bush_cheney2004 Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 (edited) Well, just shows people can't stay in topic of a thread, they always cry and end up pointing the finger at Canada. This ain't 'keepin it real' this is acting like an asshat. If you want to bash Canada there is a separate section for that. I know it's difficult for some of you. And this is where good debate breaks down and idiodicy happens. Are you joking? Bashing the USA (Israel, and others), happens all over this forum, not just in "designated areas".....why should Canada be treated any differently? Hell, this web site is hosted in Houston, Texas ! Edited October 12, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest American Woman Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 Well, I sure wouldn't spend $300 to cheer for the Packers! Of course not. You'd pay much more. Well, just shows people can't stay in topic of a thread, they always cry and end up pointing the finger at Canada. This ain't 'keepin it real' this is acting like an asshat. If you want to bash Canada there is a separate section for that. I know it's difficult for some of you. And this is where good debate breaks down and idiodicy happens. Who's crying and acting like an asshat? -- and who's bashing Canada? Quote
waldo Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 Gee - you're so hard done by, aren't you? Perhaps you should change your meddling ways... exemplified by the Bush Doctrine preemptive war policy... and you might - might - find yourself out from under that microscope you appear to have difficulty dealing with.Translation: Leave the poor terrorists alone. Let them terrorize for pity's sake you evil Americans. which terrorists were the target of the neocon inspired Bush/Cheney Iraq War debacle?... what was the "imminent threat" the U.S. was facing? Quote
Guest American Woman Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 (edited) oh really - appears you've missed the analogy being made... your "World Champion" football - isn't. Most of the world doesn't want to play "your game", in spite of your unabashed need to be labeled as "World Champion", you invariably fall victim to being hoisted with your own petard! oh really-- The Popularity Of American Football The term “American football” refers to a type of game, not a regional sport. American football is enjoyed world-wide. Professional American-style football leagues exist in Canada, Europe, South America and Japan. NFL Europa is a organization operated by the US based National Football League. NFL Europa has teams in six German and Dutch cities. In Canada, there are 2 organizations, the Canadian Footbal Leage, a professional league, and Canadian University Spot, which is a network of nonprofessional University level teams. American Football is sweeping the rest of the world and becoming a popular phenomenon in nearly every country. This growth in popularity is slower in countries that have established rugby or soccer francishes but American Football is rapidly becoming as popular as American fast food. Furthermore --- Seems you missed the irony of my "World Series" story, since Canada plays in that tournament too, and while only the U.S. and Canada participate, seems Canada has no problem being labeled as "World Champion," even though - it isn't. Edited October 12, 2009 by American Woman Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 which terrorists were the target of the neocon inspired Bush/Cheney Iraq War debacle?... what was the "imminent threat" the U.S. was facing? The ones financing / rewarding Palestinian suicide bombings, non-compliance with Gulf War surrender instruments, and those violating UN sanctions. Ding dong...Saddam is dead. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 which terrorists were the target of the neocon inspired Bush/Cheney Iraq War debacle?... what was the "imminent threat" the U.S. was facing? Al-Qaeda and friends. No...they weren't in Iraq at first...but they came to die in droves. GIs to kill?? Jihad!!! Which way to Iraq? What's that up in the sky, Ahmed?? It's shooting at us!! Aieeeeeeeeeeee!!! *thud* That and Saddam...who refused to abide no-fly zones, etc. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest American Woman Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 Al-Qaeda and friends. No...they weren't in Iraq at first...but they came to die in droves. They sure did seem to show up in Iraq, so I wonder why they didn't show up in Saudi Arabia, to fight in protest of the U.S. presence there. That seems to be one of their major grievances, our presence in their Holy Land, so I just find that curious. I'd like to know why they showed up in droves to fight the U.S. military in Iraq, but not in Saudi Arabia. Quote
eyeball Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 They sure did seem to show up in Iraq, so I wonder why they didn't show up in Saudi Arabia, to fight in protest of the U.S. presence there. That seems to be one of their major grievances, our presence in their Holy Land, so I just find that curious. I'd like to know why they showed up in droves to fight the U.S. military in Iraq, but not in Saudi Arabia. I'm curious about why America hasn't graced Burma or Tibet with it's liberating presence. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest American Woman Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 (edited) I'm curious about why America hasn't graced Burma or Tibet with it's liberating presence. So you have no answers to my questions, either ..... I didn't approve of the war in Iraq, but I still question some things, and why al Qeada rushed to Iraq to fight the U.S. military but didn't fight us in Saudi Arabia, where they don't approve of our presence, is something I do wonder about. Edited October 12, 2009 by American Woman Quote
waldo Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 oh really - appears you've missed the analogy being made... your "World Champion" football - isn't. Most of the world doesn't want to play "your game", in spite of your unabashed need to be labeled as "World Champion", you invariably fall victim to being hoisted with your own petard! As for hockey, the NHL doesn't fall victim to visions of grandeur and World Champion labeling... of the entire world that does play "our game", we can rightly justify any claim to full participation and results therein - we ain't rogue players!oh really-- The Popularity Of American Football Well, of course, we should unconditionally accept the pronouncements from sources with significant vested interests… hello, Condi Rice’s mushroom clouds… hello, Colin Powell’s WMD evidence! Just continuing with the analogy! (aside from a little fact like, for example, the NFL Europa/Europe “experiment” was/is an abysmal failure… with it’s touted successes falling to such stalwart German teams that managed to bring in crowds of less than a thousand). Really, only an American would have the gumption to attempt to legitimize the popularity of American Football when stacked up against its feeble inroad results and … the legitimate popularity of real football (soccer). In this case, the heavily armoured, muscle-bound largesse and skills lacking American Football can’t stack up against what a significant majority of the world really wants – real non-American football (soccer). But we really need to frame this a bit more… particularly from a prominent U.S. perspective like that from the neocon Weekly Standard: Soccer is the perfect game for the post-modern world. It's the quintessential expression of the nihilism that prevails in many cultures, which doubtlessly accounts for its wild popularity in Europe. That the world can be “saved” with y’all bringing Merkin Football to the world - whether it wants it... or not! Quote
waldo Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 They sure did seem to show up in Iraq, so I wonder why they didn't show up in Saudi Arabia, to fight in protest of the U.S. presence there. That seems to be one of their major grievances, our presence in their Holy Land, so I just find that curious. I'd like to know why they showed up in droves to fight the U.S. military in Iraq, but not in Saudi Arabia. I didn't approve of the war in Iraq, but I still question some things, and why al Qeada rushed to Iraq to fight the U.S. military but didn't fight us in Saudi Arabia, where they don't approve of our presence, is something I do wonder about. maybe... cause... you got out of Saudi Arabia in 2003. In the run up to the US-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudis said they would not allow American planes to carry out air strikes from the Prince Sultan base without a UN resolution authorising war.The Saudi refusal was reported to have created a rift between Riyadh and Washington. gots to likee these cross-thread topics... about that lack of a UN resolution authorizing the Iraq War Quote
Guest American Woman Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 (edited) Well, of course, we should unconditionally accept the pronouncements from sources with significant vested interests… hello, Condi Rice’s mushroom clouds… hello, Colin Powell’s WMD evidence! Just continuing with the analogy! (aside from a little fact like, for example, the NFL Europa/Europe “experiment” was/is an abysmal failure… with it’s touted successes falling to such stalwart German teams that managed to bring in crowds of less than a thousand). Really, only an American would have the gumption to attempt to legitimize the popularity of American Football when stacked up against its feeble inroad results ... I'll let the list speak for itself. List of American Football Teams in Europe P.S. So what's your take on the "WORLD Series?" Edited October 12, 2009 by American Woman Quote
Guest American Woman Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 QUOTE=American Woman: They sure did seem to show up in Iraq, so I wonder why they didn't show up in Saudi Arabia, to fight in protest of the U.S. presence there. That seems to be one of their major grievances, our presence in their Holy Land, so I just find that curious. I'd like to know why they showed up in droves to fight the U.S. military in Iraq, but not in Saudi Arabia.QUOTE =American Woman: I didn't approve of the war in Iraq, but I still question some things, and why al Qeada rushed to Iraq to fight the U.S. military but didn't fight us in Saudi Arabia, where they don't approve of our presence, is something I do wonder about. maybe... cause... you got out of Saudi Arabia in 2003. Yet the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil took place in 2001. So I'm still wondering why they didn't rush to fight us in Saudi Arabia the way they have in Iraq. Quote
waldo Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 maybe... cause... you got out of Saudi Arabia in 2003.Yet the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil took place in 2001. So I'm still wondering why they didn't rush to fight us in Saudi Arabia the way they have in Iraq. Are you serious? The "small" U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, ostensibly there as a part of the non-sanctioned no-fly zone enforcement, was interpreted symbolically... a symbol of the Saudi's (of Arab's) subservience to the U.S. In 2001, was there open U.S. aggression/hostility within Saudi Arabia? In 2001, was there an active U.S. military invasion within Saudi Arabia? Did the WTC target bring forward the same ends - the same recruitment results - that an attack against the U.S. base within Saudi Arabia might have realized? Quote
eyeball Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 Yet the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil took place in 2001. So I'm still wondering why they didn't rush to fight us in Saudi Arabia the way they have in Iraq. According to some, part of the strategic goal of 9/11 was to draw US troops onto the ground in the ME and surrounding region. Weren't most if not all US troops in Saudi Arabia inside their barracks and largely out of sight as opposed to being more out in the open and accessible in Iraq? In any case why did the US cave to bin Laden's demands to leave Saudi Arabia but nowhere else in the region? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
waldo Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 I'll let the list speak for itself. List of American Football Teams in Europe P.S. So what's your take on the "WORLD Series?" well - that list does speak volumes... however, once you wade through the IFAF's flag football, junior football, tiered division rankings, etc., I'm not sure what's exactly left if you don't mind, I'll stick with the example I pointed to... the failure of the much hyped NFL Europa/Europe league... As for your longing for the world's acceptance of American style Football, I expect you'll need to wait for results over a decades long period similar to what soccer has had to endure within Canada/U.S.. I wouldn't hold your breath. as for baseball question/poke... outside of Toronto, it really doesn't have a strong fervent following in Canada. That Blue Jays anomaly where they won the league - when did that happen again - when were they "world champions"? Quote
Guest American Woman Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 According to some, part of the strategic goal of 9/11 was to draw US troops onto the ground in the ME and surrounding region. Yet U.S. troops were already there; in Saudi Arabia, which was one of their grievances. So if they wanted US troops in the ME, and they were there, why didn't they attack them? Weren't most if not all US troops in Saudi Arabia inside their barracks and largely out of sight as opposed to being more out in the open and accessible in Iraq? I would think that if all US troops were in their barracks, they would have been 'sitting ducks,' so to speak. I would think all of them clustered together, inside their barracks, would make them more "accessible," and much easier to target, than having them all over Iraq. They didn't need to kill thousands of innocent civilians to draw US troops onto the ground in the ME. If they would have attacked US troops in Saudi Arabia, the US would have responded. Do you doubt that for a minute? Furthermore, if they care about all the innocent Muslim civilians who have been killed, why did the "draw" US troops to the ME? That wasn't a very "caring" thing to do. In any case why did the US cave to bin Laden's demands to leave Saudi Arabia but nowhere else in the region? What makes you think they "caved in?"... and to "bin Laden's demands," no less? Quote
Guest American Woman Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 ... As for your longing for the world's acceptance of American style Football..... I couldn't care less if the world "accepts" American style football or not, but I've been in Canada during the Super Bowl, and lots and lots of Canadians cared a lot more about it than I did. a.. outside of Toronto, it really doesn't have a strong fervent following in Canada. That Blue Jays anomaly where they won the league - when did that happen again - when were they "world champions"? Toronto is part of Canada, is it not? Therefore, Canada is part of the World Series. Whether the Jays win or not is irrelevant; when they won is also irrelevant. They try for the title-- which is "WORLD champs" -- and they didn't deny the title when they did win. Quote
waldo Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 Are you serious? The "small" U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, ostensibly there as a part of the non-sanctioned no-fly zone enforcement, was interpreted symbolically... a symbol of the Saudi's (of Arab's) subservience to the U.S. In 2001, was there open U.S. aggression/hostility within Saudi Arabia? In 2001, was there an active U.S. military invasion within Saudi Arabia? Did the WTC target bring forward the same ends - the same recruitment results - that an attack against the U.S. base within Saudi Arabia might have realized? Yet U.S. troops were already there; in Saudi Arabia, which was one of their grievances. So if they wanted US troops in the ME, and they were there, why didn't they attack them? are you really that obtuse? With all your answer seeking, why not take a shot at why you think the WTC/Pentagon were targets... say, over a small military presence within Saudi Arabia. C'mon - take a shot... shot a guess... muse, if nothing else. Quote
waldo Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 I couldn't care less if the world "accepts" American style football or not, but I've been in Canada during the Super Bowl, and lots and lots of Canadians cared a lot more about it than I did. could have fooled me with your scramble to find any web presence to suggest the popular acceptance of... the popularity of the American invasion... of American style football. Toronto is part of Canada, is it not? Therefore, Canada is part of the World Series. Whether the Jays win or not is irrelevant; when they won is also irrelevant. They try for the title-- which is "WORLD champs" -- and they didn't deny the title when they did win. nope, sorry - won't fly. Look to the NHL and "our game"... we don't refer to the Stanley Cup winners as "World Champions". Your hang-up with baseball/World Series is a localized American thingee and an incessant need for Americans to project their world domination Quote
Guest American Woman Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 are you really that obtuse? With all your answer seeking, why not take a shot at why you think the WTC/Pentagon were targets... say, over a small military presence within Saudi Arabia. C'mon - take a shot... shot a guess... muse, if nothing el One. More. Time. Attacking that "small" military presence in Saudi Arabia would have increased the military presence in a hurry; it would have increased the military presence in the ME as surely as attacking the WTC would have. And that "small military presence" was one of bin Laden's/al Qaeda's major grievances. Furthermore, for an organization supposedly angry over Muslim civilian deaths, seems rather 'whacked' to want to bring the U.S. military into the ME -- especially when US military presence in the ME was one of their major grievances. So since I'm obtuse and you're obviously a genius with all the answers, tell me why they rushed to attack American troops in Iraq but they didn't attack the American troops in Saudi Arabia, when our presence there was one of their major grievances. But I'll let you know upfront, you can't shed any light on it, I'm not interested in what you have to say. Quote
waldo Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 One. More. Time. Attacking that "small" military presence in Saudi Arabia would have increased the military presence in a hurry; it would have increased the military presence in the ME as surely as attacking the WTC would have. And that "small military presence" was one of bin Laden's/al Qaeda's major grievances. Furthermore, for an organization supposedly angry over Muslim civilian deaths, seems rather 'whacked' to want to bring the U.S. military into the ME -- especially when US military presence in the ME was one of their major grievances. So since I'm obtuse and you're obviously a genius with all the answers, tell me why they rushed to attack American troops in Iraq but they didn't attack the American troops in Saudi Arabia, when our presence there was one of their major grievances. But I'll let you know upfront, you can't shed any light on it, I'm not interested in what you have to say. asked and already answered Are you serious? The "small" U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, ostensibly there as a part of the non-sanctioned no-fly zone enforcement, was interpreted symbolically... a symbol of the Saudi's (of Arab's) subservience to the U.S. In 2001, was there open U.S. aggression/hostility within Saudi Arabia? In 2001, was there an active U.S. military invasion within Saudi Arabia? Did the WTC target bring forward the same ends - the same recruitment results - that an attack against the U.S. base within Saudi Arabia might have realized? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 According to some, part of the strategic goal of 9/11 was to draw US troops onto the ground in the ME and surrounding region. Weren't most if not all US troops in Saudi Arabia inside their barracks and largely out of sight as opposed to being more out in the open and accessible in Iraq? Yes...except we also must recall some have long memories and recall a huge army massing in Saudi Arabia to attack Saddam in the early 90s re: Kuwait. In any case why did the US cave to bin Laden's demands to leave Saudi Arabia but nowhere else in the region? The Saudi Arabia royalty/government was fighting off an Al-Qaeda led revolt in 2003 which I imagine had a lot to do with it. Calm things down a bit. That and Qatar being a better logistical base....big seaport + big airport...without the obvious political/religious baggage of SA. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
eyeball Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 The Saudi Arabia royalty/government was fighting off an Al-Qaeda led revolt in 2003 which I imagine had a lot to do with it. Calm things down a bit. Looks like it worked. Go figure. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
DogOnPorch Posted October 13, 2009 Report Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Looks like it worked. Go figure. The US wasn't involved in the suppression of the terrorists...just being bomb targets on the airbase. Qatar seems a more friendly nation to US non-coms. Edited October 13, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.