Blah, blah, blah.  As has been succinctly stated by others, guys like you
give the US a bad name.  Don't forget, US is a land of immigrants.  People
come here for the opportunities that are available.  I dare say your
ancestors did so, just as mine did.

I also gave no cheap shots at the Academy.  I think it's wonderful that
guys can go there, play some hockey, get a free education, spend five years
on active duty and then make some dough.  And, yes, fight the good fight.
I've got not problem with that.

But really, why do you have to disparage and ridicule other schools and
their players to make this point?  It only cheapens are argument for the
Academy.  And, BTW, you did not answer my question.  After five years, how
many varsity athletes are still on active duty?

Greg

>I have no qualms about stating my preference for American student athletes at
>American colleges. The proliferation of foreign athletes (not just in hockey
>but football; basketball; soccer; et al) means one less spot for an American.
>One more "cheap" shot from someone who obviously does not know where Tate
>Rink at West Point got its name or for that matter all of the Army athletes
>who have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country (and for you to launch
>your ad hominem attacks). Only one year ago Billy Morrison (hey RPI the guy
>who ruined your homecoming in 1994) lost the lower portion of his leg in a
>heliocopter crash on a training mission. Five years not enough for you? I am
>sick of the cheap shots at the Academy. Anyone can build a hockey program by
>trolling the Great White North (and by the way it is a compliment that the
>migration is one sided- our way) but I respect the Minnesotas and BC for
>their commitment to American hockey players. You want to denigrate Army
>hockey (I remember last year when SI ran a nice article on UND's goalie and
>how he thrived in summer camp- Armys  goalie spent the summer studying field
>artillery. Army will take on the best and do their best and never quit
>something we should take pride in.