral damage from drone strikes? CIA tortures? NSA surveillance? If one wants to boycott a game, then one should boycott all of them. Otherwise, that'll be a double standard would it not? And one's morals and beliefs would be contradictory and hypocritical.
The statement that Russia, the US, and North Korea are morally equivalent says more about the person saying that than it does about any of those 3 countries.
I'm not sure it makes much sense to compare a country that has engaged in zero wars of aggression in the last 25 years with one that has invaded or bombed Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, Serbia, Sudan and Bosnia. The death toll for the Iraq war alone may well have been over a million. Add another 300,000 - 500,000 child deaths from the Iraq sanctions in the 90s.
It's possible that the North Korean government has killed more North Koreans over that time period; I see estimates for the 1948-1987 period of 700,000 - 3,500,000 deaths. However even assuming that rate remained the same subsequently it is at most within the same order of magnitude as US caused deaths. I don't really see a great difference morally.
It's a strange argument to make anyway. We don't need to compare the US government to poorly understood North Korean atrocities to measure the awfulness of the atrocities it commits which are numerous and heinous.
North Korea punishes people for their ideas (do anything that the Glorious Leader doesn't like, and your entire family for a couple of generations will live in a prison camp). That is rather insidious, and these people can have 'natural' deaths in captivity.
North Korea also threatens to attack civilian populations indiscriminately (e.g. Seoul, Japan, etc) if they don't get their way. They even threaten nuclear war on an semi-annual basis.
On the other hand, the US strikes may kill civilians due to poor intelligence gathering or 'acceptable levels of collateral,' but they have not indiscriminately bombed (or even threatened to bomb) civilian populations. There is at least an attempt made to limit the amount of death dealt, even if it's not always successful. I'm not admitting that this is good, or that (e.g.) the US should have been in Iraq in the first place, but claiming that the US is on the level of North Korea is laughable.
The US 'threatens' nuclear war as well. There is no point in nuclear weapons if you don't threaten to use them.
>they have not indiscriminately bombed (or even threatened to bomb) civilian populations
That is pretty disingenuous. We both know that the US government counts any adult male in certain countries/regions as a militant rather than civilian. If you claim nobody is a civilian then of course you never kill civilians
Also, I would like to hear your defence of the Iraq sanctions. You can hardly claim that was accidental or poor intelligence or that it wasn't indiscriminate. Much like in North Korea those excess deaths can be (and were by the US government) attributed to natural causes.
> The US 'threatens' nuclear war as well. There is no point in nuclear weapons if you don't threaten to use them.
I challenge you to cite an incident where the US has openly said, "do this or we will launch nukes at [city full of civilians]."
> That is pretty disingenuous. We both know that the US government counts any adult male in certain countries/regions as a militant rather than civilian. If you claim nobody is a civilian then of course you never kill civilians
Your post is the one that comes across (to me at least) as being disingenuous. My claim was that the US is not indiscriminately bombing civilian populations. You somehow are trying to conflate this with me saying that the US is not killing any civilians at all, which I did not claim, nor do I believe.
This section of your post comes across like you're looking for a way to vent your anger about how the US counts "any adult male in certain countries/regions as a militant." In doing so, you are also discounting women and children as civilians by implicitly claiming that only male civilians are killed (and then 'covered up' by claiming that they must have been militants).
> Also, I would like to hear your defence of the Iraq sanctions
I'm unsure what you're talking about. The economic sanctions against Iraq post-Gulf War but prior to the invasion? If you claim deaths due to economic sanctions are the fault of the countries that are imposing sanctions, then technically most of the world was responsible. Carrying this line of reasoning further, you could blame the US for deaths in North Korea due to economic sanctions, no?
That's a good point. Did the Nazis threaten to imprison openly Jewish or black athletes? As I recall, Hitler had to do some PR spinning because a black athlete won one of the track and field events over the 'pure' Germans. Did any athletes risk jail time over this?
The fact that Russia wants to imprison the athletes for being open about what they are is an affront to the games themselves. Hitler didn't even imprison Olympic athletes that didn't match with his views.
I don't understand the point of your question. Can you elaborate?
It is certainly true that the games were held in Nazi Germany. I don't know what pointing this out has to do with whether or not it can be morally wrong to hold the games in a country with a sufficient level of human rights abuses. Clearly my position is that holding them in Nazi Germany was morally wrong.
That organizers made bad choices in the past does not negate my position or diminish my point.
When the games got held in Nazi Germany , they were used as PR for the Nazi regime. This is what Putin is planning to do as well. Maybe we should learn from our historic mistakes rather than use them as guidelines...
That didn't work so well for the Nazis; between the many track and field victories of the American Jesse Owens and excellent sportsmanship of many other international athletes, Nazi supremacy was at best marginalized.
Speaking of transcending political intentions, there's a story from those olympics where German long jumper Luz Long gave Jesse Owens tips to help him qualify for the event. There are countless other gestures that demonstrate the same spirit at that event.
Considering Jesse Owens threw SERIOUS doubt on the Nazi precept of racial superiority.
Certain American athletes also chased Hitler from the Stadium once the Track and Field events started, and Hitler was informed by the IOC that he must receive ALL winners... or none.
Hitler chose to receive none.
After the first day... seeing how things were going... he no longer attended the stadium.
I just made a todo for myself: "investigate possible moral equivalence between Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler". You'll understand if it takes me awhile to get to that one.
The Olympic Games, like it or not, have some very specific rules about discrimination. Unfortunately even the Olympic Committee is not keeping up with the rules and it is turning a blind eye when it comes to the human rights violations happening in Russia. How can the games happen, if the LGBTQ athletes cant openly compete? If the games are not following the ideals of the olympic games then they are not really olympic games but a parody. And humanity has better things to do than spending time on such monstrosities. How the hell can a country send LGBTQ athletes over there if there is a risk of them getting imprisoned? The way you present it is as like the games are like a passive aggressive family reunion.
Are you talking about this?
"The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of
practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which
requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play" [1]
From what I've heard so far, LGBTQ athletes will not be discriminated against at the Games. The anti-"gay propaganda" laws have no affect on the sports. Needless to say the law is abhorrent, it doesn't seem like it will prevent athletes who have been training all their lives from competing.
