yeah, and that other than Moscow, they recieved te lowest mark from the IOC...
But Paris, with all them muslims.... and the highest score... surely they cant win... or shouldnt?

I would like to see NY to get it but I think Paris is due since they were so close for 2008. Spain had '92 in Barcelona so I don't think Madrid will get it but you never know. (True, the US had '84 and '96 even though the LA-ATL distance is not the same as BCN-MAD...)

NYC can get it if the European cities split the votes and the 9/11 card is strong.

"New York -- all the foreigners are already there. ... Every athlete can go home with a gold and a fake Rolex." -- Billy Crystal

I don't think that the vote-splitting will do much good for New York.
Since the city with the least votes drops out after each round, in the end it's gonna be a decision between two cities, there's not much to be split anymore.
And concerning the 9/11 card: Who knows what's gonna be printed on the Iraq-card next year?

btw. BCN, MAD, ATL... Are you a pilot or what?

Madrid has it´s own card aswell, or have you forgotten March 11? Not only that, March 11 is more present and fresh in people´s minds now. At least for a while. After that, the 9/11 card will come back again, unless something bad happens elsewhere.
The thing is the US has a huge history of sponsoring games. Every 10 years or so, they will hold somekind of major sporting event, wether the Olympics, the Winter Games, soccer championships,Athletics meetings, etc etc. The Olympics comission will surelly try to diversify and consider countries that haven´t holded any events in the recent past. If i had a say in it, i would choose an asian country, or a south american one. They are always forgotten in favour of the bigger and more influent nations.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

Didn't know there was that many rounds. I am well aware of the anti-americanism, they talk about it in every Olympics voting article and it can be felt here as well LOL. Anyway, I figure Paris will get it like I said.

I did a lot of traveling in Spain so I remember all the codes and was too lazy to write it all out, sorry .

I don't think they care about other events too much in so far as diversification goes. France did '98 WC and a recent world track champioships and the IOC seems to see it as a plus since it mean Paris could handle the event. The city they choose must have the infrastructure to handle the Olympics, and that's why the S.American cities didn't get through.

There is always something to do with promoting a town for some good reason. After 11/9 and rebuilding something in place of the WTC I think NY would be a good place for Olympic Games and people may be keen to help getting them well done. And NY is well known for very popular athletic meetings like its marathon, some kind of model for people living in towns getting fat and on another hand trying to do some sport. I suppose those games would be the contrary of those in LA when nothing new was built.

Now for London my mistake. I missed the 1948 OG. London not qualified any more.

Madrid is in Spain and Barcelona got the '92 OG. The show was great but Spain is too small to get them again as soon as that.

Paris got the Football (soccer) World Cup some years ago against people will. The Parisians were completely fussed and showed as much as they could their disappointment to foreigners. The French are very unsporty people. They use their car as much if not more than other people but don't live in it (no drive-in restaurants and theaters), so they feel they needn't sport.

Moscow got the games some 25 years ago. No comment.

__________________
From SR

What, and you think south america is all third world? There are lots of countries in south america, many of wich have a better situation than quite a few european nations. Brasil being the strongest south american economy, has much more potential than Greece has, and the greeks are getting it this time, so why shouldn´t they?
The only reason why the games don´t go to south america is a political one.
Chavez in Venezuela, Lula da Silva in Brasil, the depression in Argentine...
Because of US pression to outcast these countries, their good aplications are often neglected and shelfed. And Argentine is slowly coming out of the depression, and these games could give them a welcomed hand to boost their economy.
After all, we are not talking about having the infrastructures, we are talking about having the funds to build them. It´s very rare to see a country welcoming the games in old stadiums. The host nation always builds brand new infrastructures to accomodate the games. And since building such infrastructures is an investment for the city, the host nation always collects high dividends from it, wether through tourism or local sporting activities.
And i´ll give you a better example even!
Who would thought Portugal had what it takes to hold an European Championship? And not only that, that we builded 10 brand new world class stadiums to hold it on? We are a much poorer country than many in South America, and if we found the needed funds, they can do the same.
And judging by the Greeks, location isn´t everything. Just because it happens to be in Europe doesn´t mean we are all rich and capable countries, just as in south america it doesn´t mean they are all poor and incompetent.
Geography is a poor judge of caracther.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

Where did I say that again? And where did I say European cities are all very advanced? Chances are, I've travelled across Europe much more extensively than you and know its good and bad.

Prove that they have more "potential", whatever that is LOL. Greece is no economic superpower but is still more stable and productive than Brazil is.

When I say infrastructure, we're not merely talking about new stadiums and a few facilities. The technical criteria used for the games includes: government support, public opinion, general infrastructure, security, venues, accommodation and transport. General infrastructure, security, accommodation and transport all fall under what one would consider infrastructure, and therefore it is a strong deal maker/breaker. S. American cities didn't get through the last round, along with a bunch of other cities around the world. Therefore, a large factor for these cities not getting through is due to their infrastructure. I hope that's easier for you to understand.

Do you have any proof that the US can pressure the IOC like this? If anything, all we hear is the anti-Americanism that will hamper NYC's chances.

Oh please, don´t start a pissing contest, ok?
And just why are you using that tone with me? What did i say to cross you?
I know what YOU said, and your image of south america seems a bit on shaky ground, regarding comparison with Greece atleast. You think Greece is in a better condition than any south american country? Or any european nation, for that matter?
Not only that, but did you notice what i said about my own country? You come here and tell us we are in better shape than Brasil, and people will laugh at your face. Yet we managed to build 10 stadiums, and on time, and the greeks are still fighting over wich roof to put over their swimming pool!!
;)

PS:The Brasilian GDP is $1.376 trillion dollars.
The Greek GDP is $203.3 billion dollars.
Check the disparity between them, and tell me Brasil doesn´t have enough "infrastructures". And if they don´t have anything, they can build it in a snap.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

I don't want to start a "pissing contest" whatever that is, but I am saying exactly what I wrote. Where in my brief comments do you see my view that Europe is so great as compared to S. America? Funny thing is, you still continue to put words into my mouth.

The only S.American city close in contention near the end was Rio, and it didn't pass because of infrastructure, just like Paris and Madrid were ranked high because of their infrastructure, of course, along with gov. and pop. support. I am only stating what happened. Now, from there, where do you get "my image" of S. America? FYI I don't consider S. America full of third world countries. Argentina and Brazil have gone through some major turbulence, that's all.

I am only countering your claim that Brazil has higher potential (Which you still haven't defined nor proven). Although Brazil is getting better, it is still not as stable as Greece.

PS: The population of Brazil is 182,032,604 and GDP per cap is $7,600
The population of Greece is 10,665,989 and GDP per cap is $19,100
While we're at it, why don't we mention the hyperinflation that took place in Brazil in the 90s and their still high inflation rate of 8.3%? Do you really want to get into economics? Isn't it clear to even you which country is more stable? Why did you bring Greece into it anyway, I never even mentioned them. Though it would help your argument, huh? We should be talking about France, Spain, UK, US and Russia since they're in the running.

Jesus christ, where did I say that!? I've been to Portugal, I know how it is there don't worry. Hmmm... but if I had to say it now, I believe the UK, France and Spain are in better shape than Brazil. Anyway, read any recent article about the IOC voting and they'll point out that they like how Paris is able to handle large events (i.e. infrastructure) so maybe you should start arguing with them. I can care less in the end.

Like I said, no "pissing contest" intended, but I hate having (a lot of) false words put into my mouth and then being argued against. It's a big waste of time for me to set things straight. I don't even know why I bother...