OTP makes front page of USA Today

[pq]

And BTW, I'm not calling YOU silly or naive. Just the way that was phrased strikes me as such.

[oldster]

Don't get me wrong, an "Olympic Truce" is no substitute for swearing off these kinds of wars altogether, and it could quite rightly be seen as a cheap and cynical gesture in it's own right, if hostilities were re-doubled immediately following. However, after nearly 10 years of fairly steady killing and dying over there, I doubt anything crucial is going to happen one way or another in that conflict in a two week period. But that's getting into particulars. The fact is, truces and ceasefires happen in all kinds of conflicts for all kinds of reasons, moral and otherwise.

[SI]

Simple question for both of you guys-should we have gone in there after 9/11? Yes or no.

[oldster]

No. It has done almost no good, and plenty of harm. If it were simply a question of catching and bringing terrorists to justice, there were many other options. But, it has never been simply about that. The richest and most powerful nations never expend that much blood and treasure for such narrow objectives.

[pq]

Feb 19, 2010 11:32:12 GMT -5 SI said:

Simple question for both of you guys-should we have gone in there after 9/11? Yes or no.

First a question for you... what is the link between 9/11 and our operations in Afghanistan?

[SI]

Your honour, please direct the witnesses to answer the question and to answer the question without the benefit of hindsight. I will rephrase. Did you guys agree at the time with the action in Afghanistan? Yes or no.

[pq]

You're pretty goddamn evasive, aren't you? That's not the question oldster answered, as you didn't specify "at the time." And this discussion hasn't so far touched on the situation "at the time" so your question in that context is a bit out of the blue.

That said, no, I didn't agree with it at the time, nor do I agree with it now. That said, I will admit I was more inclined to support the original purpose behind our involvement. But our role has evolved substantially, as have the political reasons used to justify our current role.

I've answered your question, now you answer mine. What's the link. With our CURRENT operations. After you answer that, you can link the original involvement to 9/11 for us if you like.

[SI]

Anyone can answer a question like that in hindsight. 29 Democratic Senators did it on Iraq(I was in favour of it until I wasn't-silly). Note that I didn't weigh in. I tried to keep it on Vonn. You would both appear to be no to the question. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but said opinion was clearly a minority one in Canada. Just trying to establish that so everyone might see the comments in context.

[pq]

Feb 19, 2010 14:03:49 GMT -5 SI said:

Note that I didn't weigh in.

Yes I DID note that, and also note that you still haven't, which is frankly pretty bloody irritating, given you posed the question. If you're going to ask a leading question, kindly have the courtesy of being prepared to offer your own views on the subject.

[SI]

As I said, just trying to establish some context.

[pq]

Feb 19, 2010 14:08:34 GMT -5 SI said:

As I said, just trying to establish some context.

You say to-MAY-to, I say passive aggressive pot stirring.

[oldster]

With all due respect, SI, public opinion has been lead by the nose on this from the beginning. Even 9 years on, public opinion on this is grossly misinformed. As was made abundantly clear during the recent prisoner abuse scandal, Canadians for the most part don't give a enough of a shit about Afghanistan or Afghanis to bother learning anything about the conflict or its roots (or really, I would argue, about what it is doing and will do the many brave and underpaid Canadians doing the killing and dying). To the extent that they still support it, I think most Canadians see the conflict as little more than an opportunity to cheer for Canada, as if the whole thing were a sporting contest.

P.S. I know you will interpret my opposition to the war as somehow discrediting everything I said about the Olympics and international peace, but they are separate issues entirely.

[SI]

That's offensive to the 66% of the population that were in favour of the original action(and the many that still are). Entire provinces and the country itself are often run by parties with less than 40% of those that vote so that is a pretty high number. I respect your right to an opinion. Please give people who disagree a little credit that they aren't all misinformed, warmongering cheerleaders. Someone as smart as you is more aware than anyone of all the logical arguments against your position.

[pq]

Feb 19, 2010 15:02:31 GMT -5 SI said:

That's offensive to the 66% of the population that were in favour of the original action(and the many that still are).

You're criticizing oldster's opinion without offering your own (or anything to support an alternative opinion) in counterpoint. Do people get frustrated conversing with you in person?

[SI]

No. That wasn't a criticism. I was merely stating a fact.

[oldster]

Feb 19, 2010 15:02:31 GMT -5 SI said:

That's offensive to the 66% of the population that were in favour of the original action(and the many that still are). Entire provinces and the country itself are often run by parties with less than 40% of those that vote so that is a pretty high number. I respect your right to an opinion. Please give people who disagree a little credit that they aren't all misinformed, warmongering cheerleaders. Someone as smart as you is more aware than anyone of all the logical arguments against your position.

I have no problem is anyone finds this suggestion offensive, and it is precisely because of what I know about global geopolitics and international political economy that I can state quite confidently that public opinion on this issue has been grossly misinformed from the start. Even the hard-headed and generally right-of-center "realistic" school in international relations theory readily admits that what is made available for public consumption by governments on this and similar conflicts is usually pap. It is governments, I would argue, and not me, who have no respect for the intelligence of their citizens (although our government is probably correct betting that, deep down, the average Canadian doesn't give a shit about Afghanistan or its people). Why, I would ask you, has support for this mission dropped so precipitously in both the U.S and Canada from it's initial highs? Could it be because they more people learn about this conflict, the less they like it (and, after nine years, people can't help but know more than they did initially)? Popular support for this war in both the U.S. and Canada was always a mile wide and an inch deep, as they say, which is why there are now such big holes in it.

[ronb]

Wow.... Unbelievable transition from the OTP thread to an Afghanistan in particular, and war in general, thread. How the F*** did that happen?
So, if another 9/11 were to happen next week, with several thousand innocents, including many Canadians being killed by a terrorist group harboured in and supported by some foreign regime, what should Canada do?
I would love to hear your opinions, oldster, and pq... And oldster, try not to be so arrogant about what the "average" Canadian believes or cares about - it's not okay for you to be so presumptious, regardless of your academic background in this area...

[oldster]

I take full blame for the digression, and this is the last thing I plan to say on the whole score.

Ron, don't play the ant-intellectual card here. You don't need an academic background in this area in order to understand the roots and real stakes in this conflict (e.g. as a research assignment, look up the reasons why, in his war diary, one dead Canadian soldier referred to the conflict as the "blood for oil" tour) . You only need to care enough to look behind the official story, and there are many, many reliable sources from which to choose. I understand that most Canadians have other more pressing concerns than to do this, but it is a simple fact that the average Canadian neither knows nor cares much about Afganistan or it's people, per se. It is heartening, however, that the more Canadians do learn, the less they support the whole enterprise (although, truth be told, some of this could be because Canadians don't think it's worth the sacrifice of Canadian lives, and not because of any abiding concern for the welfare of Afganis). My position is: support the war if you like, but take the time to understand its larger historical and political context first. It's the least we can do, considering that our citizens are killing and dying over there.

As for what to do in the event of a repeat scenario, Canada should do what all countries that have faced a terrorist threat in the 20th Century (e.g. Britain, Spain, Germany, Italy) have done, which is do the work to find and bring criminals to justice, using cooperation with allies to bring economic and diplomatic pressure to bear on regimes that aid and abet them. If we've (re-)learned ANYTHING in the past 10 years, it's that addressing the threat of terrorism by attempting to re-configure the whole global geo-political order through the invasion and occupation of entire nation-states is a disasterous strategy (but then, addressing the terrorist threat was only ever part of the agenda behind these invasions, and that's been my point all along.) The U.S. launched a full scale invasion of Afghanistan following 9/11 because it could (and could enlist NATO support too), not because it had to, or because it was necessarily the best response to the problem. No other country could have, or arguably would have, responded in this way.

[pq]

Feb 19, 2010 21:58:23 GMT -5 ronb said:

Wow.... Unbelievable transition from the OTP thread to an Afghanistan in particular, and war in general, thread. How the F*** did that happen?

This is a message board, and conversations can take random turns that may or may not be interesting to all involved. Shit happens, that's how it happened. :-)

To bring this back on topic, I'll admit I haven't read deeply into this whole OTP concept, so I have to ask, what's all the fuss being made by this long track speed skater who had to apologize for comments about OTP that were taken out of context supposedly. Can someone inform me? (I also admit, I'm too lazy to look up the details, and am taking the easy way out by asking for a quick answer on here)

Also, a related question.... Women's hockey - do sports like this, with lopsided competition and a limited pool of world class athletes, have a place in the Olympics that's consistent with the nebulous Olympic ideals and Olympic spirit? Do people think this sport belongs in the games?

[tundra]

Also, a related question.... Women's hockey - do sports like this, with lopsided competition and a limited pool of world class athletes, have a place in the Olympics that's consistent with the nebulous Olympic ideals and Olympic spirit? Do people think this sport belongs in the games? <pq>

As much of a place as athletes racing down a hill in denim pants. I guess you could say I'm getting old and traditional in my support of Olympic events.

[pq]

Feb 22, 2010 11:38:11 GMT -5 tundra said:

As much of a place as athletes racing down a hill in denim pants.

Haha, when I watched snowboard cross, the first thought that popped into my mind was, "any sport you can do wearing bluejeans isn't really a sport." But I was really only being half serious, although I did make the comment to my wife. Snowboard and ski cross are crazy cool events, whether they're real sports or not.

For the record, I don't think ladies hockey belongs in the Games, personally, and I don't like seeing them run up the score and continuing to celebrate every goal after they've pasted the competition by the middle of the first period. Gold medal final should be a good game though, and I will no doubt watch it.

[aklives]

Regardless- It has been amazing to head down to Robson and Granville (Centre of the core of Vancouver). Even on nights we don't win medals, Red and White is literally everywhere and I've been blown away. The nights we do win medals... well, you better like crowds.

The "Olympic Fever" of Vancouver is highly contagious and so is the overall spirit.

[mounty]

Feb 22, 2010 11:30:58 GMT -5 pq said:

To bring this back on topic, I'll admit I haven't read deeply into this whole OTP concept, so I have to ask, what's all the fuss being made by this long track speed skater who had to apologize for comments about OTP that were taken out of context supposedly. Can someone inform me? (I also admit, I'm too lazy to look up the details, and am taking the easy way out by asking for a quick answer on here)

Also, a related question.... Women's hockey - do sports like this, with lopsided competition and a limited pool of world class athletes, have a place in the Olympics that's consistent with the nebulous Olympic ideals and Olympic spirit? Do people think this sport belongs in the games?

After Denny Morrison had a "disappointing" finish in the 1500m, people misinterpreted some comments he made about his training. In his apology interview, he said that he was thinking/talking aloud to himself and that people probably overheard leading to the incorrect comments with regards to OTP. However, Shani Davis has openly blamed OTP for Denny not winning a medal because it prevented them from training together. I'm not sure if that's entirely true because Denny also mentioned that him not training with Shani wasn't an OTP decision.

Similarly, I heard that a Norwegian skier blamed OTP for some of Canada's poor results in alpine skiing because they were not permitted to train together.

As for the lopsided women's league... I don't think it should be taken out of the Olympics, but they could easily implement some rules pertaining to the scoring system. For example, they could make it so that goals are not counted for tie-breaking purposes past a certain amount. I have heard a few people say that participation in the Olympics by the weaker countries helps them to get more funding from their respective administrative bodies. I'm not sure if the situation has been improving over the past few Olympics, but I'm sure the same sort of lopsidedness used to happen with other newly introduced sports. The others just need time to catch up.

[slamer]

Feb 22, 2010 11:57:55 GMT -5 pq said:

Feb 22, 2010 11:38:11 GMT -5 tundra said:

For the record, I don't think ladies hockey belongs in the Games, personally, and I don't like seeing them run up the score and continuing to celebrate every goal after they've pasted the competition by the middle of the first period. Gold medal final should be a good game though, and I will no doubt watch it.

I agree that women's hockey simply doesn't have enough depth to be kept in the games. And if I read my interviews coorrectly, it seems there is a very real possibility (seems more than 50% to me) that it will not be in the Olympics next time round. If women's ski jumping is deemed to nto have suffcient depth, then neither does women's hockey.

That being said, I wish these "runnig up the score" criticisms would stop. They are NOT running up the score. I've heard them state specifically when there are playing lesser teams and there is no way they are going to lose, they take it easy and they treat it like a practice (i.e drills and such). Because if the competition is vastly inferior what are they suppossed to do? Not take shots? Not try to score?

Personally if I was playing on the losing side and a team stopped playing offense to take it "easy" I'd feel worse.

[oldbones]

How is women's hockey to grow if it does not get exposure?

The next generation needs to see these great players ... for many the olympics is the only opportunity.

Remember in men's hockey this was the same story many years ago when Canadian teams used to mop the floor with the competition 17-2 ... etc.

Plus we win gold ...