Yet another example of you know what. End of the game, 2.9
left, shooting free throws. A miss, a rebound, a timeout.
Announcers went on and on about how late the clock started.
They said it should have started when the ball hit the rim.

I saw that too.
 

I almost fell out of my seat. Usually these guys that did this game were much better than that.http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk...pshakehead.gif

Peace

I was watching a women's game last week on Fox, there was a man and a woman announcing and the guy said "they were really fortunate there because the officials missed a ten-second backcourt violation, :12 went off the clock before they crossed halfcourt". I was cracking up, where has this guy been and why is he announcing a women's game if he knows nothing about it. The woman tactfully pointed out that they don't have that rule in the women's game, but I bet she was thinking "dumbsh!t".

Isn't the CSU-UNLV game the same one where the refs let the UNLV player pile on top of the CSU star (the 7 footer) during a loose ball, and he caught a nasty poke in the eye? I agreed with the CSU coach on that one - should have been a foul...

The best Packerism from yesterday: Ref called BI when the ball was touching the flange, and a defender gives the net a good solid shove. Packer says, "That was a bad call! Everyone knows the ball has to be down in the net before BI can be called." My husband (no aficianado I assure you) says, "Even I know that's not true!"

Incidentally, that game had a defensive BI call, an offensive BI call and a goaltending call all in the first half. Fascinating!!

Maybe it was lack of sleep from staying up until 1 or 2 in the morning to watch all of these games, but I thought Jimmy Dykes said that in that situation, that the clock HAD started when the ball hit the rim, and he was questioning that. If that's the case, he would of course be correct.

Just because someone gets hurt does not mean you have a foul or that one should have been called. And yes it was the game where the 7 footer did get poked in the eye. For the record I did not see the actual play, but saw most of the game after that incident.

Luther Head from Illinois, cracked a tooth against Indiana and the Indiana player ended up bleeding all over the floor. The officials called nothing there and seeing the replay I had to agree. Basically the players just ran into each other. And Mike Davis was going nuts and wanted something called.

Peace

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, they went over it again in slow motion saying, it still hasn't started, it still hasn't started, boy that's a least a half second late. As the officials looked at the replay the announcers were confident that there would be a time adjustment, and there was. They put an extra .4 back on the clock. Go figure.

Poke in the eye
 

I saw the play, including the replays. Didn't agree that it was an obvious foul. The poke in the eye was not where the foul occurred, IMHO. I thought, if anything, they should have got him for jumping on top of the guy. One guy's laying on the floor reaching for the ball, the other guy dives but lands on top of the first guy (I thought). It wasn't an obvious call, and could have gone either way (call or no-call.)

Adam

Hmmm...don't believe I ever said that the foul should have been called because the kid got hurt...I did say they let the UNLV player pile on top of the CSU player... that's where the foul should have been called...the fact that the CSU player got hurt and had to leave the game just made the situation that much worse...a player lying on his back, holding the ball (which was loose before he dove on it), and another player jumps on top of him and we have no foul call...

Well Rocky
 

Well this sounds like a claim that a foul should have been called. Maybe you did not mean to imply that, but that is what I got out of your statement here.


Part of playing sports is that people get hurt sometimes. I admittedly did not see the play and cannot defend or be critical of the actual situations that took place. And because the player got hurt does not mean it had anything to do with the situation you just discribed.

Peace

Re: Well Rocky
 

Jeff, Rocky did say that a foul should've been called. But not b/c of the eye-poke. He was saying it should've been called when the second player "piled on" the first.

Well, you got two players on the ground fighting for a ball and one of them pokes the other in the eye. Sounds to me like the injury has something to do with the situation we're talking about. Just my opinion, of course.

Chuck

Re: Well Rocky
 

I would respond to your points here, if I had any clue what point you were trying to make!

I will try this again...One player lying on floor. Second player jumps on top of him. In process, finger is inserted into eye. But that injury has nothing to do with the play I described???

No the foul should not be called just because the CSU player got hurt...yes the foul should be called because we should not let players jump on top of each other...

Re: Re: Well Rocky
 

The point is this. Just because someone got hurt does not mean that a foul should have been called or that it made things worse. Basketball is a game where contact occurs and it is allowed. If it was not, any touch would result in ejection immediately. It sounded to me that you were implying that the officials allowed this player to get poked in the eye. Well even if a foul was called on the player being poked in the eye, he still would have been poked in the eye. Our job is to call what takes place, not to prevent everything that can possibly happen on the basketball court.

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Well Rocky
 

Again, I never said the poke in the eye was the foul...I'm not sure how you can justify the statement that it did not make things worse...not only have the refs allowed one player to jump on top of another, but as a result of that the team now loses it's best player and leading scorer in a very tight game...that most certainly does make the situation worse...anyway...how bout them BoSox???

Re: Re: Re: Re: Well Rocky
 

How does that make the situation worse? You lose a top player and it is the official's fault?

Remember, you are the one that brought up the issue of the top player being lost. I am still trying to figure out what that has to do with the foul, if the two were not directly related. I am sure there were many other fouls not called in the opinion of CSU. Did having those not called make the sitaution worse?

If you did not want anyone to interpret your comments as being related, then you should have never put them together. Because I really do not see what a player getting injured has anything to do with "unrelated" foul, but you put them together anyway.

Peace

What the hell are you talking about??? Of course they are related...there should have been a foul called on the UNLV player for jumping on top of the CSU player who was laying on the floor...now not only was there no foul called, but in the play described CSU loses it's star player, and you have no problem with that??? Of course it wasn't the officials fault he got hurt - NOBODY ever said anything about it being the officials fault the kid got hurt - well, except for you...it was their fault that they didn't call the foul (again, it should have been for the piling on, not the poke in the eye)...I NEVER said the foul should have been called because the kid got hurt - don't know where you pulled that from...and if you can't recognize the fact that CSU was put into a hole because of the no-call, then I don't know what else to say to you...

Why mention the injured player?
 

No, just wanted to see how the two were related.

Rocky,

What does the foul not being called have to do with a sitaution getting worse because an unrelated player (not directly involved in foul) got injured? You put the two things together, I just wanted to understand why. Simple question. You sound like a coach. :confused:

Peace

Re: Why mention the injured player?
 

I believe the only one confused here is you...how can you refer to an unrelated player?? Where did that come from?? How can you say he was not directly involved in the foul??? He's laying on the floor, someone jumps on top of him and sticks their finger in his eye, but he's not directly invovled in the foul??? I don't have a clue where you are coming from on this...does anyone else??

Re: Re: Why mention the injured player?
 

I do. <u>Even if the official called the foul, the player would still be injured.</u> So the fact that he's injured has nothing to do with whether or not a foul should be called. We aren't going to start giving out two pity free throw attempts for every injured player. Besides, most of us coaches wouldn't trade our top player for two free throw attempts!

Re: Re: Why mention the injured player?
 

I am not confused at all. You are equating two unrelated situations and telling everyone that one of the situations has to do with the other. I do not understand how a possible foul call has to do with an injury in any way. You made it sound as if the non-call was the same action that injured the top player, then you admit it was not. I think it is clear what you said, but you are trying to back out of it by saying they are not related. OK, that makes sense.

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Why mention the injured player?
 

When did I say that the two were unrelated??? YOU said that...the piling on and the sticking the finger in the eye were the same play, same action...I never said they were two different things...what I did say (and have repeated several times PA Coach) was that the piling on was the foul, not the sticking the finger in the eye...the fact that the piling on was also the cause of the injury made the situation worse...and PA Coach, are you gonna tell me that you would not blow a major gasket if your star player had someone jump on them, no foul is called, and then you realize they are injured and miss the rest of the game?? Come on...if the foul was called you have no one to be mad at...crap happens in games, we all know that...but your star player gets jumped on, there's no foul call, and then as the defender climbs off your star you see he/she is hurt...not gonna bother you, huh???

As an official, if I saw contact I deemed was not worthy of a foul, and it turned out the player was hurt, I wouldn't regret my no call. I made the best decision I could at the time I had to make it.

As a coach, I'd use the fact that the player was hurt to try to convince the official that he kicked it, in the (futile) hope that I could instill enough guilt that a makeup call would be right around the corner. But that's just how us coaches think!

I think you and Rut are looking at the same situation from two different perspectives, both of which are perfectly valid and understandable.

You do not have to get upset.
 

I am the one that stated that the two were unrelated. You said the foul not being called was not the same action that caused the player's injury. Clear as day to me.

I did not say that. I clearly was trying to figure out how a foul and a unrelated injury were about the same thing.


Now I am confused. You said that the foul that should have been called was not the same action that injured the player. Now you are saying it was? Which one is it? So if the foul was called the injury would not have taken place? Let us say they called a foul, would that have prevented the injury? If that is the case, to me that is coach speak. I have called fouls and players have gotten hurt and not called fouls and players have gotten hurt (sometimes unrelated to anything I could have called). Coaches always get upset over the injury, despite what actually happen (at least in my experience). I have had players run into teammates and the coach thinks something should have been called. I would assume that the officials that actually did the game, was not concerned about how bad it looked if they felt nothing should have been called. Now you have an opinion and have that right, but they were there and if they felt something should have not been called, that is why nothing was called. And I am sure that the injury did not change their mind. All I am saying, players are going to get injured. Whether something is called or not, they will get injured. If you spend time worrying about players getting injured because you did not call something, to me you have too much to worry about.

Maybe this is my football officials mentality, I have seen very clean hits hurt the one getting hit several times over the years. Basically, sh!t happens. It does not mean that someone did something to cause it, it just means that in a sport were bodies are going to be moving and come in contact with each other, injuries will happen.

Peace

I really don't think that all coaches think that way.At least,I hope that they don't.I really want to believe that some coaches still believe in sportsmanship!

This word sportsmanship gets thrown around all the time whenever somebody's PC-ness gets wrinkled by someone else's action. Here's the definition:

conduct (as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport

I don't think that action could be construed as unsportsmanlike. I consider myself and my team to be very sportsmanlike. Friendly with the opponents before and after, doing whatever we can to get an edge WITHIN THE RULES (fairness), and doing my best to be gracious after a win or a loss. After all, it's just a game.

Re: You do not have to get upset.
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge

Quote:

I am the one that stated that the two were unrelated. You said the foul not being called was not the same action that caused the player's injury. Clear as day to me. I did not say that. I clearly was trying to figure out how a foul and a unrelated injury were about the same thing. You said that the foul that should have been called was not the same action that injured the player. Now you are saying it was? Which one is it? So if the foul was called the injury would not have taken place? Peace

I have gone back over everything I posted on this topic, and I can not find anythplace where I said they were unrelated or not the same action...I have stated over and over that they were the same play...and nowhere did I say that the foul being called would have stopped the injury - that's assinine...what I have been trying to say is that the lack of a foul call combined with the injury put CSU at a tremendous disadvantage...in my humble opinion, it was a foul...in my humble opinion, CSU got screwed...not a CSU fan - that was the first time I had seen them play all year...

Trying to intimidate an official into giving you a make-up call is getting an edge WITHIN the rules?

Yes,coach,you are the epitome of sportsmanship!

That's sad!

Re: Re: You do not have to get upset.
 

I only wanted to know what the two had to do with each other. Foul call or no foul call, the player got injured. If that appears to you that CSU got screwed, only because a foul was not called, then so be it. They won the game, so whatever happen it motivated them to play without this so called top player. And if all you were saying is that injury put them at a disadvantage, well DUH!!!! The game was not won or lost on that incident. But you will claim it does I guess.

Peace

Sounds normal to me.
 

I am not defending this metality, but come on JR. You know that coaches do not b!tch and moan about fouls called against the other team. I have never known a coach to complain when a foul went in their favor. They tend to complain about things that go against them. The attitude that Penn. Coach has seems rather typical. Coaches want things to be called in their favor, that is just the way it is. That is why they ride us over no-calls not matter when they happen.

Peace

Re: Re: Re: You do not have to get upset.
 

Are you serious?? Aren't you the one who keeps whining about people putting words into your mouth?? Give me a break...I never claimed anything even close to that stupid statement...get a grip.

Re: Re: You do not have to get upset.
 

These are your words. Colorado State won the game. Colorado State won the game without their top player on UNLV's home court I might add. Colorado State did not get a foul called in their favor, in your opinion which for some reason I guess caused the injury. Because if the foul was called or not called, the player still got injured. And at the time of the injury, Colorado State University was behind if I am not mistaken.

I am not putting words in your mouth. But when someone suggests that a team got screwed, to me that means that it hurt their chances to win. Maybe that is what you did not mean, but that is why I asked the question in the first place. To me when you win a game, I really do not see how you get screwed in the process. Call me crazy, but that is how I look at it. Especially when that one play or no-call had nothing to do with the actual outcome. Either way Colorado State won or lost that game. There was still plenty of time left in the game when that happen.

Your comments are left to interpretation. It is not always what your exact words are, it is what they also imply or suggest. To me you are suggesting that one had to do with the other. I just wanted to know how. But you are the one telling me that I am stupid and need to get a grip when I am asking for clarifications on <b>YOUR</b> words.

Peace

When did I call you stupid??? Since when is saying a statement is stupid equal with calling a person stupid?? Not in my area, anyway - as you so often like to say...and I never said that the play cost them the game, or that the injury would have been prevented had a foul been called, or any of the other things you somehow "interpreted" from my words...

You go Rocky.
 

Well Rocky, you made a statement. I asked you a question and you answered it. We do not agree. We are not going to agree. My posts were not to try to agree, just to understand what you were saying. So since you are saying that you did not say anything I "interpreted," I will say again that I disagree. The two have nothing to do with each other, no matter what you say. That is my opinion and I am sticking to it.

Peace

Ok then, we disagree...I happen to think that jumping on top of another player is a foul, and you don't, so we disagree...I happen to think that it stinks that in the process of jumping on top of another player, the "jumper" sticks his finger in the players eye causing that unprotected player to have to leave the game, you seem to think that is fine, so we disagree...I can live with that...

I have a wonderful idea.
 

My comments have nothing to do whether there was a foul or not. I did not see the play. I personally do not care if there was a foul or not. But if the actions you state happen, I do not see how the officials are at fault. If the action caused the "poking of the eye," it is not like the officials could do the Jedi mind trick and stop that from happening. So I guess if a foul was called, the "eye poking" would have not taken place. I will remember that next time I officiate a game. I will remember to make sure that I use my Jedi powers to stop any contact. Better yet, why don't we all just sit in the stands and do that so we do not have to blow our whistles. Sounds like a plan to me.http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk...pshakehead.gif

Peace

How does he do it?!?!
 

After the "People Skills" thread and now this one, I'm left wondering what marvelous gift Jeff has that allows him to absolutely and completely miss a point so obvious that if it were an iceberg, the Titanic would hit it.

Jeff, you have this amazing knack for completely ignoring even the most basic point and then arguing that the point is wrong. OR you take the point and twist it into something which was clearly and obviously never intended by the original writer. Then after twisting the original point, you make an obvious and/or irrelevant point which you think is justified by saying that it's just your opinion. And to top it off, you somehow think that your irrelevant reply to the twisted original statement shows that you have "proven" something.

I think I gave you way too much credit in our previous discussion. I was assuming that you actually knew how to have a constructive debate.

Twist on, McDuff.

Chuck

Re: How does he do it?!?!
 

Whew...thanks Chuck...for a while there I thought I was maybe losing it...I don't care what JR and Dan say, you're ok for a BoSox fan!! :)

Re: How does he do it?!?!
 

......and be damned him that first cries, "Hold, enough!"

But perhaps this is more appropriate:

"Peace, peace, Mercutio, peace!"

All of this is Shakespeare, and you thought this board had no culture. Wait, I don't mean that anyone actually said that this board had no culture, that is just my opinion. I think what the person actually said was that you wouldn't know Shakespeare if it poked you in the eye, which is possible because Shakespeare was one violent dude and there were no guys with whistles to mediate back in those days.

Re: Re: How does he do it?!?!
 

You like me! You really like me!!

(It is almost Oscar time, after all. :D )

Hmmmm!

I thought it was "Lay off,McDoff,I've had enoff".

That may be poetry, but it ain't Shakespeare.

I asked a question.
 

Chuck,

Just like you did, I asked a question. I wanted to know what two things that in my mind had nothing to do with each other. When I got the answer, I disagreed with it. Nothing more, nothing less. There was nothing to prove. There was not major point to make. I did not get a trophy for my efforts or the discussion. I just wanted so understanding of Rocky's point. I was not the only person that disagreed or had a different point of view. But folks like you and rocky try to make every discussion into a major event. That is why you are still taking about "people skills" and I have sense moved on, I cannot even remember what that was all about. But then again, this board is not my life. I guess I just look at the world and officiating differently.

Peace

Re: I asked a question.
 

That's a big "N.S." :rolleyes:

I wondered how a thread about "CSU-UNLV" could have amassed three pages of responses.

I should have known....

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/argue.gif
CE & Rut

Chuck has not been around as usual.
 

Actually, Chuck has not even been in this conversation. This was really between Rockyroad and a couple of other people that took issue with his comments. Chuck did not even play a part in the main part of the discussion. But as usual Chuck puts himself in something that was debatable by more than just me on this topic. I guess he has nothing else to do.

Peace

Re: Chuck has not been around as usual.
 

#1) Go back over the posts again...the only one who had any problem with my comments was Rutledge...PA Coach took exception to one of Rutludge's "interpretations" of what I said, but then changed that stance in his next post when he realized I never said what Rutledge "interpreted"...

#2)Chuck obviously read all of the strand, and got fed up with Rutledge jumping around all over the place and making comments about things that were never said by me...

So Chuck is innocent here...not his fault it went so long...

okay, sorry...

CE & Rut & Rocky
http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/argue.gif http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/pcangry.gif

I'm not sure why you "should have known" that I had anything to do with it. I have only been in one conversation with Jeff that has been extremely protracted. And throughout that entire debate, I really only asked one question. So it's not like I was all over the map making irrelevant points and intentionally deflecting the conversation. I almost always stay out of those types of threads, but I was curious how long -- and to what lengths Jeff would go -- to avoid answering the question, when the answer was already obvious.

In any case, even if Jeff and I did have an extensive history of conflict (which I don't think we do), this thread isn't a part of that history. I only made two posts prior to this one. And one of them was a compliment to Jeff, for crying out loud. I said he has a "gift"! How can that possibly be construed as confrontational? I try to raise a young man's self-esteem and get castigated for it.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said anything negative about anybody ever. And anyway, why do you care what I said? It's just a discussion board and it's just my opinion. Clearly, you have nothing better to do with your life than attack me, but why should I care?

Chuck

Re: Re: How does he do it?!?!
 

No, this is:

"There was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently."

Hmmm....I know I've read something like this before...where?
where?

Can't we all just get along???

--Rodney King


Maybe he was talking about this forum. Sheesh.

Sorry guys, just poking fun....and those "smilie" things are a hoot. I just forgot to add ;) at the end.

Sheesh, no wonder you Yankee types are so quick to go to war...

(see how many pages THAT comment generates!)

Do not lump us all together. Some of us think this President is an idiot!!http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk...icon_drool.gif

Now that might help generate more posts about that.

Peace

Rut,

I won't lump you all together, if y'all promise not to get all your info about Canadians from Pat Buchanan :D

I believe the majority of the U.S. does not agree with this war, but your fierce nationalism and patriotism (not necessarily bad things) lead many to beat the drums anyway. I will say that most of the people I know up here don't think much of ole George Dub-ya.

Why I disagree with invading Iraq is a much longer discussion. Let's just say your country's duplicity in this matter (and Afghanistan, for that matter) leave me skeptical about the real reasons for this war. I don't believe it's as simple as "war for oil", but it's definitely not because Iraq is a threat.

My hopes and good wishes go out to your Armed Forces. Our Prime Minister refuses to commit military support unless the U.N. mandates it, a position I support. Any Americans who criticize us for that should remember that it took over two years for you folks to pitch in against Adolf Hitler.

The war will be quick and surgical. Hopefully loss of life (American, Iraqui, whomever) will be minimal. Just don't believe any of the news you receive from the front lines. It will all be sanitized by the military. The real battle will be for independent journalists to report the truth.

Many of us do not believe the information we get from our government anyway. It is not like we are surprised by those accounts. But the one thing they will never be able to hide, the body bags when they come back to this country. But I guess this is all to get revenge for the attempt on <b>DADDY'S</b> life.

Peace

Canuckref, I wanted to email you, b/c this conversation probably doesn't really belong in this forum; but I didn't see an email link for you. So I'll have to post this here, but I'll keep it short (I hope :) ). I'm not a knee-jerk "My country, right or wrong" kind of guy, but I wanted to make just a couple comments on your post.

I think that you might get that impression from some of the news coverage of the daily anti-war demonstrations; but polling data by fairly neutral companies (in other words, not commissioned by the Republican Party) shows support for military action by 70% or so of Americans. And that's even if the action is not backed by the UN. I saw that figure last night, although I apologize that I can't quote you the source of the poll.

I'm sure that's true, since one of your government officials (MP Carolyn Parrish) recently said, "Damn Americans, I hate those b@stards." I have no problem with that. One person's opinion. I think that there is a large perception that President Bush is just an idiot, as Jeff put it. He's stupid and in way over his head. Even referring to him as "old George Dub-ya" has a connotation of a country hick sittin' on the front porch of the town store. But I personally think that is an easy characature used by critics and unsympathetic media.

It's very similar to the characature of former President Clinton as the womanizing philanderer, who would have sex with anything that moved. Both are based on a small grain of truth (Bush's college grades, and Clinton's affair with Monica), but are overblown and accepted simply b/c it's easier to do than to see the person as a complex individual.

Again, I'm not so naive as to believe that the US gov't hasn't slanted its facts to make the best possible case for itself. But whatever duplicity has been used in this country cannot possibly be compared to that used in Iraq. At least, I don't think so.

Frankly, I just don't see how it's possible for anyone to say that Iraq is NOT a threat. Iraq is, in my opinion, an obvious threat in several ways. First, they have shown in the past the willingness to invade another country without provocation. So they're obviously a threat to their neighbors. Second, the gov't there used chemical weapons on its own people when they attempted to rebel after the Gulf War. (The US's failure to help those rebels is the real shame of that conflict.) So, Iraq is a threat to its own people. And we know that they still have those weapons, b/c their soldiers have them right now in the battlefields.

Iraq is much more of a threat right now than Serbia ever was. But President Clinton sent troops there to remove Milosovic without UN approval, and the results were not the horror that many predicted.

The ties to terrorists are, I think, murky and haven't been proven very well. But I don't think you need those ties to show that Iraq is a threat. Is it enough of a threat to invade? I don't know that personally. But I assume (I hope to God) that the US gov't has information that it has not made public to show that it is enough of a threat.

I appreciate that, I really do. I think that, like you, we all hope for minimal loss of life on all sides. That will be more likely if we see mass surrenders, as has been reported will happen. But that could easily be a ruse.

And I respect your support for your own gov't, as well as your government's right to do what it sees as best for the safety of its people. The problem with the UN mandate is that at least one country has said that it will veto any resolution that calls for use of force. So what's the point of going thru the UN? It's a non-starter. Even if the whole UN supported it, it would be vetoed. If you want to talk duplicity, I think Germany, France and Russia bear examination.

Well, I guess this whole post is based on a lie, anyway. I said it would be short! :D I hope that this post is seen as respectful debate and not as bashing anyone or as jingoistic propoganda. If you want to talk more, please feel free to email me, as I think Brad would rather not have this topic clogging up the board. Very sincerely,

Chuck


[Edited by ChuckElias on Mar 19th, 2003 at 09:02 AM]

Wow...interesting statements. This one really caught my attention...not only are you wrong (as Chuck pointed out), but why would we Yanks care what you Canucks think about our President???? I have been sitting here trying to think of one single impressive thing any of your Canadian PM's have done in the last 40 years...haven't thought of anything yet...

So much for any chance of this NOT turning into Canadians and Americans bashing each other.

Oops...guess I forgot to add my smilie face at the end also...sorry.

Not by me, Canuck. I like Canada and have traveled thru it many times. I happen to disagree with its gov't at this point; just as you disagree with the one here.

Chuck

No worries...

And you're right about our PM, by the way. He is what you folks would call a Democrat. I'm no staunch "Republican", but I'm no big fan of Jean Chretien, either. But I still agree with his stand on the war.

And if the NCAA changes their mind and overhauls the tournament because of it, I'll be REALLY choked.

Consider the source.
 

Do not be worried about a bunch of people that cannot point out Maine on a map. Americans are not all that smart and intellegent about other world leaders. They only concern themselves with their own.

Peace

I can't let this pass without comment becase it is untrue. Well before the US "entered" WW2 we gave mountians of arms, ships & vehicles to both the Soviets & the British. We also provided the naval support (ie armed forces) needed to get that equipment from here to there. We exchanged technology and information, most notably the Norden bomb sight, some ciphering technology & equipment as well as information gathered through spys. This was done because FDR and his administration was committed to defeating the Nazis even while the opinion polls showed the American people were overwhelmingly isolationist (so much for popular opinion). We were in fact "in the war" years before we "declared war".

Edit to comment that cannuckrefguy has lost this argument by virtue of Godwin's Law. It's true! Look it up! :)


[Edited by Dan_ref on Mar 19th, 2003 at 01:02 PM]

Good point, Dan. It's my understanding that this was one of the reasons Japan attacked. Our involvement was hurting them. Bad decision on their part.

Adam

Wait a minute now......
 

Well everything you are saying does not apply to the French at all. The war has not even started yet. They just are not agreeing with the purpose of the war that the U.S. is using to justify the war to the United Nations. They are a member of the UN Security Counsel and disagree with the methods that the U.S. are taking. Not much different than what we did during the beginning of World War II. And the French have offered help to the U.S. and Britain if the war took a certain turn. And if we did not give things to these 30 countries, they would not be backing this effort either.

Peace

Re: Wait a minute now......
 

Yeah...doesn't anyone else find it interesting that the French have been saying all along that there is NO evidence that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, but now say that IF Iraq uses chemical and/or biological weapons, then they will get involved and help us out??? There's some great logic for you...

North Korea has Nuclear Weopons.
 

I do not recall them ever saying that they had no chemical or biological weopons, they just do not feel that it means war. But it seems to me that Saddam Hussian could have done nothing to prevent war at all, because Bush made this personal from the very beginning. Funny we hear almost nothing about Al Queda or North Korea from the Bush Administration. Better yet why not Iran? What happen to the Axis of Evil? How could we forget, none of them tried to kill his daddy.

Peace

Re: Wait a minute now......
 

Very astute...but I was making my comments with respect to the Canadians, not the French.

Sorry, Brad. I tried to say that this should be done via email. . . I'm leaving the thread now. . . http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/sulkoff.gif

You remind me of my younger son, who will rile up the dog then leave the room to go someplace quiet to do his homework...

;)

This could have all been prevented....
 

if only those two guys had known that the clock wasn't
supposed to start when the ball hit the rim.