If the games were to be held in North Korea then this would be morally reprehensible in my view. Such an evil regime should not be rewarded with hosting them. Russia does not rise to the level of barbarity of North Korea, clearly. But I think a compelling argument can be made that it is morally wrong to hold them in Russia (and the U.S. too).
It is certainly true that the games were held in Nazi Germany. I don't know what pointing this out has to do with whether or not it can be morally wrong to hold the games in a country with a sufficient level of human rights abuses. Clearly my position is that holding them in Nazi Germany was morally wrong.
That organizers made bad choices in the past does not negate my position or diminish my point.
Considering Jesse Owens threw SERIOUS doubt on the Nazi precept of racial superiority.
Certain American athletes also chased Hitler from the Stadium once the Track and Field events started, and Hitler was informed by the IOC that he must receive ALL winners... or none.
Hitler chose to receive none.
After the first day... seeing how things were going... he no longer attended the stadium.
Speaking of transcending political intentions, there's a story from those olympics where German long jumper Luz Long gave Jesse Owens tips to help him qualify for the event. There are countless other gestures that demonstrate the same spirit at that event.
The fact that Russia wants to imprison the athletes for being open about what they are is an affront to the games themselves. Hitler didn't even imprison Olympic athletes that didn't match with his views.
It's possible that the North Korean government has killed more North Koreans over that time period; I see estimates for the 1948-1987 period of 700,000 - 3,500,000 deaths. However even assuming that rate remained the same subsequently it is at most within the same order of magnitude as US caused deaths. I don't really see a great difference morally.
It's a strange argument to make anyway. We don't need to compare the US government to poorly understood North Korean atrocities to measure the awfulness of the atrocities it commits which are numerous and heinous.
North Korea also threatens to attack civilian populations indiscriminately (e.g. Seoul, Japan, etc) if they don't get their way. They even threaten nuclear war on an semi-annual basis.
On the other hand, the US strikes may kill civilians due to poor intelligence gathering or 'acceptable levels of collateral,' but they have not indiscriminately bombed (or even threatened to bomb) civilian populations. There is at least an attempt made to limit the amount of death dealt, even if it's not always successful. I'm not admitting that this is good, or that (e.g.) the US should have been in Iraq in the first place, but claiming that the US is on the level of North Korea is laughable.
>they have not indiscriminately bombed (or even threatened to bomb) civilian populations
That is pretty disingenuous. We both know that the US government counts any adult male in certain countries/regions as a militant rather than civilian. If you claim nobody is a civilian then of course you never kill civilians
Also, I would like to hear your defence of the Iraq sanctions. You can hardly claim that was accidental or poor intelligence or that it wasn't indiscriminate. Much like in North Korea those excess deaths can be (and were by the US government) attributed to natural causes.
I challenge you to cite an incident where the US has openly said, "do this or we will launch nukes at [city full of civilians]."
> That is pretty disingenuous. We both know that the US government counts any adult male in certain countries/regions as a militant rather than civilian. If you claim nobody is a civilian then of course you never kill civilians
Your post is the one that comes across (to me at least) as being disingenuous. My claim was that the US is not indiscriminately bombing civilian populations. You somehow are trying to conflate this with me saying that the US is not killing any civilians at all, which I did not claim, nor do I believe.
This section of your post comes across like you're looking for a way to vent your anger about how the US counts "any adult male in certain countries/regions as a militant." In doing so, you are also discounting women and children as civilians by implicitly claiming that only male civilians are killed (and then 'covered up' by claiming that they must have been militants).
> Also, I would like to hear your defence of the Iraq sanctions
I'm unsure what you're talking about. The economic sanctions against Iraq post-Gulf War but prior to the invasion? If you claim deaths due to economic sanctions are the fault of the countries that are imposing sanctions, then technically most of the world was responsible. Carrying this line of reasoning further, you could blame the US for deaths in North Korea due to economic sanctions, no?
From what I've heard so far, LGBTQ athletes will not be discriminated against at the Games. The anti-"gay propaganda" laws have no affect on the sports. Needless to say the law is abhorrent, it doesn't seem like it will prevent athletes who have been training all their lives from competing.
Olympic Athletes have diplomatic immunity.
The only REAL concern athletes have... is from the IOC.
But yeah... that's a pretty big concern... because the IOC is worse than the Russian Government.