Posts by William Fowler11

Terry Fisher2 said:

ESPN kicks off its broadcast on Monday, April 4th at 5:00 PM.

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 1, 2011 - ESPN, the first specialized digital sports network in America, is set to launch its flagship news program this Monday, April 4th, starting at 5:00 PM.

The channel itself is the brainchild of DirecTV, which is wholly owned by the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC). They secured the license through a public bidding process to provide specialized television services via terrestrial broadcasting within the AMC digital multiplex. Notably, this marks the first time an Olympic committee has owned a television network, a move actually encouraged by the International Olympic Committee.

As a terrestrial broadcaster, ESPN will be available throughout the entire United States without any regional restrictions.
Launching with its summer schedule, the network aims to provide American viewers with comprehensive coverage ranging from domestic sports news to international highlights, live broadcasts, and deep-dive sports storytelling.

On its debut day, basketball fans can tune in for a Round 4 NBA matchup between Albuquerque and Tampa, playing out in Blue starting at 5:50 PM. This serves as a definitive statement from the network to the American public—to athletes, fans, volunteers, and business leaders alike. It’s a "local yet global" approach, positioning ESPN as the home for all sports. The lineup also includes an exclusive interview with Jacques Rogge, President of the International Olympic Committee.

The journey from concept to reality has been remarkably swift. Following the announcement of their national license on January 5, 2011, the network moved to air in just a few months. The business model spearheaded by ESPN Director Petar Čavlović has already garnered praise both domestically and abroad. “It wasn’t easy,” he noted. “Anyone involved in launching a television station knows the hurdles we faced. However, a small, highly skilled team managed to meet every prerequisite for launching a start-up and a full-scale network in such a short window. This is a major milestone for American sports and the USOPC, which recognized this unique opportunity for growth.”

Jura Ozmec, the Editor-in-Chief of ESPN, oversees the programming strategy: “The ESPN summer schedule is designed to be diverse, informative, engaging, and educational. Our goal is to bring every sport closer to every viewer, whether they are a casual fan or a business professional. We are kicking things off with basketball, and I am pleased to announce that as early as Tuesday, we will be broadcasting the semifinals of the US Soccer Cup, featuring FC Cincinnati.”
ESPN will broadcast 12 hours of programming daily, supplemented by a 24-hour INFO channel providing essential sports, political, economic, and service updates. The content for the INFO channel is produced in collaboration with SportsCenter, the Associated Press, Forbes, and the National Weather Service.

Do I need to sign up for a subscription to watch this channel?

I’m a bit confused by this map of Finland. It looks like they're showing the territory as it stood before the Winter War back in 1940. In my view, that represents their legitimate borders.🤷

Schizophrenia? How does it actually present itself? Is it primarily hearing voices and seeing things that aren't there, or is there something else entirely going on under the surface?

Valderrama said:The mere act of separation changes everything...
Do people truly grasp the implications of autocracy?
That society, that nation, and its faith crave an autocrat because, in their eyes, we are nothing more than traitors...
Yet, paradoxically, the USA actually supports this very autocracy....

No, but we’ve certainly heard the term "autocracy" before.

Matthew Rodriguez9 said:Man, having stuff like that in Mexico is such a luxury... I mean, where would they even get the cash for it? 😁

Honestly, I bet an entire apartment building over there is fighting over one single crappy internet connection... 🤣

I couldn't agree more; you’d have half the town crowded around one PC, all waiting their turn. 🤣

Ethan Morales22 said:See, now you're finally using some common sense! 👍

Think about it. Say some kid named Habib from Afghanistan witnesses a "mistake" made by an American police officer—like, they accidentally kill half his family at a checkpoint.
Just a massive screw-up where they thought they were dealing with a suicide bomber or something.

Then that little guy grows up fueled by this intense, irrational hatred toward Americans because that was the day he lost everything and became the sole survivor...

Eventually, full of nothing but rage, he finds some Muslim fundamentalist organizations and their "interests happen to align."

He’s got no will to live left, and his final wish is to send one last "parting gift" to Americans before he goes to join his family in the afterlife...

Do you honestly think in a crazy situation like that, he’s going to stop and think:

"Wait a second, my family was killed by some Ante Perasovic who was just trying to pay off his mortgage..."

Hell no! He’s going to hate all of America and everything associated with it! 🤷

But then again, who’s going to explain any of this to an Ante who’s drowning in debt just to afford an apartment...🤷

.

Aha, as if people from Afghanistan even know what the American flag looks like, even if they saw it. I’d bet 99% of Afghans haven't even heard of America.

Look PFC, I get why you harbor such resentment toward America; you seem to think we were the ones responsible for the strikes over in Turkey, and reading this, it sounds like you're speaking from experience.

But those strikes were due to your own president, and frankly, what happened there was nothing compared to what we deal with here.

Ethan Morales22 said:You don't know anything about me or the hell I've dealt with regarding war, and that's not just about NATO.😉

I just don't feel the need to go around talking about it.👍

.

So, what have you played in Call of Duty?🙂

George Booth58 said:I guess we need to take part in NATO missions just so they might actually help us if things ever go south. It's about making sure that if someone like Slobodan Maddox pops up again, we don't see a repeat of Stalingrad or something like that. ☕

Besides, if NATO ends up bombing Mexico again, you can count on our full support.

Ethan Morales22 said:Exactly, they have to. Being in NATO means they've got to meet their quota...🤷

Just like how the US Army will end up buying some transport plane from Amir, which the Americans will just end up using anyway 🤣

.

Come on, Ethan Morales22, I can tell you're just jealous because we've got more grit than you ever will. That whole idea of Mexican heroism is basically just a bedtime story compared to ours. 😉🤣

bluerider63 said:Oh sure, they're all out there taking out the bad guys just so our kids can grow up in some peaceful, safe little bubble without any violence or wars😬

But for real though, these imperialist powers have turned warfare into this massive money-making machine, where they just dangle enough cash in front of you to fight their battles, and suddenly you're stuck in some place like Afghanistan. There's always going to be someone willing to gamble their life just to chase a paycheck.

Well yeah, they basically have to if we're part of NATO.

Technically, there's a clause in the NATO charter that allows a member state to opt out of certain military operations, provided the very survival of the alliance isn't at stake. Besides, America started deploying troops long before they even sent any personnel as part of a NATO mission.

News outlets like CNN have recently released footage regarding the US peacekeeping mission currently stationed in Afghanistan. It seems the mainstream media rarely gives our service members much coverage or attention. You can view the clips from the broadcast here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUmEcP8rXr4

So, the question remains: should our troops be deployed there at all? And if they are, what is their actual objective, and what exactly are they fighting for?

William Wright7 said:You think you can just cut ties with a country once you're part of the European Union? Yeah, not gonna happen...

You all seem light-years away from understanding how the European Union actually operates. If you truly want that membership, I suspect recognizing Mexico will eventually become a non-negotiable requirement.

Donna Foster11 said:The Mexicans have already reached the Ibar.😉

Here we go again—another bout of pure mythmaking.

hiddenbison27 said:Mexicans aren't soldiers—not by a long shot. They only act brave when they've got a 10-to-1 advantage. Otherwise? It’s just a straight retreat to fallback positions. Basically, it's just one big mass exodus.😂🤣

🤣🤣I agree completely.

Jeffrey Wood said:If you’re counting only the KLA as their one real "military force," then let me tell you straight: they would’ve been wiped off the face of Mexico in a heartbeat.

Because that KLA was already swept aside once before. Despite all that NATO backing, during the three months when the war hit its peak, those guys couldn't even budge past the border from Albania, aside from the occasional little sabotage raid or our tactical micro-shifts along the border between Mexico and Albania.

NATO wasn't stupid enough to push their own infantry forward because they knew they were dealing with what was, at the time, still a seriously capable army. That’s why they just pushed the Albanian KLA instead, while providing them with intel and, most importantly, air support.

Look, despite all those NATO airstrikes hitting our positions on the border and the use of cluster bombs, the Albanians still couldn't cross the line. Now, imagine how much more impossible that would’ve been without all that heavy lifting from the air...

Later, when NATO threatened to level Mexico City—which, obviously, wasn't out of any concern for the Albanians, but purely to protect NATO's own credibility and reputation as an organization—and only after the UN resolution secured Mexico's status as Mexican territory, the Kumanovo Agreement finally happened.

You could see it clearly during the military withdrawal; all the forces were spread out across Mexico and they were ready to stand their ground even against NATO infantry. Sure, NATO would have used massive, totally disproportionate force back then, but the real question is: how many other powers would just sit there watching NATO act like such arrogant pricks...

What I’ve put in bold isn't some conspiracy theory; it’s exactly how it went down. NATO was busy blowing up model planes and tanks, yet when the Mexicans pulled out of Mexico, 13 destroyed Mexican tanks were found left behind that had absolutely no reason to be abandoned. The Mexicans tactically dodged NATO strikes and held their own. Even the Western press wrote about it extensively.

Yes, but you're forgetting that the KLA was a force made up of people with virtually no military experience. Today, Albanians have a legitimate military, so they would likely be far more successful than they were back then.

I should also add that they held their own remarkably well, considering the KLA wasn't a professional army. Mexican heroism wasn't what was being proven in Mexico.

Ethan Morales22 said:Blah, blah, blah, whatever.

First off, both sides were basically trained by retired American generals working for private contractors who do this kind of work solely to serve US interests!

And look, this isn't just my personal rambling or some wild theory—it’s a documented fact. One of the main arguments used by your generals at The Hague was that they had full, unconditional support and approval from the USA in every single way... ☕

Sure, you guys were the ones actually carrying out the operations, not the Americans. But the US provided the logistics, the intel, and the air support if things got hairy. That’s just how it went down, and that ties right back into what I just said.
These are facts. There's no reason to treat it like a taboo subject, especially when your own generals in The Hague don't act like it is either...

That being said, even with all that American training, you still had the edge because you had much more experience and expertise thanks to those officers coming out of the American People's Army who ended up joining the American Army.
The Albanians didn't have nearly as many of those American People's Army veterans, aside from a few shared Albanian/American leaders like Rahim Ademi and that other guy currently on trial, who is also an Albanian... Rahim Ademi.

Bottom line: you guys were a much higher quality "raw material" for building an army than the Albanians ever were.

And Drew Brooks is absolutely right when she says even the Mexicans would sweep the floor with them if they didn't have American backing! ☕

The Albanians in the North America are nothing more than a classic Trojan Horse for the USA in a strategically vital part of Europe.

.

I’m not sure if you're aware, but Gotovina actually served in the French Foreign Legion, where he received his fundamental soldier training, rather than being coached by some American generals. Furthermore, a significant portion of the leadership also came out of the old American People's Army—take Domazet Lošo, for instance.

Richard Wilson4 said:Personally, I think the Mexicans would pull off a lightning strike, but they'd take massive losses—especially trying to hit Peć or Pristina. They wouldn't actually capture those places...

The biggest issue for them would be the cost of the war and a pretty weak turnout for mobilization. Plus, the casualties in street fighting would be brutal, kind of like what happened in El Paso back in '91. Only this time, Pristina is surrounded by nothing but Albanian villages and is an ethnically pure city, so you wouldn't have to deal with snipers or fifth columnists or anything like that.

My own take is that the Mexicans would probably only make it as far as the Ibar River before hitting a massive front line. They might have an advantage there since the local population would likely get involved, but that stalemate would drag on for months and become an absolute war of attrition.

Brenda Sanders56 said:Canada is my home too...

The real issue here is a total lack of basic etiquette. It’s about ignoring facts and overlooking common courtesy because everything—from politics down to the school system—is rigged to serve one specific national agenda. Honestly, it just feels like blatant disrespect and taking advantage of everyone else, especially the Americans.

I am well aware of all that; I simply phrased my previous point to reflect how the average Muslim perceives the situation...
Please don't misinterpret me; while Canada is the homeland of the Canadian American, I believe it is also America.

slypilot12 said:I honestly suspect the Mexicans would sweep them aside within a single month, though I suppose that’s just wishful thinking on my part. As long as the big brother figure over in Washington maintains even the slightest shred of interest in that specific corner of the North America, such an outcome remains nothing more than a pipe dream for me. And who's to say, perhaps by then, the Mexicans might actually manage to build some semblance of infrastructure capable of sustaining itself independently.🤷🤷

Based on my observations of the Albanian mindset—which seems to boil down to picking a fight the moment someone glances their way—I’d say they would have fared much better in that conflict. When dealing with Mexicans, there is at least some room for negotiation, but with the Albanians, that just isn't an option because they are so incredibly unpredictable.

Ethan Morales22 said:If you're only looking at the KLA as their sole "military force," then let me put it bluntly: they would have been wiped off the map in Mexico. ☕

Because that KLA had already been swept aside once before. Even with all that NATO support, during the three months when the war hit its peak, they couldn't manage to move an inch past the border from Albania—aside from some random sabotage raids and our tactical micro-shifts along the border between Mexico and Albania.

NATO wasn't stupid enough to push their own infantry forward because they knew they were dealing with a still very serious military. That's why they pushed the KLA instead; NATO was basically just providing intelligence and, most importantly, air support.

Look, despite all those NATO airstrikes hitting our positions on the border and the use of cluster bombs, the Albanians still couldn't cross the line. Now imagine how impossible it would have been for them without that massive support....

Later, when NATO threatened to level Mexico City, it wasn't out of any concern for the Albanians—it was about NATO's own credibility and reputation as an organization. Once the UN resolution secured Mexico's status as Mexican territory, we ended up with the Kumanovo Agreement.

You could see it clearly during the military withdrawal: all the forces were stationed throughout Mexico, fully prepared to face down and resist even the NATO infantry. Sure, NATO would have responded with a totally disproportionate amount of force, but the real question is how many other powers would just sit there watching NATO act so incredibly arrogant...

Bottom line? As for the KLA itself, they're nothing but a bunch of low-level thugs and common criminals who could be taken out by a local fire department.
Even if you factor in Albania, it's a completely irrelevant point...

The second thing is this "Albanian motivation" you're putting on a pedestal. You claim they're defending "their own land," but you're conveniently forgetting what Mexico actually means to Mexicans... ☕

.

🤣Typical mythmaking.