Where were the Americans at the GP final... Suzy and Regina ( DNF ) in the 1,500 were the only USA runners in amything over 800. Great runs by Montgomery, Jones Devers, Hysong..big props though. What\'s up with the US 400 runners this year, worst year in decades. Come on America show the world whats up...
Raise the flag wrote:
Where were the Americans at the GP final... Suzy and Regina ( DNF ) in the 1,500 were the only USA runners in amything over 800. Great runs by Montgomery, Jones Devers, Hysong..big props though. What's up with the US 400 runners this year, worst year in decades. Come on America show the world whats up...
We'd rather just drop bombs.
Bushman,
Man that isn't funny. I guess you'd rather let rogue states support terrorist activities, ones that kill people all over the world including the United States.
It is in part those bombs that have supplied you with the freedoms you enjoy as an American citizen (I'm assuming since you said "We"). If you look back at history, Americans have not started the wars (ok, maybe initially with the native Americans). But, we always end them. We are not bullys or instigators. We are simply protectors of our freedoms and human rights throughout the world. We do have to pick out battles though, and because of that we can't make everyone happy, but we do the best we can, and we do it better than any other nation on the earth.
Basically as time passes, we are losing ground to the rest of the world in most all sports that we used to dominate. As other economies, democracies, and opportunities improve, other countiries are able to produce more and greater athletes. In track, US distance running was the first to fall, now naybe it is sprints and middle distance. Look what just happened in Basketball - 6th place at the world's championships? I know Shaq was not there, but the team was still loaded with NBA players and all-stars. Having never lost a game with pro-players, the US lost 3 in this year's tournament. There was a time when all we needed was good college players to dominate the world's best.
Just will take some pride swallowing and getting used to it but we have to face the facts and just work that much harder to stay on top.
Hey, we still rule Football and Baseball - right? In fact a U.S. team has never lost a "World Series" right-ha! Oooops, my bad, forgot about Toronto-them darn Canadians!
The United States is the largest rogue nation in the world. We impose our will and our necessity into the rest of the world.
Continuing, the world will rejoice (including the Iraqi people) when we create the regime change in Iraq that is necessary for world peace. Once Iraq and Afghanistan have thriving democratic governments, Iran will be the next to follow suit as their own people rise up and overthrow the Mullahs - Syria will be next. Amazingly enough, it is Saudi Arabia with all their princes who most likely doesn't want to see democracy spread in Arab countries.
I agree with Knower on this one. I don't think the US administration (regardless of who's Pres) gets kicks out of bombing unless there is a definite need to do so, and then it is still not a "happy" day.
Trackhead - please clarify further your definitions of "necessity" and "our necessity".
Damn straight Hedge.
Here's the thing people like trackhead don't seem to grasp:
1) The Taliban supported the efforts of Osama bin Laden. They hid and protected him after it was clear that he had orchestrated the attacks on 9-11-01.
2) They were told to give up Bin Laden or give up power (Britain's Tony Blair said that by the way).
3) The Taliban refused to give up bin Laden.
4) In 1991 Iraq started a war by invading Kuwait. That's not acceptable, so we, along with several other countries put a stop to it.
5) As part of the cease fire and SURRENDER, Iraq agreed to allow United Nations inspectors to search for and destroy weapons of mass destruction - that was an AGREEMENT that Iraq made at the time. Had they not agreed, the allied forces would have kept going to Baghdad and enforced a regime change right then and there.
6) Iraq has reniged on their agreement.
7) The United Nations is reluctant to enforce the rule of law that they, not the United State, imposed on Iraq.
8) George W. Bush gave a speech to the United Nations saying in effect that unless they enforce the rules that they set, that they are irrelevant.
9) If a defeated opponent (in this case Iraq) does not abide by the rules of surrender, then it is fair game to go after them and enforce those rules. In effect, it means that we are still at war with them.
10) After World War II, both Germany and Japan had to agree to certain conditions of surrender. Both have done so and both are now thriving countries and respected members of the international community. Why is it that Iraq can't do the same thing?
Trackhead, I guess you'd rather sit back and do nothing and wait for Iraq to blow up a nuclear bomb somewhere (it is said they are about 2 months away from having one). Isreal is not very big. A nuclear bomb there could wipe it away. A bomb being exploded in the United States is not out of the question either.
Trackhead, I advise you to not try to debate me on this subject, because you don't have the knowledge.
Ok you two. People make those kinds of statements all the time and then can't back them up with facts. Let's hear it. Even though you two are idiots, at least you live in a country that allows you to say such idiotic things and not get your tongues cut out - something the Taliban did with regularity by the way.
Knower, looks like you have a fair grasp on the issues, so I will defer to you, if you have any takers (which I would doubt...).
Just a couple of insignificant points.... it has been reported that they are within a couple of months of having a not just one, but an effin' assembly line to make weapons of mass destruction. Also, what would have happened had we just let Hitler go on with his business 'cause it was "none of our business". As it is, it stands as one of the most horrific times/actions in human history.
Props to you my man. I'm glad someone else out there gets it.
Before someone calls me a radical right winger, I'll head them off at the pass by saying I voted for Al Gore last time, voted for Bill Clinton twice (I can make a mistake here and there).
It was Bill Clinton by the way who said while still in office that we would have to enforce a regime change in Iraq. This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. It is an informed American vs. an uninformed one.
I agree we should use our country's wealth and influence for the greater good and for the cause of global peace. But some folks who are pretty well-informed don't think invading Iraq will accomplish those goals. I write for an Indianapolis weekly and had a chance to interview Scott Ritter, U.S. Marine intelligence under Gen. Schwarzkopf, UN weapons inspector, conservative Republican and now an outspoken critic of the idea of invading Iraq. He says we should definitely "go in" if Hussein had anything to do with 9-11 or if he harbors nuclear or biological weapons, but he says those situations do not exist. You can read the interview (one of many Ritter has given--you can read other interviews in Time, etc.) at http://www.nuvo.net/news/archive/001019.html
Gosh, this is more substantive political discussion than you can find on the network nightly news. Kudos all around, dudes.
Who would kick Saddam's ass better? Ritz or Webb?
I'm talking USA did not have A GOOD OVERALL YEAR IN TRACK AND FIELD and you dick bring up everything else. Can we talk track here!
Quigley,
You are a worthy debater, and you make a good observation about Scott Ritter. Mr. Ritter is though not above approach, and he is but one expert that the U.S. has relied on.
The mere fact that Iraq hasn't allowed UN inspectors to come back in unconditionally and resume their jobs is reason enough to go back in. We were at war with them and they signed the surrender agreement and they have not lived up to that agreement. That makes the agreement null and void.
Your beef is with Bushman who did a post and run like the wimp that he is.
Portland Runner,
Ha! Funny and well-timed. You may not have to keep your day job.
Uh Quigley,
Remember they kicked out the UN weapons inspectors. That should be and is all evidence needed for a good ole butt whipping. To heck with a wait and see approach, better to be proactive than reactive.