"It's not up to FIFA to interfere with political disputes."

The fact they banned apartheid era South Africa from international football shows that statement to be nonsense.

"The biggest issue with your "reasoning" is that you appear to believe that because the western
democracies aren't perfect that makes criticism of other states
with far greater faults invalid.
That stand point is nonsense."

Another one who jumps into an argument without comprehending the point.

John Brown

On the dogs, purely myself. I'd happily try an organic free range dog. Although to generally carnivorous mammals don't taste that good.

"The fact they banned apartheid era South Africa from international football shows that statement to be nonsense."

Not even remotely comparable. The apartheid system violates FIFA's own statutes of inclusivity. War is a far sketchier, grey area. The fact you think its comparable is absurd. Could you imagine America or Britain getting banned for their foreign adventures?

...well...

that esculated overnight!

I will plow through the comments over a cup of tea... I just hope Choice has mentioned the Titanic...

"On the dogs, purely myself. I'd happily try an organic free range dog. Although to generally carnivorous mammals don't taste that good."

Reviews of the delicacy are quite good from what I've heard. Nice, lean, but tender meat.

comment by itsonlyagame - #freeSanti (U6426)
posted 30 minutes ago
They were lucky it was Brazil and not Portugal, eh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Korea made a last ditch bid to be included, but to no avail

comment by Sheriff John Brown - bring back David Dein (U7482)
posted 5 minutes ago
"The fact they banned apartheid era South Africa from international football shows that statement to be nonsense."

Not even remotely comparable. The apartheid system violates FIFA's own statutes of inclusivity. War is a far sketchier, grey area. The fact you think its comparable is absurd. Could you imagine America or Britain getting banned for their foreign adventures?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
As long as Russia doesn't exclude certain demographics from the war then it will be fine

Sheriff
I would gladly join you expose the hypocricy on this articles but sadly I have too much on my mind now. That said, trying to educate someone who has been brainwashed by sensationalist b\s has proven impossible really. Keep the fight

comment by ● (U4443)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by itsonlyagame - #freeSanti (U6426)
posted 30 minutes ago
They were lucky it was Brazil and not Portugal, eh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Korea made a last ditch bid to be included, but to no avail
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sane,

Weren't there Winter Olympics in the US at the time of Afghan war?

You seems to be happy to see EU extending its boundaries with money power and overthrowing democratically elected people.

"Robb simply had no clue what he was
talking about. When the thread started he was
trying to push an agenda that could get Russia lose their hosting simply based on any negative spin from the media. When he Realised most people were not against Russia he had to stick with the same argument but find different ways of defending himself. He does that with football
discussions, when he is right he is right but when
he is out of his depth he won't back down and will go down tying himself into knots with some highly imaginative piffle."

I thought I was the only one who noticed this. Once he has made a comment, he has to commit regardless of how many facts are availed to him. The worst kind of poster to encounter on a debate forum.

I'm worse.

Russia will make sure fans are safe, fans were meant to get murdered in SA and Brazil and battered in Poland.. it's all media BS.

Robb = Knóbben?

John Brown

In what ways war and apartheid are comparable is a mat of matter of debate and opinion, however you stated "It's not up to FIFA to interfere with political disputes.", as they did interfere over apartheid it means your statement was in error as they clearly have made decisions on political grounds in the past.

Sheriff

'You're horribly distorting my comments.'

---------------------------------------

I don't think I am. Your consistent line has been to focus on the perceived / presumed hypocrisy of people criticising Russia, rather than talking about Putin's regime itself. This seems to be all you are interested in.

I've often engaged with Putin-apologists (both Russians and Western fellow travellers) on the internet and consistently their MO is not to make a principled defence of his politics (though they often dispute well established, damning facts as propaganda) but to turn the conversation around along the lines of 'yeah, but what about Iraq?'

I'm not alleging you are an engaged Putin apologist but you are following the rhetorical path that his information warriors want.

Sane
It's amazing that even after Sheriff's explanation of the difference in the two cases, you are still on that.

Red Russian
You clearly miss the point peole are trying to make. If on a thread titled "World Cup in England" someone tries to say the WC should be taken from Russia and handed to England on moral grounds, how the hell would someone not try to bring out the hypocrisy and holier than thou b\s in all that. No one is saying Russia is perfect, that is not even the conversation here no matter how hard you try to make it so, but please refrain from putting England forward as a bastion of morality and impecable foreign poiicy

If Russia is not hosting 2018 World Cup then there wouldn't be any bribery cases registered in the US despite of Qatar buying FIFA.

Let's wait and see how Qatar will respond to these cases when they are buying half of the US arsenal.

I'm really not sure what Red Russian doesn't understand about my points. I feel like I'm going in circles.

Wumpatrol & Sheriff

Okay, I acknowledge the context of the OP. Possibly I should have made more of that when I qualified my remarks about agreeing the West has no right to grandstand. But as I see it, the ensuing discussion broadened in scope. Sheriff's remarks (particularly downplaying the seriousness of the plight of gay people in Russia, which has nothing to do with whether England should host the World Cup) in my view contributed to that widening. They struck me as performing the classic 'it would be hypocritical to dwell on that' role, which does so much to divert genuine progressives in the West from solidarity with their harassed counterparts in hard-right regimes such as Russia.

That said, Sheriff, I wasn't out to pick a fight and I apologise if I've misrepresented where you're coming from. I'm sure we agree a lot on the fundamental things. Russia is a sore spot for me and my reaction was probably conditioned by seeing too much online content produced by both paid Putin trolls and tribalistic types who have no space in their heads other than the idea that the West is the source of all evil. I'm not portraying you as one of these.

so.......England getting the World Cup aye!

Looks like Sheriff has lost himself on this thread.

Maybe this is not so far fetched after all.

It's coming home..........etc etc, and so on and so forth