port1080: I don't know if the Chinese leadership really thought this whole Olympics thing through when they started pushing for it in the 1990s. The mantra among the Chinese right now seems to be "the Olympics is about sports and a chance to showcase our culture - leave politics out of it"

Think back to about half of the Bond movies ever produced. It's practically a trope that at some point, the major villain of the piece is going to throw a mild-mannered soiree or party, or some other quaintly fun or socially redeeming event, just to show that he can. This was probably something along those lines. But they grossly underestimated the amount of rancor they'd have to sweep under the rug.

And just to put one other thing into perspective...

port1080: McCain isn't a sure thing - his anti-torture stance might make him less willing to overlook Chinese abuses than Bush and Clinton were.

Bear in mind that McCain's anti-torture stance made him no less willing to overlook American abuses. Conclusion: McCain's anti-torture stance can be abandoned at the drop of a hat--an ill-fitting sparkly bright electric-pink-and-orange hat emblazoned with the name "Boofums."

I am interested in your last paragraph about our politicians and China.

I always thought that China was too powerful for any of our politicians to anger.  Even if they become more jingoistic and less inclined to take care of their human rights issues, would this be drastically different than previously over the last few decades(and this is a genuine question I am asking and not a rhetorical question)?

I would be interested in hearing about why our politicians seems less friendly towards China.  I always thought they were to large and powerful for us to be anymore than cautiously friendly.  Why are our politicians willing to take a harsher viewpoint of them now? (again, another genuine question.  I would love an elaboration from you on the whole U.S. politicians and Chinese government relationship).

if it refuses to do so, it will be much harder for the rest of the world to accept that China is "peacefully rising" to be a "mature member of the international system" (which is the image China badly wants to project).  

You answer your own question here.  A successful Olympics does a truly huge amount of projecting this image.  It's too sweet a candy for China to resist, even knowing that it will give them indigestion.

Much like the Vietnam fighting the US, Tibet never had a chance to win against the full military force of China by any means other than by being such a thorn in the side of China that China would decide that control of Tibet wasn't worth the effort.  Aided by cooperation from the US orchestrated by the brother of the Dalai Lama, Tibet was a major thorn in the side of China in the 50s and 60s until US support was ended by Nixon.  The problem for any independence movement in Tibet or Xinjiang is that success even in being a major annoyance to China requires either a genius leader capable of operating using only Chinese military's supplies or support in the from of weapons form a foreign power.   In order of my estimate of probability, possible nations to provide this support are Russia, the US, India, or an Arab or Muslim power.  All of these potential alliances have only a low probability of happening.

Contrary to US popular belief, the Dalai Lama did not call off the Tibetan resistance as a result of a moral stand, but as a practical matter because of the Tibetan casualties for little result which would have resulted from trying to continue it in the absence of US support.  His ability and willingness under the correct conditions to call up a large number of fighters willing to die for Tibet is generally greatly underestimated in the West, but there is nothing indicating that these conditions are at all probable.

What these protests were intended to do -- and I believe them to be both orchestrated by the Dalai Lama and intended by him to be peaceful -- is only put a bit of international pressure on China and call a bit of attention to Tibet, while hoping for the small chance of the diplomatic homerun which would result in an alliance with a major foreign power which would allow a true resistance.

You make a good argument.  I would have to agree that the Chinese take-over of Tibet is at least as offensive and immoral as the take-over of Kuwait by Iraq, which lead to the 1991 Gulf War.  However, no one wants a war with China, which is the world's most populous nation, one of the world's greatest economic powers (perhaps soon to be THE greatest) and a nuclear power.  As a matter of military practicality, the West conceded Tibet to China a long time ago.  It is doubtful that the US would, at this point, even want to go to war to protect Taiwan, which is much more important to the Western world than Tibet ever was.

If we boycott the Olympics we will do real harm to China, but what will China do in retaliation?  Do we really want to go down that road?  We are at a time in world history when international cooperation seems to be more vital than ever.  It will be necessary, very soon (if not immediately) to gain China's support on the UN Security Council for some new solution to the war in Iraq, and for bringing an end to Iran's nuclear weapons program, and probably for several other matters as well.  We certainly need China's cooperation for any meaningful global solution to our growing environmental problems.  As Chinas economy continues to develop it is likely to become so important that it will play a central role in pretty much everything, replacing the US as the world's dominant power.  It does not pay to offend a country which is in that position.

So what can I tell the people of Tibet?  Only that I am sorry, but I can't help them.  This is not a happy answer, but it is a realistic one.

That may be easy for you, tomc, but what about if you've invested the time to actually make an Olympic team?   I would hope that the British athletes at least would boycott, but I understand that it would be asking a lot, and isn't that likely to happen.  Even a few of the better ones would make the point, though.

Some athletes aren't competing because of the adverse environmental effects. It's difficult with sponsors, etc, but if one were a big enough name and you could get a couple other big names together, it would make quite a splash to hold an alternative display.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.