BellaOnline Forums Travel and Culture Polish Culture 2012 Olympics

Rio De Janiero, Buenos Aires

A few venues in Madrid where a little wine and cheese can be enjoyed and then off to Moscow for other venues where one can partake of some Russian tea, vodka and local cuisine. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

And that has nothing to do with politics, for sure.

Please, let it not be US. I'm not biased, it's just that US gets to host too many events. I'd go for Paris, Moscow or Madrid. London is just bad.

Politics definately has a lot to do with it. Look at the 1980 and 1984 Olympics to see just how nasty politics can get in the event. If anything, though, the USSR was justified in boycotting the Olympics in the U.S. to retaliate the U.S. unilateral boycot of the Olympics in the USSR over stupid political differences.

The U.S. worked overtime to export its political and economic systems, but refused to give the USSR the right to do the same. The U.S. has always been very hypocritical and unfair in this respect. Even in World War II - despite letting the USSR down many times, the Red Army liberated Berlin on its own. America's response - it wanted the USSR out of Germany so that only the U.S., U.K., and France could run things.

To be fair, though, the economic situation in Cuba is also prohibitive to hosting the Olympics. There is no way Havana would have the capability to develop the infrastructure necessary for such a major event, thanks to the four decades of economic blockade led by the U.S. Without the aid from the USSR and other socialist countries, Cuba's economy literally has almost nothing to work with anymore.

Cuba is the biggest embarassment to the U.S. in the whole Cold War, which is why the blockade remains to this day. And it will be removed only when a government loyal to America's demands takes power in Havana.

Well, US enered war to stop USSR in the first place. They gor the signal from their now loyal servans (read UK): "Russkies are advancing, do something!". Maybe my knowledge in the matter is abit on the shallow side, but US wouldn't have actually mided if Hitler had won. US were holding talks with Nazi's behind the Soviet back. Britain and US have betrayed the so called 'coalition' on many occasions. They wanted Hitler to take out Russia but to leave Europe untouched. But the guy went berserk and conquered everyone until he stumbled on the red border.

Anyway, true thing about Cuba. But they want to do football world cup (I believe it is?) in one of African countries. How about that?

AINTD, Hitler almost defeated UK in 1940 & would have if USA didn't help UK. USSR also made a deal with Hitler. What do you call the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939)?
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, Hitler declared war on USA.
If USA didn't oppose Hitler, he would have grabbed South America. America stopped Japan from seizing Panama Canal.
IMHO Hitler lost WW2 because he supported the attempt of Rashid Ali, Iraqi nationalist leader, to throw UK out of Iraq & grab the oil. This angered international big business so they withdrew support from Hitler. Stalin never opposed these global elites. Carl

USSR were in Peace with Hitler up until 1941. It is no treason. USA were in contact with Germany in the middle of the war, in the middle of the coallition, in the middle of the time all countries already were involved. Feel the difference?

IMHO, Hitler lost the war the moment he went east.

AINTD: If the USSR was at peace with Nazi Germany before 1941, why did it invade Poland & Baltics (1939) and Finland (1940)? Why dd NKVD kill Polish military officers at Katyn?
During WW2 Soviets conducted secret negotiations with Nazi Germany. If Canaris (head of Abwehr & Soviet agent) and Rommel succeeded in assassinating Hitler, Nazi Germany & Soviets would have become allies vs. West. That's why UK exposed the plot & killed Rommel. Carl