The olympic medal count would be more impressive for the former Soviet Union and China if they weren't in so many events involving judges. Gymnastics, diving, synchronized swimming, boxing, taekwondo, wrestling, etc. are about as much about how strong your nation is in the officiating arena as much as how well you do in the sporting arena. ______________________ No doubt that the Russians have had a hard, tough, and brutal history, what with the Mongols, the crazy tsars, and the Germans. That makes a lot of Russian attitudes understandable and something that can be empathized with. It also makes it difficult to entirely trust Russia too. Is Poland a sovereign nation? The way Russia is acting it doesn't seem to think so. Maybe if Russia knew how to make friends and help them to prosper rather than bully everyone and become wealthy at their expense it wouldn't have neighbors constantly suspicious of it. By the way if the Soviet Union in 1939 had decided to support Poland's independence instead of dividing it with the Germans perhaps Nazi Germany would have been sufficiently dissuaded from its expansionist tendencies and the bloodbath that followed would not have occurred.
ImPO Russia is gunning for allies, just like US administration is trying to sell the idea of protection with its air defense system. Protection or occupation? Countries like China & Russia have to always show that they remain valid contenders on this planet. USA doesn't like that at all, they prefer when other countries simply concur & bend over. Bush is still in Iraq & Afghan, though tells the ruskies to leave Georgia, ironic?
. August 25, 2008 SoutAmerica: Reply to JSSPMK As the article said: "Rather, the conflict in Georgia showed how rational Russiaâs concerns over American meddling in its traditional sphere of influence are, and that Washington had better start treating it like the great power it still is. " ***** âA Superpower Is Rebornâ By RONALD STEEL Published: August 24, 2008 The New York Times Los Angeles - THE psychodrama playing out in the Caucasus is not the first act of World War III, as some hyperventilating politicians and commentators would like to portray it. Rather, it is the delayed final act of the cold war. And while the Soviet Union lost that epic conflict, Russia won this curtain call in a way that ensures Washington will have to take it far more seriously in the future. This is not just because, as some foreign-policy ârealistsâ have argued, Moscow has enough troops and oil to force us to take into consideration its supposedly irrational fears. Rather, the conflict in Georgia showed how rational Russiaâs concerns over American meddling in its traditional sphere of influence are, and that Washington had better start treating it like the great power it still is. As the cold war ended, the Russians voluntarily, if grudgingly, gave up their cordon sanitaire in Eastern Europe, but they still view it as a necessary zone of protection. The United States brushed off the Russian complaints over the deployment of American missiles into Eastern Europe and Washingtonâs effort to extend NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia. But Russians have a good point that, to them, this is as if Moscow had signed up Cuba and Venezuela in a military pact and then tried to plant missiles there pointing north. It was inevitable that the Russians, now restored to prosperity by their oil and gas resources, would push back somewhere, and the hot-headed Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, gave them an easy excuse. What has followed in Washington is a field day of self-righteous indignation as politicians on both sides of the aisle line up to proclaim their solidarity with the little guy and deplore the interference of bullies in nations that just want to be left alone. But such grandstanding ignores an old truth of geopolitics: great powers live by different rules than do minor ones. They demand respect â and obedience â from their weak neighbors. Sometimes they are explicit about this, as was United States Secretary of State Richard Olney when, in 1895, he declared, with respect to the Monroe Doctrine, that âtoday the United States is practically sovereign on this continent, and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition.â Moscow cannot be expected to show any less concern about the political orientation of the former constituent republic on its critical southern frontier. Great powers zealously guard what they benignly refer to as their âsphere of influence.â This may be a shame, but it is the way the world works, and always has. And no country has been more insistent than the United States in demanding that its interests be respected by its neighbors. Latin Americans can attest to that. The limits of Russiaâs post-cold-war retreat have apparently been reached, and the reversal of the power equation has gone too far to be sustained. Todayâs leaders in Moscow are determined to protect what they perceive as their vital interests. The task for American leaders is not to pretend that these interests do not exist or can be safely ignored. Rather, it is to work out a modus vivendi based not on wishful thinking or dreams of even greater glory, but on the sober facts of power realities. The first essential step for the leader of the Western alliance is to tone down the bombast and restore a dialogue with Russia. Our peripatetic secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, should have jetted off to Moscow, not Tbilisi. Careless talk about throwing Russia out of the Group of 8 economic powers will only backfire against the Westâs own interests. The whole point of such organizations is not that they are a reward for obliging behavior, but rather that they provide a forum for dealing with common problems. Second, we should shelve loose talk about bringing either Ukraine or Georgia into NATO â at least until we are willing to invite Russia itself. NATO is essentially still a cold-war military pact seeking a new identity that it has not yet found. Admitting these two former Soviet republics would be interpreted by Moscow as anti-Russian provocation â and rightly so. And even if it didnât provoke a new cold war, it would create serious tensions within NATO itself. Third, we should meet with our NATO partners to work out a common approach to the problem of ethnic separatism. We handled this badly in the Balkans by facilitating the violent dismemberment of Yugoslavia along ethnic lines, and then, over vociferous Russian objections, recognizing the rebellious Serbian province of Kosovo as a separate state. The tearing apart of nations along ethnic lines is not a problem limited to the Balkans. Strong separatist movements exist in several European states, such as Britain, Italy and Spain, and may soon tear Belgium apart. Is this a development that we want to facilitate? At a time when this nation is bogged down in two costly and seemingly endless wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, it would not seem prudent to pick a fight with Russia over a rebellious, territorially ambitious former province. And it might be wise to recall the warning of John Quincy Adams in 1821 that by going âabroad in search of monsters to destroyâ to support the territorial ambitions of others, the United States would âinvolve herself beyond the power of extraction in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.â Ronald Steel is a professor of international relations at the University of Southern California. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24steel.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Ronald Steel&st=cse&oref=slogin .
Probably the only thing that you have ever posted that I have agreed with. And it wasn't even your article.
Cool, it looks like NATO and the British empire cleaned up at the games! I like your scoring system, I didn't realize we could count other country's medals without actually taking them over.
. Black diamond: Cool, it looks like NATO and the British Empire cleaned up at the games! I like your scoring system, I didn't realize we could count other country's medals without actually taking them over. ****** August 25, 2008 SouthAmerica: Reply to black diamond This might be new information for you but believe it or not the European Union has a Parliament, a Central Bank, a legal system, a president and even their own currency (it is called the euro). If you donât believe me then you can check the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Governance Sorry to disappoint you but NATO it is just a defense agreement â by the way, to clarify a little more for you since you seem to be confused â NATO does not have a Central Bank, or its own currency and so onâ¦. The only similarity between the European Union and NATO is that the European Union has a president and NATO has an absolute monarch as its king â the United States. If you want to learn a little more about NATO to clarify your confusion then go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO You also said: âI didn't realize we could count other country's medals without actually taking them over.â Again for your surprise the countries that I listed were part of the Soviet Union (USSR) and until a few years ago there was such a country. I am not kidding you, and the United States used to compare its performance in the Olympics against the Soviet Union (USSR). If you need to learn a little more about the Soviet Union (USSR) then I suggest that you watch some of the James Bond movies. You can start by watching the following: http://www.ea.com/official/bond/fromrussiawithlove/us/home.jsp In the 2008 Olympics the final score was: Soviet Union = 171 medals United States = 110 medals ********* Cesko: How about the World vs. USA??? ******** SouthAmerica: Reply to Cesko We never had that kind of comparison before as you suggested. But for decades the standard of measurement of the final results of the Olympic Games it has been between the United States vs. the Soviet Union (USSR) And in the 2008 Olympics it seems to me that the Soviet Union had over 50 percent more medals than the United States and in this Olympics the old Soviet Union (USSR) left the United States in the dust â it was not even close. And that is a fact!!!!!! .
You seem to have a lot of time on your hands but since I keep replying I guess that means I do too ... First I can't help noticing you are very selective in what you choose to respond to - so why don't we count the British empire under your rules? Pointing out wikipedia facts does not help unless you explain your rules ahead of time, so what are they? A central bank is important, but not a national olympic program? If a country has a pegged currency it really delegates monetary policy to another country's central bank, so do they owe that country their medals? Current borders don't seem to matter, so if a Texan wins a medal can Mexico count it? I am so confused! Second you are uncharacteristically careless and biased in your analysis if you are just adding medals like it appears you are doing. If Russia, Belarus, and the Ukraine sweep the medals in a team sport like soccer, I think you are crediting the Soviet Union with all 3. But clearly if the Soviet Union competed as a team it would only be able to take 1. Even in individual sports there must be some limits on how many athletes can be entered. Please share your adjusted results, explain why this is not true, or acknowledge your error. Your work is too important to remain uncorrected or misinterpreted, I am sure policymakers have been discussing it since your post. Finally, I don't think the major world powers think medals are as important as you do. France has 40 medals and a reputation for surrendering easily, why is it independent? Is NATO a deterrant? Oops, I just realized they are not autonomous, but already have to share their medals with the whole EU. I need to get a life. Moderator, please prevent me from posting to this or any other SA thread again!
Business Week Europe August 26, 2008, 2:49PM EST EU 'Beat' U.S. and China in the Olympics Taken together, the EU's member states racked up 280 medals and 87 golds in Beijing, way ahead of anyone else. But a single EU team is unlikely by Philippa Runner The 27 member states of the EU when counted together won 87 gold medals at the Beijing Olympics, dwarfing the individual tallies of China with 51 and the US with 36, as the games closed on Sunday (24 August). The figuresâcompiled as a mini-political project by think-tank the Young European Federalists and just for fun by German PR firm Euro-Informationenâalso show the EU with 280 medals in total, ahead of China (100) and the US (110). "The European Union therefore takes the leading position. It's a victory for sport and for the fundamental and common values of the people of the union," French president Nicolas Sarkozyâcurrently chairing the EUâsaid. Mr Sarkozy's statement began by congratulating the French national team first, calling his athletes "the pride of the French people," with the EU message stuck on at the end of his letter as an afterthought. France won seven golds, but the UK came in as the top European Union country with 23. Germany and Italy also beat France. "The comparison [of the EU against China or the US] is of course not entirely fair," Euro-Informationen said, explaining that the Olympic system of allocating starting positions by individual country gives the imaginary EU team "a better chance." Meanwhile, the British press has attacked an open letter written by the Young European Federalists to Mr Sarkozy on 8 July, which had asked for support for a future "EU Olympic Team" to soothe European nationalist sentiments. "It is frankly bonkers," UK shadow Europe minister Mark Francois told the Press Association, urging the think-tank's EU funding to be revoked. "These people want to create a single country called Europe," eurosceptic MEP Nigel Farage said in the Daily Express. China on Show The Beijing games drew record high TV-viewing figures among US networks and were seen by most of the 1.3 billion Chinese people, making them "likely" the most widely-watched in history, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) said. Chinese authorities allowed none of the 77 requests to hold political protests during the two-week sporting event, however, with Tibet leader-in-exile the Dalai Lama telling French press that Chinese troops shot at Tibetan protesters while the games were on. "The IOC and the Olympic Games cannot force changes on sovereign nations or solve all the ills of the world," IOC president Jacques Rogge told Reuters.
Seriously, SA, how many times can you be so completely wrong before you learn??? You are truly the village idiot. Russia's Markets Halted for Second Day; Emergency Funds Fail to Stem Rout... Sept. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Russian markets stopped trading for a second day after emergency funding measures by the government failed to halt the biggest stock rout since the country's debt default and currency devaluation a decade ago. The ruble-denominated Micex Stock Exchange suspended trading indefinitely at 12:10 p.m. after its index erased a 7.6 percent gain and plunged as much as 10 percent within an hour. The benchmark fell 17 percent yesterday, the biggest drop since Bloomberg started tracking the gauge in May 2001. The dollar- denominated RTS halted trading after similar declines.