Lets pay respect to our American players

always had an affinity for the Peruvian National anthem...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCJciLtTuBY

Yep, the French anthem is excellent, and I'd forgotten about the old Soviet anthem, great stuff.

How about an Operatic Rock Anthem for Hispanic/Latin Nationalistic countries like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPlf09nVgWk

great composition!

Another in the long line of wars the Americans were unable to win.

Completely against the whole idea of playing the US anthem at OUR games. The American players have been fabulous hired guns over the long history of Canadian football ... starting with Warren Stevens joining the old Montreal Winged Wheelers way back in 1931. But that's exactly what they are: hired guns. Many make their homes in Canada after their playing days are done, but the majority are simply putting in their time, hoping at some point to catch on with NFL clubs. That's not a knock on them. After all, who doesn't dream of playing in front of the home town crowd on his own home and native land?

Anthems are not souvenirs or trading cards that can be given away as tokens or minor courtesies. Anthems are serious business. The Americans are hugely welcome in OUR country, but let's try to remember that this is OUR country. My guess is that 99 per cent of American players would wonder why we feel the need to play their anthem in our stadiums when they're just here, effectively, as mercenaries.

WOW, it's just a two minute song. Nobody is asking you to man the ramparts or join the Marines.

Oh it's not that long. They won their revolution, lost 1812, won the Spanish/American war, were on the winning side in both WW1 and WW2; call Korea a draw, they lose in Vietnam.

Now you want to talk about losers? Look at Bolivia. . . has fought four major wars since independence, and lost every darn one of them.

They failed to win their dirty war against Cuba.

They lost in Iraq -- they had to pay insurgents and put them on their own payroll just to scale down the violence. The country is now disintegrating again. They are losing in Afghanistan -- the most militarily powerful nation in the world is getting beaten by a few thousand lightly armed Afghani tribesmen. Both wars have bankrupted their economy and brought on a full-scale recession, yet the American government is threatening even more war with other countries that have done nothing to them.

Not a stellar war record.

[offtopic]I have always been under the impression that we won the war but lost the treaty. But with the bicentennial this year, I have read up a bit more on the war, looking at both sides' perspectives. And I'm starting to question who really won.

We Canadians know that we won because we achieved our objective of repelling an invasion. Americans, on the other hand, know that they won because they achieved their objectives: the British ended their naval blockade, the British stopped their press gangs going after American citizens, and the British stopped interfering in American dealings with native groups in their land.

It all comes down to perspective. Given that the Americans started the war for their own reasons, maybe their objectives are the ones that should be considered when deciding who won.[/offtopic]

You left out one.

Their other objective, indeed arguably the main one, was the conquest of Canada.

They tried, they failed, they have never tried again. Ergo, we win. One of the more decisive wars in history, actually.

We're really getting off topic here, but what the heck. . .

I wouldn't count that, I was only thinking in terms of actual wars, not covert (more or less) attempts to topple a particular regime. US never invaded Cuba such that it would qualify as a "war."

Well it depends on how you are looking at it. Both places are a mess, and the US is bogged down in a quagmire. Does that mean they lost though? If so who won?

The US war aim in Iraq was the removal of Saddam Hussein; their war aim in Afghanistan was the removal of the Taliban. We can all debate until the cows come home if those were justifiable reasons for going to war or not. But given that those were the objectives, and both objectives were in fact achieved, then the US won the wars (but are losing the 'peace' or aftermath).

It seems the U.S. is going to lose even when they win with some of the attitudes here. They are put down for not winning a war and are vilified for winning another. They could easily win in Afghan with one solitary bomb. Now how would that be perceived? Would they be war winners or mass murderers?

A STRANGE GAME
THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS
NOT TO PLAY

HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHESS?

That may have been an unstated objective, or one possible way of achieving their stated objectives. It might have even been their actual objective, and they used the other issues as justification for the war, although I don't believe that. But the ones I mentioned were their stated reasons for declaring war.

What's with the capitals RnW ? Move this to off-topic if needed and chess is a game of war....If the US decides not to play, somebody still suffers and loses.

the computer was yealling :slight_smile:

...lol, you and I are of the same vintage and I thought you'd get the blatant 80's movie reference

I'm not much of a movie goer and in the 80's I probably didn't go to the movies at all. Please excuse my ignorance and tell me which film you are talking about.

War Games, with Matthew Broderick.

SPOILER ALERT: R&W's entire post was a line from the end of the movie, a statement by the top secret military computer. The upper case is a reference to the fact that the computer's lines, while also spoken in a "computer voice", were also displayed on a video screen in all caps.