When we play Venezuela next week, I'm really hoping to see a lot of banners showing support for our boys--not just the ones on the pitch in Seattle kicking balls around, but even more importantly the ones in the Persian Gulf, in the desert, and over the skies in Iraq kicking Saddam in the balls. Can anyone whip something up? Alex
I think the fact we show up to support the US National Team shows a lot. Some heartfelt support for our troops with simple signs would be great, but let's not make it a political rally. I'm sure we'll get some darn loud USA, USA, USA chants going, but I want to enjoy the match, not join a political rally. (BTW I support the war and President George W. Bush 100%!) Kevin
While it is usually obnoxious to see politics intrude into sports, this could be a good opportunity. Its a chance to show that soccer fans are not all soft euro-wannabes. That American soccer fans love this country as much as red-blooded, gridiron-lovin Ahmurricans.
I for one am for the seperation of soccer and state. I just don't see why a match against Venezuela should be a parade ground for military support. When I think back to highly politicized matches like US v. Iran, it turns my stomach. It is soccer...let's just keep it at that. If everyone just goes out there and cheers like no tomorrow, then people will know we love and support our country. Sing the national anthem at the top of your lungs, but leave the politics there and let a soccer match just be a soccer match.
Sport and Politics should not mix. If you want to make a political statement, go to a rally, not a soccer game!
Is there any real difference between bringing political banners/ideas to the upcoming game in Seattle versus bringing political banners/ideas to the US vs. Jamaica game at Foxboro back in 2001? The only difference I see is that the entire nation was sympathetic after 9/11 (and rightfully so) compared to the very mixed emotions that our nation has of the war in Iraq. Why weren't people complaining about politics mixing with sports for the US vs. Jamaica game but they are now? It should not matter whether there is 100% support/sympathy regarding political thoughts/messages/ideas if it is alright to mix them with sports. There should be a definitive line of whether it is okay for politics and sports to mix, whether we're being attacked or we are attacking. I am not saying that people that disagree with political banners at the upcoming Seattle game didn't disagree with political banners/tones at the US vs. Jamaica game in '01. There was just not as much opposition to political references to 9/11 then as there is to political references regarding Iraq this time around. Personally, I'm torn either way about this. I just think that as a whole there needs to be a line drawn whether or not it is okay to mix sports w/ politics. I hope that this rambling makes sense.
Not debating your point, as I personally think that was a different type of issue. Not that I agreed with what happened, I actually thought that game where Claudio and co. came out with a banner was kind of cheesy, but that's just me. Regarding our current situation with the troops, a good number of US citizens have a different idea when it comes to "supporting the boys". That is, bringing them home right now. Would the originator of this thread like to see "US Troops out of Iraq" banners at the game too? Becaue about 50% of this country feel we have no reason to be putting our troops in harms way in the first place. -in the end, politics have no business in football!
I guess I'll just say it here rather than the game so i dont take away from the game this weekend......War is stupid.and both bush and sadaam should just fight each other UFC style....kinda like celebrity deatmatch......seriously
I agree that politics and sports don't mix (to the degree that I don't think nations should be banned from international sports, even in extreme human-rights cases such as Taliban Afghanistan and apartheid South Africa, except where the safety of the athletes is at question such as in Iraq), however to me this isn't about politics, it's about supporting our troops who are over there getting shot at so that we have the freedom to go to soccer games. And as Jayhawk said, it'll show that soccer fans are real Americans too (whereas anti-war signs would have precisely the opposite effect, however unfair that may be). IMO, "We support our troops, come home safe" is OK. "I love President Bush" and "No War" signs are not OK. As for the Jamaica match after 9/11, I think those were expressions of national unity, not politics, and in any case it was an extreme situation. Alex
Just an FYI, latest USA Today poll on WCBS 880 Radio here in NY has war approval ratings at 78%. Thats pretty solid. And yes, I agree with Alex, signs of national support and not politics are most appropriate?
And to add onto that war support nationally is at (I believe) 67% but has been hovering around 70% since it began. 2/3 of Americans support war, with the midwest the strongest "pro-war" area. But nonetheless.....I leave you with a quote... "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " --John Stuart Mill Regardless if you support war not, you shoudl still support the troops (maybe not their actions) but wish them the best as they are defending the country we (most) all love in...
My objection to anything was more of an international spin control thing. Like we need more people turning on the TV (in this case in Venezuela) seeing what will be construed as us being pro-war and being warmongers. It doesn't matter what your intention is, it matters how it will be received on the international stage.