Steve Scott Shames himself - Wack Job OC Conservative.

at that time in 1980 it was important for carter to stand up to facist ussr so i thought it was the right decision then and i still think it was the right thing to do now. americans should not support facist regimes. if the obama declared a boycott of london 2012 because of england's occupation of ireland i would support it wholeheartly. if obama declared a boycott of iaaf wc moscow 2013 i would support that as well because of chechya and the captive islamic republics that facist russia refuses to free. boycotts are effective in sending a message to criminal dictatorships and facist regimes. also we should all boycott facist israel which murders thousands of it's own semitic race only for being muslims.

Sorry but there is a larger picture out there than running. Is the Olympics free of politics? Of course not, think of the U.S. v Russian final in Munich in basketball. 'Nough said.

Jimmy Carter was the finest and best president of the 20th century because he told the American people the TRUTH-- about energy, the environment, and the middle east, among other things.

Of course the American people didn't like that, put their head in the sand, and elected Reagan to borrow a trillion dollars from Asia and throw a 30-year party that is now over.

That being said, boycotting the Olympics is lame.

If boycotts are effective political devices why did the Soviets not leave Afghanistn and why did aparteid drag on in South Africa for decades after South Africa was banned from the Olympisc? Can you think of any international boycott that actually had the effect it was supposed to?

Canada63 wrote:

It is "wacked" to maintain an opinion about an important event in your life?

Carter was dead wrong about the Olympics. It was another weak decision by a weak president. By the way, I'm Canadian but if I were American I would be a Democrat. I'm old enough to remember the politics of the 1970s and 80s. In my view, Carter was the main reason the Republicans held the White House until 1992. It took 12 years for voters to return to a Democratic leader after the Carter presidency.

Dude I wouldn't call that a "weak" decision. That was a very tough decision. He had to have known how unpopular it would be and how many athletes would be hurt by it.

Carter made many tough decisions. For one, he told Americans the way things were, not just what they wanted to hear.

He made the decision to try a rescue mission that turned into a disaster. I remember well by that point how he was made fun of so much on a regular basis some junior high classmates of mine were actually laughing about it the next day. Laughing at Americans killed in a rescue attempt that Carter gave the go-ahead to try.

I think the Boycott was useless but don't tell me that was a weak decision. If your neighbor are fighting (we were in a Cold War remember) and they keep provoking you aren't likely to happily take a time out to go play golf with them.

USSR was not the enemy wrote:

The USA should have let the Soviets have their way with Afghanistan. Maybe 9/11 would not have happened. Blame Carter and Reagan for that one.

USA did let the Soviets have their way with Afghanistan, the USA thought their intel suggested that Afghanistan could be the USSR's Vietnam.

HRE wrote:

If boycotts are effective political devices why did the Soviets not leave Afghanistn [sic] and why did aparteid [sic] drag on in South Africa for decades after South Africa was banned from the Olympisc? [sic] Can you think of any international boycott that actually had the effect it was supposed to?

Yes, by not lending credence to the legitimacy of that government's actions, as part of an overall diplomatic philosophy. Would it be better to have given tacit consent to apartheid, invasion, etc.? How can you say it failed to have its intended effect if, in fact, apartheid is a thing of the past and the USSR lost in Afghanistan? You're missing what's right in front of your nose.

Apartheid lasted for thirty some years after South Africa was banned from the Olympics and the Soviets were in Afghanistan into at least the mid 80s. Eventually everything comes to an end but neither of these ends were brought about by boycotts.

I'm not at all sure what your first sentence means. If you mean that we needed to show disapproval of the invasion we could do that in many ways. One way that would actually have made life tougher for Soviet leaders would have been to stop the sale of US wheat to the Soviets. Their agricultural system was in the tank then and US agri-business was making a bundle selling wheat to them. A shortened food supply would probably not have driven the Soviets from Afghanistan but food riots would have created some real problems for them and could well have had some impact.

But boycotting wheat sales would have cut into the profits of big business so rather than do something potentially effective, Carter made a futile symbolic gesture that affected no one in the US but a tiny, yet very visible group of people, in the hopes of saving his job.

Someone else here commented that Steve Scott=me, me, me. That could very well be but in this case Jimmy Carter also=me,me,me.

Hmmmm… so apartheid is a thing of the past and the USSR lost in Afghanistan because the US boycotted the Moscow Olympics?

Clearly I’m missing what’s right in front of my nose.

Boycotts work? - which particular ‘boycott’ is forcing United States to pull its combat troops out of Iraq at the end of next month - leaving behind a barely floating wreck of a country.

Under Obama anyway, the US armed forces are being run down, so when they also inevitably cut and run from Afghanistan, they’ll again leave a situation more precarious to world stability than when they invaded.

Come to think of it, maybe it’s a good thing that Chicago didn’t get the 2016 Olympics after all.

Well obviously ppl cared bc they printed the article and people cared enough to read it. He has every reason to be pissed off. Would you not be pissed off if you were about to run the most impt race of your life, that you worked your whole entire life for and then what? Boycott. Bull shit.

Exactly... maybe even 1 million lives..Let's all bow down to the great decision of boycotting the 1980 Olympics...clearly I'm being sarcastic.

you'reretarded wrote:

johnny langenwanker wrote:

there is no comparison between seeking glory by running in circles and working to save the lives of millions of people. that steve scott said he is upset everytime carter's peace prize is mentioned makes me sick. grow the hell up. you're not that important. not in the face of that kind of suffering.

You're right. His decision definitely saved millions of lives.

It makes me happy knowing that not letting athletes participate in an international competition contributed to preventing so many deaths.

I bet that every lap an American ran, 1000 people would have died.

Just because someone had a bad race in the past, doesn't mean they deserve to lose their right to run in the future. He was not the only one who felt this way.

Boycotting the Olympics denied us the opportunity to celebrate athletes and miracles... which we'd put money into and help stimulate the economy.

Booyah

Carter= Great President. Was aware and mainly made good decisions.

Boycotting the Olympics= not such a good one.

Don't agree with the decision. I think we'd all be bitter if we were Steve Scott. Carter is still a good guy in my book because he knew how to be honest with USA.

Bittersweet.

Good topoic for a thread, but we have got to move on.

To give you the point of view from a spectator who was there, one of the best things about the Trials was what some enterprising businessfolks did. They took a caricature of Jimmy and printed it on a piece of foam about 18" X 18" X 2", wrapped it in plastic and sold them as seat cushions.

Yup, thats right, so you could sit on his face!

I still have mine somewhere!

History lesson: Carter boycotted because Russia had invaded Afghanistan. Many of us from that era still believe the best way to have shown the Russian people of the peaceful intentions of America and to continue a dialog geared toward persuading their government to stop their war would have been to live the Olympic ideal of putting our swords and shields aside long enough to compete in athletics with the rest of the world. Carter's discision to take our balls and go home demonstrated to the world that Americans over estimate our value (a commenly held belief). Russia did eventually get their butts kicked and leave but Carter's boycott had nothing to do with that.

Scott may or may not have been in contention had he competed, but for every Steve Scott, there was a Mary Lou Retton, Meb Keflezighi, or awesome battmitton player who got screwed out of the opportunity of a lifetime by a bad political decision.

But how many of those athletes moved on with their lives and did something as beneficial for the world as Jimmy Carter did? Was it stupid to boycott? Of course. Does that mean JC doesn't deserve the Nobel Prize for helping eradicate guinea worm, among other things? No.

HRE wrote:

If boycotts are effective political devices why did the Soviets not leave Afghanistn and why did aparteid drag on in South Africa for decades after South Africa was banned from the Olympisc? Can you think of any international boycott that actually had the effect it was supposed to?

THE SOVIETS ARE STILL IN AFGHANISTAN??? OMG!!!

have to agree...

Carter is the complete jackass of a president. Did nothing when Iran brought U.S. to its knees.

He was an utter failure!