Nobody in recorded history that we know of valued their freedom more than the originators of the first Olympic Games away back in the fabled Realms and noble city states of ancient Greece. A recent movie drama ( Three hundred ) loosely based on the very real battle of Thermopylae pitted a small number of Spartan soldiers ( historically about 2000-5000) against the overwhelming force of half a million Persian invaders who suffered hugely disproportionate losses in their attempt to dislodge the fierce and freedom loving warriors of the City State of Sparta.

In So many ways the Olympic Games are the perseveration of that remarkable freedom of spirit and thirst for self determination that was crafted so skillfully and with such artistic concept by the Greeks of that time period. The perfection of the body through sports it was thought ensured the perfection of the mind through the ability to defend to hold and to protect. Indeed the thirst for this kind of sacred and personal victory was so intense that death on the field of competition was considered a great honor…twisted though that might seem to us today.

The recent upsurge of political unrest in China and Tibet was well timed and well thought out indeed. There can be no mistake that this was the perfect time to strike against oppression and conquest for those who feel the need to advertise their own desire to be self determined, self governing. The modern Olympics have become a time for nations to display their peacock feathers so to speak and to open up to the world the pride of nation and of culture that makes them special.

By raising the political stakes the Tibetan nationals have effectively put a spot light on the dim human rights policy of the Chinese communist party and have in effect delivered a severe public relations blow to the ruling class there.

For other nations who pivot on the ideals of democracy such as France the issue is also paramount. It is difficult to rationalize the tacit approval of such tyranny by playing host to the Traditional Torch pass or by competing as a nation in the games if the traditions of the host country belies the very root meaning of those games to begin with. How does one celebrate a tradition of freedom in a land where the word has no real meaning??

I posted this in two other places on the Fray so my apologies if you've seen it before:

Here is a partial list of the hosts of previous Olympics.

1900 Empire (France)

1904 Racist State (United States)

1908 Empire (United Kingdom)

1920 Empire (Belgium)

1924 Empire (France)

1928 Empire (Netherlands)

1932 Racist State (United States)

1936 Dictatorship (Germany)

1948 Empire (United Kingdom)

1956 Racist State (Australia)

1960 Racist State (United States)

1964 Dominant Party State (Japan)

1968 Dominant Party State (Mexico)

1972 Dominant Party State (Japan)

1980 Dictatorship (Soviet Union)

1984 Dictatorship (Yugoslavia)

If the majority of Iraqis want the Americans to leave their country, then it would seem that the Iraqi insurgents are the people displaying their thirst for self-determination, the quality you admire so much.

The Spartans were proscribed any non-military occupations and went to military boarding school at age 7 and were forced to serve in the military until age 30 when they transferredto the active reserve until 60. If you consider this lifestyle to represent freedom then you might want to reconsider your definition of the word.

Majority of Iraquis = Insurgents?

Negative. This seems to be the American military's opinion, but technically, an insurgent would have to be armed in some way. A person who revolts without employing violence or illegality is an insurrectionist.

On another note..here is a little offering of a different nature about the land of Tibet and China...and the current problems from two different perspectives:

"When Tibet was still free, we cultivated our natural isolation, mistakenly thinking that we could prolong our peace and security that way. Consequently, we paid little attention to the changes taking place in the world outside. Later, we learned the hard way that in the international arena, as well as at home, freedom is something to be shared and enjoyed in the company of others, not kept to yourself."
Budapest, 1994

"I believe that Tibet will be free only when its people become strong, and hatred is not strength. It is a weakness. The Lord Buddha was not being religious, in the popular sense of the term, when he said that hatred does not cease by hatred. Rather, he was being practical. Any achievement attained through hatred [can only invite] trouble sooner or later."
Statement, 10 March 1971

--from The Pocket Dalai Lama by the Dalai Lama, compiled and edited by Mary Craig

also...in another vein.... :)

Here is also what Master Djwhal Khul has to say about freedom...

A related misinterpretation of karma is described and corrected by DK without equivocation:

"There are many people today who find an alibi for themselves in the present world situation, and a consequent release from definite action and responsibility by saying that what is today happening is simply karma or the working out of cause and effect, and that there is nothing, therefore, that they can do about it; they take the position that it is not their affair, and that in due course of time the process will be worked out and everything will be all right again.

The slate will then be cleaner and incidentally they will not have been embroiled, but will have safely (even if uncomfortably) looked on."

If they have the capacity to analyze world events in this way, such people of course also have the mental capacity to utilize some degree of free will and, says Djwhal Khul, it is only through the compassionate use of that free will that the world's evils and havoc will be transmuted into good.

"Therefore," he concludes, "those who are looking on at the tragic sufferings of humanity and who refuse to be implicated, and thus succeed in evading responsibility as an integral part of the human family, are definitely storing up for themselves much evil karma."

The struggle against such human suffering is the struggle for freedom, and "those who refuse to share in that struggle for freedom will be left out of the gains of freedom, even if it only means within their own home limits, in their life habits and in their private circumstances."

(Externalisation of the Hierarchy, p253.)

Hope you have had a good weekend and other such niceties while languishing in the closet :!

"Therefore," he concludes, "those who are looking on at the tragic sufferings of humanity and who refuse to be implicated, and thus succeed in evading responsibility as an integral part of the human family, are definitely storing up for themselves much evil karma."

I admire much in Buddhism, but their belief that misfortune in this life can be ascribed to evil deeds in a previous life seems to me to be dangerous and prejudicial.

Tarquin:

"If the majority of Iraqis want the Americans to leave their country, then it would seem that the Iraqi insurgents are the people displaying their thirst for self-determination,"

You seem to imply that the majority of Iraquis are insurgents in your statement, which is why I asked for clarification. Are they insurgents or insurrectionists? In either case, they may both be armed.

.

I do not pretend that this country is wholly innocent therein.

justoffal:

Nobody in recorded history that we know of valued their freedom more than the originators of the first Olympic Games away back in the fabled Realms and noble city states of ancient Greece. A recent movie drama ( Three hundred ) loosely based on the very real battle of Thermopylae pitted a small number of Spartan soldiers

You have taken a survey, as to who valued their freedom throughout history? It might totally surprise you that men fought and died valiently for causes other then 'freedom'.

In any case, the greeks did not practice 'family values' as any American would understand. The Spartans in particular were a sect of brutality worshippers, where soldiers lived with soldiers, not their families, and homosexuality was a daily normal occurance, So was taking orders blindly, and abusing the weak. They lived off the work of helots, slaves. Kinda like the disciples of the Republican party and their CEO nobility, but definitely not like American's understanding of freedom.

I suggest you hire a crane to pull your big fat romantic head out of the anus it's stuck in. You seem to have build a virtual world in your mind that didn't exist then, nor now. Soldiers are not heroes, they are victims, pawns, idiots, fools, lowlifes. Get it. A Doctor is a hero.

Fair point....still though you cannot deny the determination of the ancient Greeks...Freedom is something they held in very high esteem as long as it was their own.

As far as heads and anuses please do not tell me that you believe that American freedom is a house built upon holy stones. And Pahleese do not lecture me about family values in a land where people danced underneath the corpses of those hung for the sake of cultural preservation. I mean it's all relative...just ask the American Indians. As far as I am concerned the Spartans were just a little more honest than the rest.

You have to ask yourself why the Battle of Thermopylae was ever fought in the first place..it surely wasn't for the odds.

:)

Men fight for their survival, not some lofty ideals. They join the military, if they have a choice (the Greeks and Spartans did not). They then give up themselves, and follow orders, methods they are told, the group dynamics of the pack leadership, and shut up about anything they themselves consider amoral. Theoretically, in the US military service, and order can be refused if it's illegal, but that doesn't happen in practice......for survival reasons. The US military is an undemocratic organization. Any military is an undemocratic organization. You spoke of history, the Soviets tried democratic leadership of their red army, it failed miserably, and is directly responsible for the early success of the German army against them. So, the un-free demons of your mind, the Soviets, actually tried freewill and democracy of their leadership. They found out quickly that most people are idiots who can't lead their way out of a paper bag. So, forget this freedom crap. It's the slogan leadership motivates idiots with, but real freedom as you advertise, does not exist in the US, military or civilian, today. It certainly did not exist with the Greeks that you admire. And, they were not the first to run operations by consensus. Many native tribes throughout the world elected their leaders through consensus, and those absolute rules always ruled by the consensus of their underlings. The Spartans were the epitomy of military top down leadership. So much so, that the Nazis idealized Spartan way of life because it was not sensitive to consensus, feelings (LOL), personal consideration of individuals. All that was seen as weak. And that is true of all dictatorships, in some form or other.

But no matter.

I think you are looking at a microcosm that would be more accurately viewed in macro. Correct me If I am wrong but I believe that the Spartans were a minority at Thermopylae and the war for conquest of Greece did not end with that one battle. Call it whatever you will people still fight like hell when the other option is slavery.

No, I never did serve. However I do know many who served with the misconception that they were freedom fighters and still do....do they wake up to the realities of politics later on...probably...and yet there are still flag wavers out there.

To a great extent I agree with the manipulation of the serfdom into soldiery...it's time to get the children of the elite out there too..oh yeah, I forgot...that's when they'll call it off.

As far as modern concept of the O games, they are and have been touted as the very flower of free society...that is why it looks so rediculous to see pictures of the torch being guarded by police officers on the same day that we see pictures of Tibetan monks being clubbed into bloody submission.

But then again political agencies are good at that...sending mixed messages that is.

Reality in these matters takes a back seat to perception. It is after all the way we perceive things that ultimately decides how we will react to them.

....was against an invading army, and not approved by their government council, at that time because of oracles. the king however was the Spartans military leader, and saw it fit to collect 300 men, to fight the Persians himself. Thus, the Spartan king did not bend to consensus rule. Much like today's annointed 'king' doesn't much care about how many of his population or congress support the war in Iraq. We have another King in waiting running on just that principle, McCain, who is going to have the 100 hundred year war whether the electorate wants it, or not. He's a war hero, and know what's best for us. So much for democracy, yada yada yada.