Why can't USA compete in Commonwealth Games?

Joe Binks wrote:

And we thought we had handed over our wonderful legacy to the Americans after WW2, but I can hardly visualise an American Empire Games in 2100 with competitors from Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo, Panama and other parts of the world subjugated by US forces 1945-2014.

Why do you think the US is done subjugating people as of 2014?

GlobalView wrote:

Y wrote:

I mean we were a British territory. So why not? Are we too good and big now?

Wow, is this for real?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

I don't understand the question.

Although the US is entitled to apply to join the Commonwealth, doing so would likely turn the Commonwealth into a political bloc, rather than a sort of non-politically aligned "friendly" version of the UN.

Randy Oldman wrote:

GlobalView wrote:

Wow, is this for real?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

I don't understand the question.

Although the US is entitled to apply to join the Commonwealth, doing so would likely turn the Commonwealth into a political bloc, rather than a sort of non-politically aligned "friendly" version of the UN.

I meant the question is, well, inane. Even a cursory knowledge of history makes the question a non-starter.

I was about to say the US couldn't join the Commonwealth because that would mean we would have to agree to the Queen being our head of state.

I now see that is wrong. 16 countries in the Commonwealth have the Queen as Head of State but many don't.

Did you all know the Queen of England is also the Queen of Canada?

I've talked to Canadians who didn't know the Queen was the head of state of their country.

wejo wrote:

Did you all know the Queen of England is also the Queen of Canada?

Yes.

The US is definitely eligible to be part of the Commonwealth per the Edinburgh and Harare Declarations, but I don't ever see it happening.

Because 'Murka. That's why.

wejo wrote:

I've talked to Canadians who didn't know the Queen was the head of state of their country.

What is their explanation for the Queen being on all their coins and bills for the last 62 years?

She's also the Queen of Australia, New Zealand and half of the Caribbean.

I have not read the other responses so pardon me if I am repeating. The USA probably could compete in the Commonwealth Games if we wanted to. The USA is not a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, which is a requirement. In simple terms, the USA doesn't embrace it's Commonwealth heritage.

Why can't pan-am and commonwealth morph together and become the Americas-commonwealth games (serious question) or is the USA team just so damn kickass that UK athletics wants to have their own mini D3 championships Where they can win everything and feel really good about themselves? After all, sports and politics are supposed to be separate matters (except in soccer-brainwashed brazil where the futebol gods live and the big gangs kill players and fans that they don't like and hold hostages and shut down local brand name stores when a player that plays for a club that they don't like gets onto Brazil's world cup team)

I wouldn't be surprised if Ireland joins once the British Monarch is no longer the official head of the Commonwealth, which is likely to happen once old Liz pops her clogs.

The standard of awesome wrote: or is the USA team just so damn kickass that UK athletics wants to have their own mini D3 championships Where they can win everything and feel really good about themselves?

Australia has topped the Commonwealth Games medal tables since 1986.

CG isn't the UK either - each "home"country has its own team - Scotland, Wales, England,etc.

wejo wrote:

I was about to say the US couldn't join the Commonwealth because that would mean we would have to agree to the Queen being our head of state.

I now see that is wrong. 16 countries in the Commonwealth have the Queen as Head of State but many don't.

Did you all know the Queen of England is also the Queen of Canada?

I've talked to Canadians who didn't know the Queen was the head of state of their country.

No.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy.

The crown is head of state.

Since Oliver Cromwell, the crown's power is in the City of London Corp's hands.

The City of London Corp. is one square mile within the city and is not part of the United Kingdom (never was), and has it's own charter.

The city of of London corp set up the Commonwealth and with all government operations being Crown corporation, meaning subsidiaries. Thus the Bank of Canada, Australia and so on are run out of London.

Who controls the city of London corp?

Go to Wikipedia and all the corporations are listed there.

The major (root) shareholders of the big companies are the ones who are effectively the crown.

In the 1800's everyone knew who the crown was. After several generations people again believed the urban peasant myth the queen was the crown and that parliament ran the country.

If you wish to learn more, just pick up a book on British law, how it all works is described literally. look deep into Cromwell, how the financiers (City of London and Amsterdam transplants) backed him to take out the crown, and how the financiers took out Cromwell and installed a puppet monarchy. thus the takeover was complete.

The parliamentary system while holding some power, is not a deciding force in any matter of great importance.

Which to say that these types governments are neither a monarchy nor a democracy. The be fascist regimes.

And thus the American revolution was a struggle between the City of London Corp. and the upstart money men in the original 13 colonies.

Look up who signed the Declaration of Independence.

All of them were merchants, lawyers and staff of the major money players in the 13 colonies.

My dear chap, are you suggesting the City of London runs Canada?

If the US, why not Donetsk? See the Cuomo interview with their nutcase leader. Maybe Commonwealth v USA. That would be an interesting meet.

Because you're not part of the Commonwealth, perhaps?

We, in Canada, still have the Queen as our "official" head of state. This is ridiculous in the year 2014. Now she doesn't mettle in our affairs, but down the line someone could. It is time that Canada, New Zealand, and Australia become an officially independent republic.

But, there is no push for this and won't be until some Royal down the road tries to mess with the internal affairs of one of the Commonwealth countries.

GoldenMiles wrote:

Actually not a half-bad question.

Actually, an entirely stupid question.

Wowl... wrote:

The Brits can't stand losing over and over again...

O beautiful for glory-tale

Of liberating strife

When once and twice,

for man's avail

Men lavished precious life!

America! America!

God shed his grace on thee

Till selfish gain no longer stain

The banner of the free!

Without the slave trade you would be winning nothing