Viewing Thread:
"Why football is a better solution than war."

With war so very close, everyone in their right mind (besides Blair and Bush) is trying to think of a way to avoid war: Weapons inspections haven’t gone to plan, assassinations have proved too tricky to try out, and the thoughts of Hussein and Bush having a fight in a car park is a little ridiculous.
My idea, then? Why have a fight? Why kill everyone? Why not just have a nice game of football to solve any situation. And, lo and behold, I have thought up 10 good reasons why football is better than war.

1. America are crap at it.
They may have loads of disposable men at their sides ready to kick Iraqi butt, but when it comes to football, America are truly terrible. This means that when Americans want to argue with us, they will have very little ammunition. Also, the fact that the USA soccer league is as good as dead will help make Americans a lot shyer than they are now.

2. We aren’t that bad at it.
Okay, we may struggle at the Quarter Finals of the world cup each time. We may even draw to Macedonia, but in all honesty we aren’t that bad at it and it would also mean that we would be able to invade America and win!

3. Smaller countries get a say.
Brazil, Argentina, Senegal, Nigeria, Turkey and Norway aren’t really included in any worldwide debates, and if they are, they just get a minute to voice an opinion that no-one listens to. If football replaced war, these countries would get a say, and all would have some power. Brazil and Argentina would actually be two of the main countires in the world.

4. Iraq don’t even know about it.
Which would be nice.

5. It’s not okay in football for one team to go and join up with another team to create an over-large team.
There would be no danger of Blair running off to snuggle with Bush, each country would be fully independent. You can’t have 22 players on one team in football, so English people who, like me, don’t neccesarily want to waddle alongside America like a dog on a lead will be very happy.

6. The most influential figures in ‘war’ would actually have something to boast about.
Ronaldo, Carlos, Figo, Beckham and the like are all very skilled individuals. Bush, however, is not, in my opinion at least.

7. Kids will be more interested in it from a young age.
Loads of kids enjoy playing football. How many kids do you know who say “Daddy, Daddy, please take me up to the House of Commons to see the political debate.”? None. If kids were more interested in it from an earlier age, we would have a wider range of people interested in politics.

8. It’s more glamorous
War is not glamorous, war is dangerous. However, footballers are all over the press, so instead of sending unknown men off to die, have footballers who lap up the attention.

9. It’s less hazardous
No-one dies in football matches. Football is a lot safer than war. *Insert Millwall joke here*

10. It’s good entertainment
You don’t take your kids off to watch a war from a seat you paid 20 quid for, do you? if football was war, you get to watch the future of you and your country, whilst still enjoying yourself and having some popcorn to go with your fate.

Thanks for reading. Sorry if the last three were a bit rushed, I’m really hot and bothered now.
Asher.

Calm down, children.

Azul²°°³ wrote:
> Paranoid Idiot wrote:
> "1. The Americans are crap at it."
>
> False! Just look how they got on in the World Cup. Id replace
> America
> with Scotland or Wales. Yeah that sounds right.
>
> .....
>
> Clearly you have no knowledge of football whatsoever

Read the reply again.

Did you know that the national sport of Afghanistan (can't spell) is riding around on horses, hitting a limbless goat's carcass with pole into a goal.
We should play that instead.

It is true, I read it on a poster at school. Either that, or it was some sneaky propaganda (can I spell?) that brainwashed the thousands. Or just me, I can't remeber ever reading a poster before that - but it was PSHE. *Yawn*

Asher D wrote:

> 1. America are crap at it.


Miss the 2002 world cup then did you?

Paranoid Idiot wrote:
> "1. The Americans are crap at it."
>
> False! Just look how they got on in the World Cup. Id replace America
> with Scotland or Wales. Yeah that sounds right.

.....

Clearly you have no knowledge of football whatsoever

"1. The Americans are crap at it."

False! Just look how they got on in the World Cup. Id replace America with Scotland or Wales. Yeah that sounds right.

I don't like football.

and I'll get the door

"Oh, and it's a lovely cross in, it's one on one with the keeper.... Oh! Surely that was a hand ball! Saddam there getting the goal with his hand, surely, but the referee allows it!"

*Headline the Next Day*

"The Hand of Allah"

...

I'll get my coat...

Brilliant.

"1. The Americans are crap at it."

Fantastic!

Heh, "Smaller Countries... Brazil..."
Britain can fit into Brazil about 100 times or something!
I know what ye mean though, sorry.

Nice one, good origianl idea.