Jump to content

What Next, Usa?


Recommended Posts

Este tio es tonto del capirote...

But you don't give Feheva an answer to the matter with the Islands. If UK is not Europe, then I don't get why Madrid has not been awarded last Friday.

OneTimeOnly... go back to your hometown and learn to be less arrogant, you poor newbie. Oceania is a word that includes New Zealand, Fiji and the islands of the Southern Pacific into its mainland reference: Australia. If your teachers are now telling you to call it Australia it's OK. Even you can call it Chattanooga if you want, I don't care. We, the adults, know what we're talking about.

No matter what you say, over and over, Oceania never has been, and never will be, a continent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 680
  • Created
  • Last Reply
That's would be fine with me if the world would want to go that way, it's "Cinderella" and a few other Europeans that would have a problem with that.

"Oceania" has never been, and never will be, a continent. End of Story.

There are seven continents in the world:

Europe

Asia

Africa

North America

South America

(Unless you're a Brazilian of course, then it all depends on what's convenient for Olympic bidding )

Antarctica

Australia

Wrong

http://www.un.org/temp/migration/presskit/...eet_oceania.pdf

According to the UN its Oceania. How confusing would it be if Australia was a continent and a country! If you really have to talk about something other than Oceania then try Australasia, but in reality it is Oceania you need to talk about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the original intent of the thread, here is how the USOC should line up its next bid for say, 2024:

If they want spread out...

Opening Ceremony will be at the Bristol Parkway, TN, which, I believe, can sit 120,000.

Athletics - LA Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles

Basketball - Staples Center, LA

Sailing and triathlon - San Francisco bay

Baseball and Boxing - Yankee stadium and Madison Square Garden, New York City

Gymanstics - Georgia Dome, Atlanta

Volleyball - United Center, Chicago

Handball - Superdome, New Orleans

Beach volleyball - San Diego or Miami

Swimming - I dunno..Minneapolis

Judo - Birmingham

Table Tennis - Tulsa

football - Soldien Field, Chicago, etc., etc.

Closing will be in some other new stadium...

the Olympic Village will be in St. Louis, a new develoment...and each morning, athletes will depart from the in OV inspecially chartered jets

well, you get the drift...

let the IOC eat that!!

honolulu?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong

http://www.un.org/temp/migration/presskit/...eet_oceania.pdf

According to the UN its Oceania. How confusing would it be if Australia was a continent and a country! If you really have to talk about something other than Oceania then try Australasia, but in reality it is Oceania you need to talk about.

Australia is indeed a continent and country. There is no such continent as "Oceania".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And P.S. I'm not saying that there isn't a grouping of Islands in the Pacific that are referred to as "Oceania" for various purposes, what I am saying, and have always been saying, is that there is no such continent as "Oceania".

I think they created Oceania for political reasons. As it was easier to group all of these islands togeather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they created Oceania for political reasons. As it was easier to group all of these islands togeather.

As I said in a previous post when the colonial powers of Europe and America were trying to make order of the world, their cartographers were ordered to designate the whole South Pacific with AUS and NZ into the very exotic, amorphous concept, "Oceania" with subdivisions of Micronesia and Melanesia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said in a previous post when the colonial powers of Europe and America were trying to make order of the world, their cartographers were ordered to designate the whole South Pacific with AUS and NZ into the very exotic, amorphous concept, "Oceania" with subdivisions of Micronesia and Melanesia.

Indeed. Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia (the Polynesian triangle's three points are Hawai'i, Rapa Nui, and New Zealand).

Interestingly, Australia, is NOT a part of any of those three pacific island sub-divisions. Why? Because Australia is the worlds smallest continent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia (the Polynesian triangle's three points are Hawai'i, Rapa Nui, and New Zealand).

Interestingly, Australia, is NOT a part of any of those three pacific island sub-divisions. Why? Because Australia is the worlds smallest continent.

ok its different cause of the education differences of europe and USA...

cause even we say australia with oceania as the same meaning sometimes..

wikipedia endless source of info.

Oceania (sometimes Oceanica[1]) is a geographical, often geopolitical, region consisting of numerous lands—mostly islands in the Pacific Ocean and vicinity. The term "Oceania" was coined in 1831 by French explorer Dumont d'Urville. The term is used today in many languages to denote a continent comprising Australia and approximate Pacific islands,[2][3][4] and is one of eight terrestrial ecozones.

The boundaries of Oceania are defined in a number of ways. Most definitions recognize parts of Australasia such as Australia, New Zealand, and New Guinea, and part of Maritime Southeast Asia as being parts of Oceania.[5][6][7] Ethnologically, the islands that are included in Oceania are divided into the subregions of Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia.[8]

the issue closed kiss each other and respect each others info and opinions...

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the US Congress should pass new legislation (added in as an amendment to health care reform of course) that would tax all Olympic related expenditures - NBC TV rights, sponsorships, etc.. at such a ridiculous rate that NBC would be forced to pay something like $150M for an Olympics cycle! Then those tax dollars could support the USOC for future bids down the road. Just kidding of course but after being snubbed last week, it's nice to want to be needed and apparently, the only thing that the US "offers" the Olympic movement (apart from training hundreds of athletes to go compete for countries OTHER than the US) is $$$$. It seems to be the only language the IOC can understand from the USOC these days!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rogge said that the money was in Chicago. So let the IOC drain its coffers a bit and then bid again! Then you can show the IOC a little love and a lot of passion.

I'm still floored Chicago got voted out first round! Out of the things I expected to see on Friday that was what I least expected. I wasn't sure that day if Chicago would win, but I expected it to at least make it to the final 2 with Rio.

And now after reading what Rogge has said I'm even more surprised about Chicago's defeat. In my heart, I think if they wanted to punish or penalize the USOC there has to be more constructive ways of doing that than dropping Chicago after the first round. There just has to be. If the USOC truly meant it when they said they wanted to be true partners with the IOC for the next 7 years then I think the IOC should have gone "Ok. If you really mean it, then prove it. We'll go with Chicago and give you 7 years worth of time to prove you mean what you say and fix the damage." I personally was overall very impressed with Chicago's final presentation and thought they had it locked up.

I wholeheartedly agree with the person, I think it was in this thread, who said Chicago should re-bid for 2020. They wouldn't have to change very much in the bid, maybe tweak it just a bit in the sense of trying to get a Stadium location closer to the lakefront but overall it's an enormously strong bid that would probably win if they re-bid. If the USOC puts in a bid for 2020, I don't think the answer lies in going with another US city. Just re-bid Chicago and make some very minor adjustments.

Here's my thoughts on the US cities that are rumored to be wanting to bid for 2020.

Boston: I've never been there but from what I do know about that city, I can't see that working so great as an Olympic Host City. It's a great city overall with a great history but I don't know if the area's layout and facilities will work well.

Minneapolis-St. Paul: Some are saying Minneapolis could never host an Olympics. I don't necessarily agree with that. The Twin Cities are growing fast and more of the world is starting to become aware of their existence but I do agree in terms of "big city" status they aren't quite there yet. Who knows? Maybe they can put forth a strong bid.

Tulsa: I doubt anyone outside this country, unless they've travelled the US extensively has any idea Tulsa exisits. It's not a big city by any means. It's more like a toddler that's just starting to grow. In the future with more exposure, growth and more recognition possibly but I can't see any way Tulsa can realistically try. That was the city that really made my eyes widen when it was mentioned.

Birmingham: Of the ones I've listed Birmingham may be the most well known of the bunch but probably still not big enough to be considered to have realistic shot. Birmingham is growing rapidly too. I understand that and I also understand why Birmingham might want to try: If Atlanta bid and won, so can we and we'll be the next Atlanta!

Just my 2 cents worth but I think if we bid for 2020, that bid needs to be Chicago again. It's one of the best overall bids I've seen in a very very long time. If the US spends the next few years REALLY mending fences and repairing the damage I think Chicago can win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. should not bid again until 2024 at the earliest.

Boston has wonderful character, but it is too small to host an Olympics. Minnesota has no international appeal. Tulsa and Birmingham are dreaming.

I agree with those who have said that the USOC needs to work with the cities that are already familiar to the IOC -- no new American cities. Of those options. Chicago is definitely the best. No question. The next SOG in the U.S. should be in Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. should not bid again until 2024 at the earliest.

Boston has wonderful character, but it is too small to host an Olympics. Minnesota has no international appeal. Tulsa and Birmingham are dreaming.

I agree with those who have said that the USOC needs to work with the cities that are already familiar to the IOC -- no new American cities. Of those options. Chicago is definitely the best. No question. The next SOG in the U.S. should be in Chicago.

I'd prefer San Francisco, but we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be great to see it happen in San Francisco, another city's dream.

What about Seattle?

Seattle would be lovely. Keep in mind it's only 140 miles from Vancouver, so in February when you watch the Olympic games in Vancouver, just imagine that backdrop in summer time and that's what Seattle has to offer.

My biggest concern about San Francisco is financing. Keep in mind that California is going thru a horrendous financial crisis. California even considered releasing large amounts of nonviolent offenders from prison just to save money, which doesn't exactly scream financial solvency when applying for arguably the most expensive event in the world. Please keep this in mind: if San Fran wins 2020, for whatever reason that may surface in 4 or 10 years from now, there is a strong possibility of San Fran pulling a Denver '76.

Seattle would be a fresh city to bid it has no baggage of past bid failures(NYC & Chi). Plus it's very pretty, unlike Atlanta or LA. Plus it's one of those cities that would really enjoy the legacy unlike NYC or LA which would just swallow the games.

It's more international than Minneapolis and has a better climate than Houston or Chicago, doesn't have the negative public outcry of Chicago, not as tight a squeeze as NYC, and not as vulnerable to weather as New Orleans or Miami, and won't be dwarfed by urban sprawl as LA is.

It's a good choice to look into. Some might say it's not an international city, but an olympics would change that. But the US shouldn't bid on a summer games until 2028

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Francisco is a bureaucratic nightmare. It simply will not happen. Plus the state of California is a wreck. Yes, it has an appealing international cache, but it just will not work.

Seattle is a great city, but geography is totally against them -- as is the green movement. As it is, Seattle has major transporation problems just due to geography. The environmentalists will never allow the huge amounts of new construction that would be required. I love Seattle, but it's untenable as an Olympic host.

The USOC needs to stick with one of the cities with which the IOC is already familiar. Chicago is definitely the best bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jumping on the bash California train. If you ever get bored do some looking at Califorina ballot propositions the voters aprove totally crazy stuff sometimes and thats about 75% of the reason Califorina is in the spot that it is in right now. As long as they have the "props" they've passed regarding taxes and spending I wouldn't want a games in California.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...