RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Armstrong Fears of Possible War with Iraq(65 posts)

Armstrong Fears of Possible War with IraqBill RHIT
Jan 30, 2003 10:10 AM
Armstrong's comment on his safety in the TdF with respect to America being at war....

http://espn.go.com/oly/news/2003/0130/1501203.html

My question is, do you think that Armstrong is as much of a target as a sign of America or that the TdF may be a target just due to its size and popularity?
he gets it..ctisevn
Jan 30, 2003 11:02 AM
maybe he could explain it to that other texan

"I support President Bush. The only thing I would say is to let the (weapons) inspectors do their work. Let's take the decisions afterwards and anyway we can't go against the rest of the world," the U.S. Postal cyclist said.
I say screw 'em53T
Jan 30, 2003 11:11 AM
It was the rest of the world that supported Chamberlain in his attempts to find a diplomatic solution to Hitler's quest for world domination. If the rest of the world thinks we should give another chance to the folks that killed several thousand of my fellow New Yorkers, I say we must "go against".

To think for a minute that Sadam is in any way better, or less dangerous than bin Laden is folly. This is simply "getting used to him", like we have with Al Sharpton. Sadam is just as evil, just as ambitious and much better funded than bin Laden. For crying out loud, does anybody remeber him invading the country next door?
We are not stupid, are we sheep?
165.83.212.111stuttsdc
Jan 30, 2003 11:30 AM
you're an idiot
Love your handle. (nm)53T
Jan 30, 2003 11:43 AM
I say screw 'emjaybird
Jan 30, 2003 11:34 AM
He's a professional cyclist. Who cares what his political views are. If he is nervous(and I understand why he might be)for his safety in the next TdF, he shouldn't ride it.
I carectisevn
Jan 30, 2003 11:45 AM
his views are as relevant as anyone elses. more so in some respect as he lives in nice and is an american.
I carejaybird
Jan 30, 2003 12:23 PM
His views ARE as relevant as anyone elses. Yours and mine included.

Maybe the situation with Lance is a little different because he will ride the Tour regardless of the global situation and he doest seem too passionate about the situation one way or another.

It just bugs me when celebrities weigh in on current events that they are no more educated on than the rest of the population, and because they are famous, their opinion is somehow more important than mine. I am almost certain that espn could care less what I think of the situation with Iraq. Perhaps we should ask congress to vote on the Campy/Shimano debate.
Congress would pick Campy because ...PdxMark
Jan 30, 2003 12:27 PM
the Italians are on board for the new war, and it's better than Shimano.
Congress would pick Campy because ...The Human G-Nome
Jan 30, 2003 3:55 PM
well, the Janapese are on board as well. they would pick Campy just because Shimano $ucks. (sorry, couldn't resist)
Why his opinion is more relevantlaffeaux
Jan 30, 2003 1:38 PM
Lance, as a high-profile American competing in an event that is followed world-wide, is a target. If we go to war he could easily become the next WTC. I care what he has to say because the US's decision to go to war directly places his life on the line. Lance would be in more danger than the average person in the military. Most of us don't live with that same threat. That's why is opinion matter.
Lumping Al Sharptonlonebikeroftheapocalypse
Jan 30, 2003 11:58 AM
in with those other two looneys was beautiful. I don't know if you meant that to be funny but it made me laugh.

I'll wait until February 5th to make my judgement as to wether I support sending our sons and daughters off to war.
I think your confused about the reasons for the new warPdxMark
Jan 30, 2003 12:11 PM
No-one has said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. So you either have evidence that no-one in the US government has cited, or you are confused about who carried out 9/11. The war over the 9/11 attacks has been fought, and mostly won, but has alot of cleaning up to do.

The first Gulf War was waged, and ended, over Iraq invading Kuwait. The current war is not about Kuwait.

We are going to war because Iraq very probably, maybe even almost certainly, has WMD that he might/could give to terrorists. That's what GWB said. Oh, GWB also said Saddam is evil, but that's just window dressing. Of course, there is no evidence that in the 20+ years he's had them that Saddam has shared his WMD with anyone. But he could, and it's because of that possibility that we're going to war.

Saddam is evil, has done many evil things, and has terrible weapons. The apparent logic is that the terrible things he has done in the past (mostly to defenseless civilains, a near defenseless country, or masses of Iranian cannon fodder) imply that he would do the same (via proxy) to the US. I don't agree with that rationale, but that's what the president has said.
Oops -- you're, not yourPdxMark
Jan 30, 2003 12:13 PM
confused about the reasons for the new war?cyclopathic
Jan 30, 2003 12:16 PM
isn't it obvious: "he tried to kill me daddy"
LOL - OK, the "official" reasons nmPdxMark
Jan 30, 2003 12:22 PM
I don't like the use of hte word "evil"laffeaux
Jan 30, 2003 1:47 PM
"Saddam is evil, has done many evil things..."

This is not Superman versus Lex Luthor. There's a lot more going on than good versus evil. There's a multitude of issues and cultures involved. Declaring them as "evil" and the US as the "good guys" is a bit simplistic.

There are many in the world that thing that the US policies are "evil" too. Do you really think that Saddam is in league with Satan, and is truly evil? If so you've been watching too many episodes of South Park (and not getting it).
Was Hitler evil? nmDougSloan
Jan 30, 2003 4:26 PM
Was Hitler evil?Leroy
Jan 30, 2003 6:26 PM
I can't resist [bad taste Hitler joke]:
Do you know why Hitler would not drink tequilla?

It made him mean.
I think your confused about the reasons for the new warThe Human G-Nome
Jan 30, 2003 3:59 PM
your argument is correct, but here's the breakdown:

if you believe the SM will do everthing in his power to someday achieve the capability to attack the U.S. and it's interests with WMD, then you're pro war.

if you believe that SM is a smelly, evil bastard, but there's no way he would ever find the wherewithall to orchestrate an attack on the U.S. with WMD, you're against. it's as simple as that.

if you believe he could, and would, and will, however, and you still don't believe in the War, you're just a fool.
Iraq bombed the wtc?Spoiler
Jan 30, 2003 12:14 PM
If you believe there's a connection without proof, then you're a sheep.
I say screw 'emafrican
Jan 30, 2003 12:17 PM
Lets list all the countries America has invaded?
Cuba
Grenada
Vietnam
Korea
Panama
Please add ...

Lets list countries America has its bases around the world.
Japan
Korea
Turkey
England
Saudia Arabia
Germany and so on and so on.....

Lets list countries America has tried to overthrow or intervene in their Governments.....
Angola
Libiya
Vietnam
Korea
Iraq
Cuba
Panama
Grenada
USSR
Please add to this list......

Lets go and bomb the crap out of Iraq, get rid of Sadman (sic) and screw what the rest of the world think. This way we get oil cheaper. Ohhh but I think Bush will become the poster boy for recruiting Muslin terrorists. Either way, just get it over and done with and fix the economy.

Bush vs Sadam, they both evil mothers in my book.
I'd drop American bases from your list...PdxMark
Jan 30, 2003 12:26 PM
All bases are in place with the agreement of the host countries. As an example, a major US base (Subic Bay) was closed in the Phillipines when that country wanted the US out. Mt. Pinatubo closed the other major US base in the Phillipines.

Current US bases in the countries you list are not imposed on anyone.
I'd drop American bases from your list...african
Jan 30, 2003 12:49 PM
right you are, I am just bored and stiring things up. But you are right.
doesn't mean people want the bases there thoughishmael
Jan 30, 2003 2:15 PM
I dont know names but I've heard of a couple instances in which people(often underprivilaged natives) are very unhappy with millitary bases on their home. This even applies in our own country.
how about a list of countries liberated or protected? nmDougSloan
Jan 30, 2003 12:35 PM
wow - almost the same list nmPdxMark
Jan 30, 2003 12:37 PM
how about a list of countries liberated or protected?african
Jan 30, 2003 12:50 PM
Doug you are right, in the heat of the moment of trying to be funny and stir up things I forgot about that. right you are sir.
Liberated?dzrider
Jan 30, 2003 1:05 PM
You mean like Chile and Nicaragua? The US government seems to me to speak about freedom and human rights but act only when it serves our economic interest.
human rights......african
Jan 30, 2003 1:09 PM
This is not my opinion but I have read reports that the US has one of the worst human rights in the world.

I might like to go to Chile one day.....mmm
human rights are pretty good heredzrider
Jan 30, 2003 1:56 PM
Our incarceration rate is high, but those of us on the outside have wonderful freedoms. The government in Chile is better than it was under Pinochet, who was put in power by the USA.
plant these bananas so we can sell you Marlboros and Coke! nmSpunout
Jan 31, 2003 11:02 AM
i agree with the last bit...yodlebike
Jan 30, 2003 12:49 PM
just fix the damn economy. all this 'war, no war' uncertainty isn't helping. either STFU and start shooting or just STFU already. Bush is hiding behind an Iraqi smokescreen. wouldn't most people prefer more focus on the economy NOW and circle back to Iraq in 6 mos. or a year? Unless we take him out, Saddam isn't going anywhere anyway.

Bush is going to do what he wants to do. So it would be nice if he would stop pretending like he gives a $hit about anyone else's opinion and get on w/ it. I'm just tired of all the bluster...

I don't think an attack on le tour would be likely though. Yeah it would kill/injure a few americans, but the majority of the victims would be Euro's. All it would do is make it easier for Bush to convince countries like France (that currently opposes a war w/ Iraq) to join in.

just my opinion...flame if you want...i'm gonna ride my trainer and check myself in the mirror some more...so there...
that list was just me screwing around, not my opinion nmafrican
Jan 30, 2003 12:53 PM
I say screw 'emThe Human G-Nome
Jan 30, 2003 4:08 PM
Lets go and bomb the crap out of Iraq, get rid of Sadman (sic) and screw what the rest of the world think. This way we get oil cheaper. Ohhh but I think Bush will become the poster boy for recruiting Muslin terrorists. Either way, just get it over and done with and fix the economy.
>>>>

listen, i'm a democrat. i can't stand bush. i'm anti-this-war. still, if you think this war is about oil, you're a fool. perhaps you believe the ramblings of our favorite african martyr, Nelson Mandela when he says that "Iraq controls 64% of the world's oil reserves". perhaps you believe this, but perhaps it's better to rely on the truth and realize that it's less then 5% actually, and that the cost to wage this war will be exponential in relations to any costs we could EVER recoup from their oil fields. it's not about freakin' oil. geesh.
Exactly.Gregory Taylor
Jan 30, 2003 6:39 PM
That's why I don't think that getting control over Iraq's oil has anything to do with the current situation. First, such a thing simply isn't going to happen. Neither Europe nor OPEC would stand for a naked grab of oil or territory by anyone. Do you think that we would get another drop of Saudi oil if we annexed Iraq or set up Donald Rumsfeld to head the new provisional government in Bagdhad? Nope.

A change in Iraqi leadership (which is, for all practical purposes, the ultimate goal that has been set by the Administration) would mean a lifting of U.N. sanctions, with the end result being that Iraq would probably go back on line as an OPEC producer. Figuring out what that new government would look like is the big issue. The outcome of THAT question is what has the Saudis, the Turks, and everyone else in the region on edge. None of them particularly like Saddam, and would probably like him less if he had a nuclear device, but at least he has been (brutally) keeping the disparate tribal factions within the country under some semblance of control.

Even if you don't like the current Bush Administration, you have to at least give them credit for actually living up to the rap that they have been given: Republicans whose greatest sin is that they look after the interests of big business. Heck, any captain of industry worth their company-paid membership at the country club realizes that starting a very expensive war that will tank the economy (and scare the pants off of the folks at home with threats of increased terrorism) without an excellent reason just isn't a paying proposition.

That's why I think that this whole Iraq situation was triggered by a piece of intelligence gathered by the U.S. that somehow scared the pants off of the White House and goaded them into action. Remember those reports by the CIA a while back saying that Iraq may be 6 months to a year away from developing a nuclear device? Something like that would do it. It will be interesting to see what Colin Powell reveals about U.S. intelligence sources to the U.N.
Nice argument. Too bad it's full of holes.GrabTheBarsAndHurt
Jan 30, 2003 1:29 PM
53T – are you honestly advocating war based on the examples you cited. Erm . I sure hope not . and in the future, I hope you can drum up some examples that support your position.

Here you say:
It was the rest of the world that supported Chamberlain in his attempts to find a diplomatic solution to Hitler's quest for world domination.

* Actually, Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier accepted Hitler's 1) armament (since the treaty of WWI left Germany with out an army) 2) invasion several countries (Poland, Austria, Czech.) and still claimed he was a man to be trusted. I don't see a lot of similarity between that situation and the one brewing in the Middle East. You mention something about Saddam invading Kuwait later in your text, but you seem to forget the outcome of that action .

And:
If the rest of the world thinks we should give another chance to the folks that killed several thousand of my fellow New Yorkers, I say we must "go against".

* don't think anyone wants to give hideous criminals a second chance, I simply think they don't want to open up a whole can of worms on the world just because America is out for vengeance. I'm not going to get into an in-depth history lesson here, but of the countries in any coalition that would unite against Saddam Hussein, the ‘ol U S of A is probably one of the least educated in the realm of terrorist actions. Can't we learn from the experiences of others? And (in the situation between England and Ireland) can't we follow our own diplomatic resolutions?

Love this one:
To think for a minute that Sadam is in any way better, or less dangerous than bin Laden is folly. This is simply "getting used to him", like we have with Al Sharpton.

* Don't see where that comparison is relevant. Just because Saddam (by the way, it's with two "d"s) has shown that he's a vile person and has committed atrocious crimes against his own people and people in surrounding countries doesn't mean he had anything to do with bin Laden type activities. If I'm wrong, point me in the direction of some facts. Agreed, he is a disgusting individual – but this is hardly justification for a declaration of war.

* and the Sharpton analogy. Come on. If you are going to make a point, try and make it a valid one.

Another, very insightful:
Sadam is just as evil, just as ambitious and much better funded than bin Laden. For crying out loud, does anybody remeber him invading the country next door?

* How could we not forget him invading Kuwait? But do you not remember us going over and reducing his Royal Guard to a bunch of crying babies? What about the social sanctions that have been imposed on that country for the last 12 years? You seem to forget that. Does he hate America and Americans? Hell yea. He's a dictator that has been hobbled by the actions of the strongest (maybe only?) Super Power in the world.

My personal favorite:
We are not stupid, are we sheep?

I pose the same question back. It is very easy to look for vengeance, see a venerable enemy from a region of growing US negative sentiment, and want to exercise brute power to impose a regime that might be more conducive to the best interest of a few American citizens. How would this action best help you? Maybe you could get your petrol for a few less cents, maybe you can find some satisfaction in killing innocent civilians (an eye for an eye, right?) ... but maybe you're falling prey to the political rhetoric that is consuming our country right now and joining the flock of sheep yourself.

Personally, I agree – something has to be done about the Saddam situation. Is it war? At this time, I have a difficult time endorsing that. First, what are we going to lose by a declaration of war? Maybe some support from "on the fence" countries in the Middle East? Maybe some repercussions of pissed off neighbors in the Middle East? Maybe an increase in pissed off Muslim Extremists that choose ou
What would have happened if France and England would haveSnowBlind
Jan 30, 2003 2:02 PM
stood up to Hitler instead of getting "Peace in our time."?

Truely one of the great questions of all time and one that has relevance in today's world.

To me it is pretty clear what would have happened, England and France invaid Germany, rolling over the German army just like we did in Kuwait. They would have stopped short of Berlin, just like we did in Bagdad. They would have left the now grovelling Chancellor Hitler in power, subject to League of Nations sanctions.
Just like Saddam, he would have persued military build up (with much greater success than Saddam) while the LON passed sanction after sanction and the British were told they could not act.
Eventually, they would have had to face Hitler 4 or 5 years later, with his Wolf Packs fully built, with V2 rockets, with jet powered aircraft, and a nuke in hand or just a few years away. The blitz of London would have been a single Fatboy, crushing even Churchills iron will to fight.

How do I know this? Because it we are living it on a smaller scale right now. I won't try to say Iraq is the German's in 1937, because they are not a rising technical or industrial power, nor will they ever be one.

BUT,

consider this wager:
1. The Chamberlain's are right, Sadaam does not have ANY WOMD's and won't ever get them.
2. The very wrong Churchill's get a war with Iraq, we go in, sustain high casualities on both sides (say 100,000 US, 450,000 Iraq civilian and military). We would win, Sadaam is taken out of power.

Total cost in lives 550,000.

1. The Chamberlain's are wrong again, Sadaam has Nuke's plus other WOMD's. He get's to use them first because we are still diplomatically trying to get him to stand down. He has, say 3 warheads (how many we had at the end of WWII) of modest yealds, say 10MT. He manages to get them into Washington, NYC, and London (because Blair backed us). US and UK causualites run 50% in intial kills, and deaths from sickness, starvation, and riots. 4M in NYC, 2M in DC, 5M in London. Assuming we retaliate, Bagdad is wiped from the face of the earth, 2 Million.
Deaths, 13 Million.
2. Warhawk's are right, but no troops are sent after Bagdad is Nuked. Iraq's soldiers are a bit more eager to surrender when we occupy, so only 100,000 deaths on both sides.

Total deaths: 13.1 Million.

Do the math, let's go in and do the job right.
I dig the speculation ...GrabTheBarsAndHurt
Jan 30, 2003 2:40 PM
... but I ask again - is speculation justification of war? If the inspectors find ANYTHING concrete, I think this whole argument will be a moot point (and last week, didn't Blix say that the inspectors' findings were suspicious?). At that time, there will be support and there will be justification.

Since I hate the comparison to Hitler, and the comparing state of the world in the 1930s to present-day, I'll make an analogy that makes sense to me (understanding the severity of the example is greatly less than the current world situation) ...

Let's say I know you are a thief (you is general, I'm not referring to anyone in particular), and know you've stolen things in the past. If my house is broken into, can I go to your house and start grabbing stuff to replenish what I've lost? If that happens, what is the outcome? You might very well have broken into my house, and maybe you just pawned all of the goods, but what happens to me if I can't present empirical evidence that you actually did what I'm accusing you of, and taking vengeance on you for? I am now the criminal, and anything you did prior is overshadowed by my actions.

Now, what if instead I call the cops and they start an investigation. Let's say they go into your house and don't find anything, but they discover some suspicious indicators that indicate you did in fact take my stuff. In further investigation, they do find my stuff at a pawnshop and link the transaction with the pawnshop back to you. Still, there's no empirical evidence of wrongdoing, but now there's enough circumstantial evidence to press charges and possibly send you to jail.

Sure, I had to wait longer to get my resolution, but in the end I had adequate justification to endorse sending you to jail.

All I was trying to say in my former post is 1) 53T used some crappy examples for comparison 2) there is not enough evidence (empirical or circumstantial) to warrant the action we are threatening, and 3) until there is, we should not go in with military force.
I dig the speculation ...The Human G-Nome
Jan 30, 2003 4:16 PM
"Let's say I know you are a thief (you is general, I'm not referring to anyone in particular), and know you've stolen things in the past. If my house is broken into, can I go to your house and start grabbing stuff to replenish what I've lost? If that happens, what is the outcome? You might very well have broken into my house, and maybe you just pawned all of the goods, but what happens to me if I can't present empirical evidence that you actually did what I'm accusing you of, and taking vengeance on you for? I am now the criminal, and anything you did prior is overshadowed by my actions."

ya sure, but your neighbor didn't also burn your other neighbor's house to cinders and then threaten to have your wife killed but only after selling your handgun to the other neigbor down the block who once threatened to kill you if he could only afford a gun.
Great answers53T
Jan 30, 2003 5:37 PM
Very refreshing debate Mr. Bars. My anolgies were drafted in haste, but my opinion is constant. Upon further reflection I have to reemphasise the Sharpton analogy. Both have become "the devil we know" and both have lost their edge in our mental list of who the bad guys really are. Old Al is running for president, and we are listening to arguments that Saddam not a proven terrorist. I will submit this: When you use chemical weapons against a civilian population you are a terrorist. It doesn't diminish the severity if you happen to be the dictator of that population. Saddam has even thumbed his nose at that bastion of liberal fuzziness, the U.N.

It is my turn to point out the inapproporiatness of your analogies. The law and order scenerio you describe in your post makes perfect sense withing the confines of a society based on the rule of law. The relations between soverign states are governed by no such rules. (Kantz, 1953?) This is a major division between neo-liberals and neo-conservatives. The libs feel that there is some sort of international law that governs relations between the US, Iraq and the busybodies that inhabit the countries of Europe. That disagreement is fundamental, and will result in many subsidiary disagreements, such as the burden of proof argument that you advance.

An appropriate course of action for Saddam in light of the 9/11 attacks would be to seek out the favor of the world's only super power and activly demonstrate that he has no connection, with or simpathy for the perpetrators. Because it is just? Of course not. Because it is in his best interest and the intrest of his people.

Power matters, and if we pretend it doesn't by tolerating this two-bit despot's nose-thumbing, we only invite more of the same. It will come from both governments (N. Korea, Pakistan, Cyprus) and private groups (al Quieda, Shining Path, take you pick of many more).
Feel like an idiot ...GrabTheBarsAndHurt
Jan 30, 2003 2:09 PM
... in the previous post, please replace any occurances of the word venerable with vulnerable.

It seems I've become too much a slave to Mr. Gates and his spell-checker.
If we go, we must protect AmericansNeedSpeed
Jan 30, 2003 11:51 AM
At present, my wife and I plan to return to France for the anniversary tour this year. We honeymooned there three years ago. Like Lance we do have reservations about going if a war is ongoing. And even if the war has ended, there will likely be reprisals against Americans abroad and even here in the U.S. Check the news. There have been assasinations.

I still want to go to Le Tour. Does anyone else have reservations about going?

And if we go, I would like to make a suggestion: get the numbers of American riders and their teams (not just U.S. Postal) and as we are along the route, we should look out for them. SERIOUSLY. Our sport provides them little security from fan interference or worse. If we see something dangerous about to happen or happening, we must act. I know my wife will hate me saying this, but if something went down and I was in a position to prevent an American cyclist or spectator in the Tour from being injured, I would act instantly. I will post to announce if we are definitely going.
No personal reservations about TdeFms
Jan 30, 2003 2:14 PM
Last year my family and I went to France for, among other things, the Tour de France. In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, I thought it was important that Americans travel abroad and not retreat into Fortress America. Even if there is a war this year, I still have the same belief. I will be in France this July and hope to see at least one stage of the Tour. Insofar as my personal security is concerned, I am not an ostrich -- there are risks for Americans traveling outside of the United States. But, we face personal risks at home too. Both from domestic crime (250+ people are killed every year within a few miles of my office -- most of them are involved in drug deals, but innocent people have been killed, too) and international terrorism. The events of September 11 will not be the last attack of Americans on U.S. soil. I feel that it is important that the United States, as a nation, and Americans, as individuals, remain engaged in the world. Show the flag. Go to the Tour.

P.S. Notwithstanding the events at the UN last week, the French still are our allies. I was received well last year by the French citizens with whom I interacted and I expect the same this year. Be a good ambassador if you go to the TdeF. I would hope that you would do what you could to prevent any cyclist or spectator from being injured. (If you kiss a Frog, maybe you'll find a prince (or a princess for us guys)).
TDF is not a worthwhile target...biknben
Jan 30, 2003 11:54 AM
The TDF or other bike race would be an easy target. There are no baggage checks or metal detectors on the roads of France. That being said, the terrorists are looking for economic or significantly symbolic targets. Targeting some bike riders in france, while tragic, would not make the world shudder like it did on 9/11.

Lance got trashed by the Euro press for bringing a bodygaurd to the TDF. World events just make a convenient excuse this time.
TDF is not a worthwhile target...NeedSpeed
Jan 30, 2003 12:11 PM
I disagree. This is why we need to be vigilant. While al Queda shocked and apalled the world on 9-11, it would only take one zealot to bring tragedy to open events like the tour. If you want to talk about symbolism, don't forget that Lance is American, IS from Austin, Texas, where the Prez used to live and IS a close personal friend of Bush. So as far as symbolism goes, Lance could be targeted as a statement.

The bombing of a cafe isn't "economically significant" but it still kills and maims and gets press coverage for some zealot's cause. We'd be foolish to think that Le Tour is not open enough or tempting enough for some terrorist. Americans have been attacked all over the world ? including in France. We need to be aware all the time. We could ALL be targeted just like someone in Israel (no matter what ethnic background) who just wanted a sandwich on fateful day. American athletes, politicians and notables could be targeted too. 9-11 proved we can never assume we are safe and that if something goes down we have to act. And I by no means endorse Bush or our government's history of opressing others in the name of corporate greed and profits.
Question re: fan interferenceMariowannabe
Jan 30, 2003 12:04 PM
What's the officical policy if a fan(s) interferes with a rider, specifically Lance, who's in a leading position. Assuming that the act is witnessed, and a deliberate act took the rider out for a few minutes, or worse out of a stage, would there be any consolation made?
UCI ruleDougSloan
Jan 30, 2003 12:34 PM
2.2.031
Race Incidents
In case of an accident or incident that could impinge upon the normal conduct of a race in general or
a particular stage thereof, the Race Manager may, after obtaining the agreement of the
Commissaires Panel and having informed the timekeepers, at any moment, decide:
• to modify the course,
• temporarily to neutralise the race or stage,
• to consider a stage as not having been run,
• to cancel part of a stage as well as the results of any possible intermediate classifications and to
restart the stage near the place of the incident,
• to let the results stand as are or
• to restart the stage, taking account of the gaps recorded at the moment of the incident.
translation: S.O.Lcyclopathic
Jan 30, 2003 12:40 PM
they are not gonna do anything about it. If disagree think what happend to Eddy in 1975
Politics?snwbdrhoon
Jan 30, 2003 12:24 PM
Can we please keep politics (non-bike related) out of this forum? Let's talk about important things like bikes.

But if I was putting in my 2 cents, I'd say Lance has just as much of a right to express his viewpoint (if not more due to his international stature) than the rest of us.

Five for Five in 04!
Politics?NeedSpeed
Jan 30, 2003 12:35 PM
Sorry. Because of the subject matter of this particular thread, bikes and politics have meshed. We are talking about political implications that could affect our reigning Tour de France champion, his team and all the other American riders on other teams and American fans along the route.

We can't just "talk about bikes" on this one. Sorry.
I'm impressedFrith
Jan 30, 2003 12:55 PM
Alot American's on this board and alot more level headed opinions than I might have thought.
I suppose one's view of america is largely fed by American media then it might be easy for one to assume that most American's are blindly following their blind president.
Perhaps CNN doesn't represent the entire nation's opinion afterall ;)
Refreshing to see.
Anyway back to something we can all agree on.....cycling.
I'm impressedThe Human G-Nome
Jan 30, 2003 4:03 PM
well, you can rest assured that one someone does not espouse the same political beliefs as yourself, that person is "blind". always been that way, always will.
if left up the devices of our peers, this entire planet and each and every one of its citizens would be walking around bumping into telephone poles.
Aww LA just doesn't want to wear a bodyarmor kevlar team kitLeroy
Jan 30, 2003 1:21 PM
He should stick to pro-cycling and let Georgw W. handle foreign policy and world-wide asskicking.
An athletic event would never be a targetPODIUMBOUNDdotCA
Jan 30, 2003 1:32 PM
The only exception was the Mexico City Olympics. But this was due to religious differences and very targeted. I hope that was the only time something like that will ever happen.

But the thing is a wider attack on Olympics or the Tour de France your not just attacking the country in which they are being held in... you are attacking some of the best athletes in the world who are innocent representing some of the best qualities people have. Trust me no radical terrorist organization is brave enough to do this. Almost every country in the World would be out to get them and they'd lose any and all sympathy from almost anyone who had any brains to them.

O ya and you forget in the grand scheme of things the Tour de France is about 100th in line of top known sporting events behind the World Cup soccer, tennis, super bowl... so if they were gonna get burned alive at the stake they'd at least attack a sport worthwhile to do so.

Nick
PodiumBound.ca
Nick: Lest we not forget ...NeedSpeed
Jan 30, 2003 1:56 PM
Nick,

You need to check you history my friend. Munich Olympics. 1972. A POLITICAL organization of Palestianians made a POLITICAL statement by kidnapping, attacking and murdering Israeli athletes. Religious beliefs are a part of the reason, but only one element. Indiginous rights to land, political and economic persecution were others. But basically this organization hijacked a worldwide stage full of journalists and tourists from all over the world and used the Games as a forum for their arguments.

One of the main elements of a crime is OPPORTUNITY. If there is a world stage, believe me it's possible for some extremist, zealot or crazy person to try to make a statement. Everyone knows that Le Tour is one of the most open, accessible sporting events in the world. Name one where the fans are closer.

So, as with recent high-profile sporting events, I pray that someone is taking this threat seriously and that Le Societie, LeBlanc, les gendarmes, the directeurs sportifs and everyone else takes this seriously. Let's not forget it was at the Atlanta games where someone last decided to injure people and make a statement through violence...
It was Munich not Mexico and how about Atlanta 96?.....Bruno S
Jan 30, 2003 1:58 PM
Its all about opportunity. Sure terrorist would like to nuke the superbowl but they settle with bombing a disco in Bali. The problem with Lance and the posties is that they have the letters U.S. all over them when racing. Ever wonder why terrorist chose United and American airplanes instead of Continetal or Southwest?
I always said that...jtferraro
Jan 30, 2003 2:04 PM
re: "American" and "United" for their choice of airlines intead of Delta, Southwest, Continental, etc. Also, the date 9/11 = 911...emergency.

-Jeff
Ooops was thinking of prefontainePODIUMBOUNDdotCA
Jan 30, 2003 9:16 PM
Not sure if that justifies me being wrong but I'll go with it. :) Getting my history mixed up but still lets not kid ourselves... the Tour is a small deal in the grand scheme of the world. As sad as it is not many people would care nearly as much as if it happened at the Olympics.

Nick
PodiumBound.ca
As A Lifelong Resident Of The Cold War's Ground Zero...Gregory Taylor
Jan 30, 2003 3:05 PM
...and currently employed in the city that must be considered the one of the prime targets for the next big domestic terrorist strike (hint: I work next to the U.S. Capitol), watching the debate about going to war has been fascinating. A couple of thoughts --

* I don't buy the glib "cheap oil" or "finishing my daddy's war" explanations offered by some as to why we are turning up the heat on Iraq. My completely unsupported personal hunch is that U.S. intelligence sources picked up what they considered at the time to be a very credible, very threatening bit of information connected to Iraq that scared the pants off of the White House. Maybe nuclear, maybe biological, but it was something. It will be interesting to see what types of intelligence the U.S. Secretary of State (and his British counterpart) discloses to the Security Counsel next week.

* My prediction as to how this will pan out -- the United States response will be proportional to the amount of support that is offered world wide. If the United Nations passes a resolution authorizing force, you will see a full military campaign with troops on the ground that have Bagdhad as a destination. No U.N. support, and I bet that you see U.S. and British airstrikes on suspected Iraqi WMD sites, and not too much more.

* Is Lance in danger? Yes, but no more than usual, I'd suspect. He probably has far more to fear from drunk and surly fans getting in his way than from a targeted terrorist strike. Lance rode the last tour when Americans were on the ground in Afghanistan chasing the Taliban. There were no incidents. According to Bin Laden, ALL Americans are already potential targets and have been for some time. A war with Iraq will just be more of the same, I'd suspect. As for me, I'm planning on being in France in July to see the Tour. With my bike, and wearing Red, White, and Blue!
Monetary profit from war....O
Jan 30, 2003 8:17 PM
One thing that I never hear discussed is the amount of dollars in profit being made by weapons manufacturers when there will be a war.
War used to revitalize the economy... until Viet Nam. It has never worked since and won't this time either. -nmTig
Jan 31, 2003 9:44 AM
I love my country but fear my governmentTig
Jan 31, 2003 9:58 AM
Lance will be more of a target, especially in France.

"George, The Lesser" is performing the good ol' wag the dog tactic to pull attention away from the failure to get bin Ladin, and our disaster of an economy (not all his fault, 9/11 made everything much worse). Not since the Great Depression have we had a down stock market for this many years. Unemployment rates have been fudged to hide how bad things really are. Even the press hasn't been on top of just how bad the economy has become. Bush can't do anything to fix it unless he thinks lower taxes combined with higher government spending will do it. Top it off with the "he tried to kill my daddy" complex combined with the most ignorant president in recent history, and it spells trouble.

This idiot is dangerous. He started off against Iraq so strong, he can't back down without losing face now. He painted himself into a corner, and the only way out is war. I think he really gets off to the power and enjoys going to war. He must be trying to make up for a small wee-wee or something! LOL The high cost of this war will not stimulate the economy, but put us deeper into trouble.

His State of the Union speech was full of BS promises to appease the masses, yet he has yet to live up to his past promises except for one really good one: He has pushed for higher internal oil production to lower our dependence on imported oil. Of course, as an oilman he reaps the benefits from that move!

What he says and does are two different things. He is not someone who needs to be running such a powerful country as ours. He screwed up our state as governor, and hasn't done any better as president. Cutting taxes while increasing spending... hmmmm, even a 6th grader knows that will cause a severe deficit. He turned a huge budget surplus into a deficit in record time. His relaxation of pollution control restrictions has dismantled environmental protection laws all the way back to 1971! That's why so many states are sueing over that decision.

His thirst for power reminds me of past dictators, and that's scary! God help us all after this war starts. Without a doubt, most of the world will be totally against us, and the average American will pay dearly. I hope that doesn't include good people like Lance and other Americans who travel and work around the world.
I love my country but fear my governmentmerlint3
Jan 31, 2003 6:57 PM
"Top it off with the "he tried to kill my daddy" complex combined with the most ignorant president in recent history"...

Ok Tig, I'm guessing your hero was our last president. FYI he launched a cruise missile attack against an empty building in Iraq because Saddam was directly linked to a plot to KILL an ex - United States of American president. Sorry you think so highly of freely elected and retired US officials to let 3rd world dictators off the hook for plotting to kill them.

BTW why do you think there are even UN inspectors in Iraq right now????? After all they were MIA for the last 4 years or so when Saddam kicked them out. Perhaps we would be better off sticking our heads in the sand like we did under the former administration, or threaten to launch a few cruise missiles like we did against Osma Bin Laden's camp in Afghanistan a few years back when he was linked to the bombings in Africa.

Also, nice simplistic crib sheet to blame all your states economic woes on your former governor or today's economy on the president. Do you employ anybody yourself through a small business? What are you doing to improve the things for our country? Sure is easier to have a scapegoat.

Yes I travel the world for work and have found some Europeans jealous of American, even saying we are arrogant etc. Perhaps there is truth to that, but they owe their prosperity to hard working Americans who helped them rebuild with the Marshall plan after WW2. It's nice to remind them of history once and while. BTW if you think GWB is a dictator you are FREE to vote against him the next election.
No, Clinton was a different kind of idiot than Bush Jr. is. I never voted for either, so don't blame me. -nmTig
Jan 31, 2003 7:16 PM