[Kenadian_2006]

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/8278655.stm

So, from skimming the article what I gathered was that Obama and the other candidate countries' leaders are vying for their respective countries. Is this even ethically correct? Should heads of state really be weighing in on the IOC's selection of cities?

[Thorgrum]

Kenadian_2006, on Sep 28 2009, 08:12 PM, said:

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/8278655.stm

So, from skimming the article what I gathered was that Obama and the other candidate countries' leaders are vying for their respective countries. Is this even ethically correct? Should heads of state really be weighing in on the IOC's selection of cities?

Ethically correct? What ethics are you referring to specifically?

Should they weigh in?, yes. Opportunities to land a world wide sporting event that increases the economic activity of the area within thier country should be pursued vigorously.

why wouldnt they?

[Lamuella]

leaders weighing in is good for both sides.

For the leaders, it means they can increase the chances of an economically advantageous venture reaching their shores.

For the IOC it means that the people with authority and funds to build the facilities that their games need will have their checkbooks open.

This post has been edited by Lamuella: 28 September 2009 - 01:24 PM

[Chrono]

While it should certainly remain their choice to pursue an economic opportunity, it unnecessarily politicizes the event.

It really pisses me off when I hear a handful of country leaders !@#$%*ing that a certain country is vying for the event or is on the shortlist, because of "tense" relations or something else.

[Iserlohn]

Chrono, on Sep 28 2009, 12:55 PM, said:

While it should certainly remain their choice to pursue an economic opportunity, it unnecessarily politicizes the event.

It really pisses me off when I hear a handful of country leaders !@#$%*ing that a certain country is vying for the event or is on the shortlist, because of "tense" relations or something else.

I totally agree, the Olympics would otherwise be a completely non-political event.

[edikroma]

How economically advantageous are the Olympics for a city, really? I mean, they're great while they're in the city...but what about after? How many cities actively use all the stuff they built? Not saying that I wouldn't mind the Olympics coming to Chicago, but how worth it is it really?

[Shodemofi]

edikroma, on Sep 28 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

How economically advantageous are the Olympics for a city, really? I mean, they're great while they're in the city...but what about after? How many cities actively use all the stuff they built? Not saying that I wouldn't mind the Olympics coming to Chicago, but how worth it is it really?

I believe I read some where that they plan on the new stadiums for the Olympics only being temporary if they do win the bid.

[Kenadian_2006]

Thorgrum, on Sep 28 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

Ethically correct? What ethics are you referring to specifically?

Should they weigh in?, yes. Opportunities to land a world wide sporting event that increases the economic activity of the area within thier country should be pursued vigorously.

why wouldnt they?

It's just a mingling of non-political stuff with politics. As others have said, it gets easily politicized. I suppose you could liken it to keeping a sort of professional level of distance.

This post has been edited by Kenadian_2006: 28 September 2009 - 05:00 PM

[Lord GVChamp]

Kenadian_2006, on Sep 28 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

It's just a mingling of non-political stuff with politics. As others have said, it gets easily politicized. I suppose you could liken it to keeping a sort of professional level of distance.

Everything is politics

[Sal Paradise]

What do the IOC and ethnics have anything to do with each other?

[Kenadian_2006]

Lord GVChamp, on Sep 28 2009, 07:17 PM, said:

Everything is politics

You just have to stifle discussion don't you? >__>

@Sal, to be honest, I didn't really make this thread with a specific position in mind. I wanted to try and start something that isn't a replay of past arguments. So I pulled the first article that seemed semi-interesting and thought of that question.

[Sal Paradise]

Well then, Obama is obviously doing this because he's a communist.

[Kenadian_2006]

Sal Paradise, on Sep 28 2009, 07:25 PM, said:

Well then, Obama is obviously doing this because he's a communist.

Ever the witty banterist.

[JEB90]

Sal Paradise, on Sep 28 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

What do the IOC and ethnics have anything to do with each other?

Oh goodness, not another thread on race!

[Iserlohn]

Sal Paradise, on Sep 28 2009, 04:25 PM, said:

Well then, Obama is obviously doing this because he's a communist.

It's only a matter of time until our female runners grow mustaches.

[Thorgrum]

Kenadian_2006, on Sep 28 2009, 11:59 PM, said:

It's just a mingling of non-political stuff with politics. As others have said, it gets easily politicized. I suppose you could liken it to keeping a sort of professional level of distance.

Ah but thats the catch isnt it? It does have an element of politics, one well established. Its a competition of nations, some of which are funded nationally by the political party in power at the time.

Should it be political? In an ideal world no, but it is political at least partly so the crux of the discussion becomes do you want to argue an ideal or a reality?

On a personal level, I vote for people whom I think will help improve my life and my country if Mr Obama thinks that the olympics will improve some aspect of our country (prestige, infrastructure investment) I'll not bark to loud. Im not an obama fanboi at all, but yes leaders should use thier influence to help secure positive outcomes for the people they represent. Thats a good use of power IMHO.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

Minneapolis/St. Paul 2020!

[Commander Cato]

Hes just repaying his union friends and other corrupt Chicago officials that helped him get elected. Also Obama only met with his main general in charge of US forces in Afghanistan once in 70 days.

[Flatlander]

Commander Cato, on Sep 29 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

Hes just repaying his union friends and other corrupt Chicago officials that helped him get elected. Also Obama only met with his main general in charge of US forces in Afghanistan once in 70 days.

So which do you want to happen more often, the commander leave Afghanistan for a face-to-face, or Obama to enter Afghanistan .... and what do you think this achieves that teleconferencing does not?

As to lobbying for the Olympics .... if it was Presidential to boycott an Olympics, it must be Presidential to try to get one in your country? I mean in the end I have a lot less problem with Obama trying to bring this megaconvention to Chicago than I had with Bush validating China's Oppressionfest 2008 with his presence.

[edikroma]

Flatlander, on Sep 29 2009, 03:57 PM, said:

Oppressionfest 2008

Best. International. Megaconvention. Evah!