Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know what I read. U just wrote that "Dallas nor Philly won't win the USOC nomination battle". How do you this? Granted, we don't know if they'll even place a bid, but it's not like we're talking about Tulsa or even Vegas here. Both Dallas & Philadelphia are huge, financial metropolitan areas, about the same size as Toronto, that if they were to make declarations, I would be very interested in what they had to offer before I said "no way". N I'm sure so would the USOC, especially if New York & Chicago aren't interested anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what I read. U just wrote that "Dallas nor Philly won't win the USOC nomination battle". How do you this? Granted, we don't know if they'll even place a bid, but it's not like we're talking about Tulsa or even Vegas here. Both Dallas & Philadelphia are huge, financial metropolitan areas, about the same size as Toronto, that if they were to make declarations, I would be very interested in what they had to offer before I said "no way". N I'm sure so would the USOC, especially if New York & Chicago aren't interested anymore.

Off course if New York/San Fran/Chicago don't bid I'd expect one or the other to win. However as I fully expect one of the three to bid I don't think phili or Dallas would have a chance against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THank you! America is on the decline!

The global landscape is changing and America is changing too. We are not living in an era of two rival super powers balancing the world. Thanks partly to American efforts to promote freedom, democracy and trade (sharing important technological advancements) throughout the world, other countries have gained strength, autonomy and vision. I see this (and most of the US sees this) as a good thing. There are more seats at the table, more voices, more balance. That does not translate to "decline" (which suggests that somehow the US is crumbling). It translates to a totally new global framework. The US isn't declining. The rest of the world is getting stronger. And that is cause for celebration everywhere -- including the US.

Yet, the US is still expected by many to shoulder the burdens of a superpower in the old two super-power system. That is why I am angry that the US will pay the IOC's administrative bills. You can't have it both ways. Is the US a superpower that can be asked to shoulder extra burdens because of their high position? Or is the US simply a leader among many strong nations and therefore undeserving of special honors and conversely special obligations?

The US will continue to be an economic, political and athletic power and leader for the rest of this century at least. It just will not be so alone in this role.

The change in global structure does not change the fact that the Olympic Games have relied heavily on the US for their success and continue to do so. Some may see that statement as arrogant. It is not intended to be. The US offers a radically disproportionate influx of capital to the IOC. A key part of why the US can do this is that we as a nation prize the Olympic Games. There is a market for them here. We love participating. We value Olympic ideals and resonate with them. We get excited every two years. So it makes sense for our broadcasters and sponsors to invest heavily.

If the IOC concludes that the US' involvement does not translate to an opportunity to host periodically, US investment should decrease. I say this with no emotional venom at all. It simply makes financial sense. As our market for and our benefits from the Olympic Games diminish, so our contribution should decrease proportionally.

Attempting to keep Canada and the US on a par does not reflect the real differences in our countries' functions in the world or their respective roles in the Olympic Movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The global landscape is changing and America is changing too. We are not living in an era of two rival super powers balancing the world. Thanks partly to American efforts to promote freedom, democracy and trade (sharing important technological advancements) throughout the world, other countries have gained strength, autonomy and vision. I see this (and most of the US sees this) as a good thing. There are more seats at the table, more voices, more balance. That does not translate to "decline" (which suggests that somehow the US is crumbling). It translates to a totally new global framework. The US isn't declining. The rest of the world is getting stronger. And that is cause for celebration everywhere -- including the US.

Err not quite. Tell that to all the right wing dictatorships that the US has supported, the legitimately elected left wing governments that the US has done all it could to undermine, the military coups it has supported, the illegal war in Iraq it launched etc.

Nothing wrong with that but lets forget the fantasy that it is through some sort of altrusim and wanting to make the world a better place

And don't even get me started on the technological advances the US has 'allegedly' shared.

As with all governments and countries, the USA acts it what it perceives to be its own interests and does nothing to support democracy unless momentum has built up to such an extent, that the US can only but jump on the bandwagon.

All governments are like this and it should be pretended to be otherwise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Err not quite. Tell that to all the right wing dictatorships that the US has supported, the legitimately elected left wing governments that the US has done all it could to undermine, the military coups it has supported, the illegal war in Iraq it launched etc.

Nothing wrong with that but lets forget the fantasy that it is through some sort of altrusim and wanting to make the world a better place

And don't even get me started on the technological advances the US has 'allegedly' shared.

As with all governments and countries, the USA acts it what it perceives to be its own interests and does nothing to support democracy unless momentum has built up to such an extent, that the US can only but jump on the bandwagon.

All governments are like this and it should be pretended to be otherwise.

Dictatorships? North Korea is under a dictatorship. We in the US have elections and the base of power is constantly changing. That is not a dictatorship.

Bush's first election followed our prescribed system to the letter. No one twisted anything. If you dislike the system, fine, but it wasn't some new concoction. His second election was a straightforward win.

I hate the war in Iraq and think it was a terrible decision as most Americans do, but it does not eliminate any of our country's finer moments. No country and no individual should be defined by their worst mistake. We are moving forward humbly and I hope more wisely. Incidentally, Sheep, your home country was right there with us thanks to Mr. Blair.

Technological breakthroughs originating in the US : electricity, cars, airplanes, telephones, manufacturing (the assembly line), our space program which has yielded benefits in countless areas ranging from computer science to dentistry. How do you think the US became as powerful as it did? We developed a great deal of new technology and shared it with the world. Now the world has it, is building on it and we aren't so far out in front.

As for the US not promoting democracy, our foreign policy is built on the reverse.

You have said many times that you have no anti- American axe to grind. If I thought (as you have written) that the US was governed by a corrupt dictatorship set up by sham elections that engaged in illegal wars, hoarded and/or pilfered its technology and had zero interest in democracy, I probably would feel anti-American sentiment. I'm amazed you don't.

In my opinion, your dark portrait bears little resemblance to the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dictatorships? North Korea is under a dictatorship. We in the US have elections and the base of power is constantly changing. That is not a dictatorship.

Bush's first election followed our prescribed system to the letter. No one twisted anything. If you dislike the system, fine, but it wasn't some new concoction. His second election was a straightforward win.

I hate the war in Iraq and think it was a terrible decision as most Americans do, but it does not eliminate any of our country's finer moments. No country and no individual should be defined by their worst mistake. We are moving forward humbly and I hope more wisely. Incidentally, Sheep, your home country was right there with us thanks to Mr. Blair.

Technological breakthroughs originating in the US : electricity, cars, airplanes, telephones, manufacturing (the assembly line), our space program which has yielded benefits in countless areas ranging from computer science to dentistry. How do you think the US became as powerful as it did? We developed a great deal of new technology and shared it with the world. Now the world has it, is building on it and we aren't so far out in front.

As for the US not promoting democracy, our foreign policy is built on the reverse.

You have said many times that you have no anti- American axe to grind. If I thought (as you have written) that the US was governed by a corrupt dictatorship set up by sham elections that engaged in illegal wars, hoarded and/or pilfered its technology and had zero interest in democracy, I probably would feel anti-American sentiment. I'm amazed you don't.

In my opinion, your dark portrait bears little resemblance to the truth.

I find it interesting that in the current Middle East situations, you were happy to support demographic movements against your opponents (Libya, Syria), jump on the bandwagon late in the day with an ally once the tide had turned (Eygpt) but have done nothing to support democracy in such countries as Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Funny that. And how about the US supported failed coup against the democratically elected Chavez in Venezuela?

Like with all countries, the USA's interest in democracy is governed by its own interests.

As for hoarding technology, its amazing how many non-American companies bidding for defence contracts with allies have to withdraw their bids because the US won't allow the release of that technology, but are happy to do so to American companies bidding for those very same contracts ... is has happened with the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Saab Gripen, all of which use certain US components. Interestingly countries have shied away from using US technology where possible because it comes with conditions attached.

But typically you have completely misrepresented what I said.

I never said the US was a corrupt dictatorship. In fact I never even questioned the legitimacy of the first Bush election.

What I did say is the USA is happy to support corrupt dictatorships and the enemies of democracy when its suits the USA purpose. I also said there is nothing wrong with that, but to try to pretend that it doesn't happen is ridiculous and false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I" did not do any if those things you said.

The US cannot be the policeman of the world. The country doesn't have the resources. For example, the US was extremely disappointed by Germany's decision to hang back in Libya. We cannot go it alone, but no one seems particularly interested in backing us up. We need global partners. Just imagine the expense of full fledged active campaigns on all the fronts you listed. It's not workable. The US absolutely cares about democracy and human rights in all those locations, but we cannot deal with everything simultaneously and we cannot do it alone.

This is exactly what I mean when I say you cannot have it both ways. The rest of the world would like the US to do the heavy lifting, but they also want to put the US in its place and increase the importance other voices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I" did not do any if those things you said.

The US cannot be the policeman of the world. The country doesn't have the resources. For example, the US was extremely disappointed by Germany's decision to hang back in Libya. We cannot go it alone, but no one seems particularly interested in backing us up. We need global partners. Just imagine the expense of full fledged active campaigns on all the fronts you listed. It's not workable. The US absolutely cares about democracy and human rights in all those locations, but we cannot deal with everything simultaneously and we cannot do it alone.

This is exactly what I mean when I say you cannot have it both ways. The rest of the world would like the US to do the heavy lifting, but they also want to put the US in its place and increase the importance other voices.

Except Germany could with their existing large commitments in Kosovo and Afghanistan were not in position to do so.

The US were happy to see their enemy Gadafi rid of, but what the anti democratic allies in the Persian Gulf that provide oil and military bases that the US is quiet about?

Its the claim of spreading democracy that brings a smile. Because it occurs, as it should be, only in terms that the US finds palatable, and for example, the US remains comparatively quiet about the Bahrani governments suppression of its only people. Interestingly the US is one of the few democracies scared to sign the statue of Rome and join the International Criminal Court.

So when the US preaches how it is a global champion for democracy it is treated with a pinch of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for American arrogance/resentment (and maybe it's going to be perceived as arrogance that we even have to ask), what does that have to do with anything? I get that the United States isn't viewed that favorably in certain parts of the world, but let's not forget.. the vote for 2024 doesn't occur for another 5 years. So whatever feelings/attitudes towards this country now can change. The revenue deal will be a distant memory by the time the 2017 comes around.

Things should be clear. I love USA, I am lucky enough to traveling on vacation once a year and to come in business several time a year since 5 years now.

But some behavior in general in the USA, as some of a few people around here on GB, doesn't help to give a positive image of your country.

Regarding the revenue deal, as I said, it is a good thing for the Olympic movement to finally get it signed, but a lot of NOCs will not see exactly the same way, as will still have the feeling that the sharing is not fair enough. So if USOC does not work properly on its image, its lobbying during the next 5 years, the bad perception of the revenue deal will still be in several minds when it will come to vote...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People on these forums R NOT members of bid committees, NOC's, nor city officials, nor sponsors spokepersons to make any bit of an impression with the IOC at large.

There is more than you can imagine.... not active, but coming here not to make their opinion on a bid city, but more to get a feeling, get some news, reactions....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swiss O, I agree that there are people who dislike the US. My posts are intended to be thoughtful analysis of US/IOC relations and viability of American bids.

I don't think the IOC "owes" the United States and I don't think American Olympics are better than all others. A huge part of why I love the Olympics is their international flavor. I value cultural variety and love netting foreigners and exploring other parts of the world.

I do believe the US makes an unusually significant contribution to the Olympic Movement and that staging the Games in the US periodically can yield positive results for all concerned.

I don't believe any of that is arrogance.

Aargh. That should read "meeting foreigners." Auto-correct. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off course if New York/San Fran/Chicago don't bid I'd expect one or the other to win. However as I fully expect one of the three to bid I don't think phili or Dallas would have a chance against them.

All of those 3 R HIGHLY questionable at this point. So saying that you "fully expect" one of those 3 to come forward & bid is still very presumptuous. It's more likely that Los Angeles, &/or one or more of the 2nd-tier cities, step in than any of the big boys. The political climate in the top 3 doesn't seem very conducive right now for a mega appetite for a mega project like the Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of those 3 R HIGHLY questionable at this point. So saying that you "fully expect" one of those 3 to come forward & bid is still very presumptuous. It's more likely that Los Angeles, &/or one or more of the 2nd-tier cities, step in than any of the big boys. The political climate in the top 3 doesn't seem very conducive right now for a mega appetite for a mega project like the Olympics.

That is really a guess as well, however. It's your opinion based on the limited information that's available. Let's just wait and see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more than just a "guess". It's an *educated* guess based on what we do know & how things panned out over the last couple of years. Even one of R other American friends feel the same way, especially about New York & I wouldn't tend to lean that they're just "guessing" at everything that they know on the ground there..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more than just a "guess". It's an *educated* guess based on what we do know & how things panned out over the last couple of years. Even one of R other American friends feel the same way, especially about New York & I wouldn't tend to lean that they're just "guessing" at everything that they know on the ground there..

Yes you and "one of our American friends" feel that way. A guess is a guess even when informed by reasonable assumptions. It's not fact. We don't know all that much. Let's wait and see what comes from the USOC. They actually do KNOW who is interested and ago isn't.

Aargh. Read "who isn't."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes you and "one of our American friends" feel that way. A guess is a guess even when informed by reasonable assumptions. It's not fact. We don't know all that much. Let's wait and see what comes from the USOC. They actually do KNOW who is interested and ago isn't.

Aargh. Read "who isn't."

I'm going to assume that other American friend is me since New York was specifically referenced. I don't have any inside knowledge of bid news going on (or not going on) in New York. If I did, I'd be more than happy to share it with the group. So the opinions I express here are merely that.. opinions. Much like FYI, I'm making educated guesses based on, if nothing else, gut instinct. I never try to pass these off as fact. There's a very clear line between "I think there's very little chance we're going to see a bid from New York" and "There's no way we're going to see a bid from New York." Athens, you don't need to tell us every time we form an opinion that it's only a guess. We know that. Nothing in FYI's post even resembled any sort of factual statement. In the mean time, please allow us to speculate based on whatever we know or whatever we think we know or whatever we think we're going to know. If you don't like the opinions we're offering, by all means feel free to tell us and further the discussion. But, and I'm sorry if I sound blunt here, it's getting annoying every time you feel the need to interject with something like "that's a guess, we don't know what's going to happen, let's just wait and see." If all we did was wait and see, this board would probably get really boring really quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're each entitled to your opinions and I'm entitled to mine. My opinion is that it is still too soon to assert that based on "what we know" a US candidate will or won't be any given city. I just had a chat with someone at the Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games a couple weeks ago who said there were no bid plans in the works. Obviously if we can be wrong about LA, we can be wrong about anybody. Let's not get ahead of ourselves overly strong pronouncements.

We don't know if any bid at all will be put forward for 2022 or 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's is absolutely nothing wrong with speculating who might bid and in fact it should be ENCOURAGED.

There is nothing quite like knowledge 'on the ground' to provide practical legitimacy to any suggestion. For example, I personally had no idea that Franklin Field did not have a standard 400m track yet you see a number of suggestions where Franklin Field is suggested as an Olympic stadium for a Philadelphia bid, so it is local knowledge such as that provide by Quaker2001 which is most insightful and interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people want to talk about hypothetical bids, ok. My earlier posts were aimed more at those who, in my opinion, have a tendency to dismiss cities prematurely.

Opinions and fantasies are fine. Personally, I find the conversation more interesting when it's based in reality. At this point, I just don't think there's enough information to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh, no one here, though (at least not me) has ever "dismissed" any cities prematurely. I've said umpteen times that it was UNLIKELY. Totally different from 'dissmissing'. Y is this like a merry-go-round deal with you.

N really, your "chat" with whomever from the SCCOG means literally zilch & doesn't conclude that we can be "wrong" about L.A. You say that you find the conversation more "interesting" when it's based on "reality", but yet you conveniently dismiss the REALITY that the Mayors office in Chicago specifially SAID that there's NO bid in the works. But yet we're supposed to take your little discussion with this person about L.A. as Holy. Yeah, okay.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to see USA vs Canada vs Australia, only to be beaten by the Frenchies, or by another new frontier.

that would be an interesting race. Australia France USA Canada Africa interesting indeed

There's is absolutely nothing wrong with speculating who might bid and in fact it should be ENCOURAGED.

This may off topic but when I did a thread on Brisbane you immediately went on and basically shut it down. Even just yesterday you said Olympic goes to world class cities of which Brisbane is not. A bit contradictory there saying that speculating should be encouraged yet you Don't care for any bids besides Philadelphia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may off topic but when I did a thread on Brisbane you immediately went on and basically shut it down. Even just yesterday you said Olympic goes to world class cities of which Brisbane is not. A bit contradictory there saying that speculating should be encouraged yet you Don't care for any bids besides Philadelphia

Well, Darcy. What else would you expect from BS. Lmfao! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people want to talk about hypothetical bids, ok. My earlier posts were aimed more at those who, in my opinion, have a tendency to dismiss cities prematurely.

Opinions and fantasies are fine. Personally, I find the conversation more interesting when it's based in reality. At this point, I just don't think there's enough information to do that.

What's based in reality though? We really don't know anything. Should that prevent us from talking about New York or Chicago or Los Angeles or any other U.S. bid that may or may not be a part of the conversation? Less we forget, you were the person who started this thread and you began it pretty soon after the USOC announced they weren't bidding for 2020 (which you didn't want to stop talking about even though it was highly unlikely there was going to be a bid) and immediately go into talking about 2024. I'm glad you did that, but you can't flip that around and expect us to talk about only what we know. Just like you had a chat with someone at SCCOG, what does that really tell you about LA 2024? Very little. Certainly we don't need to wait until we hear something more definitive from LA before we discuss it here, do we? If I want to make an assertion about New York, that's what I'm going to do. And if I wind up being wrong, who really gives a crap. We're just folks on a forum talking about a subject we're interested in with little to no stake in the outcome of what we're discussing. I get your issues with people making definitive statements, but there's no need to be the guy who has to jump in saying "how do you know that?" If people want to guess which cities may perhaps think about investigating the possibility of potentially having a chance to explore the feasibility of considering the prospect of making an Olympic bid (unless it's the city of Tulsa).. I see nothing wrong with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...