Freedom Fries
RyoOhki
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Do you want freedom with that?</div> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->US restaurant bans French Fries
February 20, 2003
YOU can get fries with your burger at a restaurant here, but just don't ask for french fries.
Neal Rowland, the owner of Cubbie's, now only sells his fried potato strips as "freedom fries" - a decision that comes as Americans watch French officials back away from support for possible war in Iraq.
"Because of Cubbie's support for our troops, we no longer serve french fries. We now serve freedom fries," says a sign in the restaurant's window.
Rowland said his intent is not to slight the French people, but to take a patriotic stance to show his support for the United States and the actions of President Bush.
"It's our way of showing our patriotic pride," he said, noting that his business has a lot of local military troops as customers.
Rowland said the switch from french fries to freedom fries came to mind after a conversation about World War I when anti-German sentiment prompted Americans to rename German foods like sauerkraut and frankfurter to liberty cabbage and hot dog.
The Associated Press
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This just cracked me up <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Also showed a disturbing trend: is the US now regarding former allies as enemies because they won't support the war in Iraq? Seems incredibily narrow minded and also disturbing that a nation which preeches democracy won't respect the wishes of the vast majority of the world's nations.
Note: This isn't ment to be another "War in iraq" thread. It's focus is really concentrated more at the views expressed in the news peice: that France and many others are being "unfaithful" to the US <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
February 20, 2003
YOU can get fries with your burger at a restaurant here, but just don't ask for french fries.
Neal Rowland, the owner of Cubbie's, now only sells his fried potato strips as "freedom fries" - a decision that comes as Americans watch French officials back away from support for possible war in Iraq.
"Because of Cubbie's support for our troops, we no longer serve french fries. We now serve freedom fries," says a sign in the restaurant's window.
Rowland said his intent is not to slight the French people, but to take a patriotic stance to show his support for the United States and the actions of President Bush.
"It's our way of showing our patriotic pride," he said, noting that his business has a lot of local military troops as customers.
Rowland said the switch from french fries to freedom fries came to mind after a conversation about World War I when anti-German sentiment prompted Americans to rename German foods like sauerkraut and frankfurter to liberty cabbage and hot dog.
The Associated Press
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This just cracked me up <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Also showed a disturbing trend: is the US now regarding former allies as enemies because they won't support the war in Iraq? Seems incredibily narrow minded and also disturbing that a nation which preeches democracy won't respect the wishes of the vast majority of the world's nations.
Note: This isn't ment to be another "War in iraq" thread. It's focus is really concentrated more at the views expressed in the news peice: that France and many others are being "unfaithful" to the US <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes. They were actually at war with Germany though. Last time I checked the US wasn't bombing France (given bush it's only a matter of time <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )
Takes all kinds I guess. Sadly it seems his numbers of customers has increased <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Get your panties out of your **** and give it a rest.
Pathetic.
Freedom contradicted every thing he said "freedom of speech"
<a href='http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00786.html' target='_blank'>Because otherwise Saddam will cut them off from their oil money</a>
That was a couple years ago. Today, Elf controls about 25% of Iraqi oil production. Guess what would be disrupted when Saddam orders the wellheads set fire like last time? This is why France objects every time anyone talks about Iraq: L'Oil de Froggy! As Nemesis will tell you, I will come out on the side that opposes hypocrisy in any argument...
As for the fries, call them whatever you want. They are the only true example of French cuisine (as opposed to snails). It's funny how the frenchies chuck rocks through the windows of a McDonalds, when said frenchies are responsible for the popularity of fast food...
Get your panties out of your **** and give it a rest.
Pathetic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the...
I posted this as a humerous comment on the world situation. It was something that gave me a laugh. I hardly think it warrents that kind of response...Lighten up mate <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Seeing how we usually butted heads, I'll take that as insult <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Anyway, you're right. Frances government has just as much economical interest in Iraqs oil as the US administration has.
If you want to stay away from hypocrisy, you'd better keep away from politicians, no matter of what party or nationality.
As for Jobabob, can you explain to me how gassing your own citizens, stealing their food and medical supplies, and using them as human shields is not evil? I just described both Iraq and Nazi Germany there. Are you saying the government in Germany in 1945 was not evil? Explain to me how Iraq's government is good and looks after the welfare of its people? Ignore the war for oil part for a moment and just explain this.
As for the 'standard American education' nonsense, have you ever been here? Have you had an American education? Do you see me talking about stereotypical foppish inbred English public school educations? How did America get to be the world's superpower if we are supposedly a nation of morons. Really, I'm curious, please tell me...
In short: Nobody alive == Hitler.
But, seriously, Saddam has to go. It doesn't matter if it's by the hand of a coalition of world forces or his own people, he just needs to be gone. For the good of the entire world. Sure, oil is a concern, but as MonsE said: innocents are dying. Now before you say "Why don't you do something about it." Well, that's what we're trying to do. Sure, I'm not in the military, but if the country is aligned with the military and backs it 110%, it boosts morale. That's not to say if I was drafted I'd moved to canada, though. Hell, death on the battlefield is better than Canada! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
For everyone <i>except</i> the Iraqi people. They're screwed either way. Keep Saddam in power, and they suffer under a brutal regime and continue to wither under severe sanctions. Go to war to remove him, and they likely incur heavy casualties, an obliterated infrastructure (which George has said will be rebuilt on <i>their</i> dime), and a brand spanking new leader most likely in the mold of, say, Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
And yes, regarding the article-- this is how we got the term 'hot dog' during WWI. I also read that they tried calling sauerkraut 'liberty cabbage', but that obviously didn't catch.
This one was opened about the relations of the US and some European states <i>over</i> the Iraq.
Actually, technically speaking, it was about their relationships represented by culinary monikers.
And I <i>did</i> bring up the hot dog point.
Yes yes, Nem, I know how proud you are of having one of the all time greats and don't like seeing his title tarnished... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> . Just becuase someone is not 'as bad as' someone doesn't make them good. Shades of grey when it comes to mass-murder are just that; shades of grey. The fly-covered corpses of kurdish refugees covered in mustard gas don't really care that Saddam only killed a few thousand of them compared to millions of dead jews.
As for Monkey's post, I can agree to a certain point. But as I listened to a report from the BBC yesterday (on NPR) on how 20,000 afghani women are going through training to become teachers, and millions of girls are being allowed to attend school for the first time in decades, I think that allowing democracy and civil rights in the middleeast seems like a better and better idea all the time. Almost any alternative is preferable to the current situations. Didn't it work for Germany and Japan? They were aggressors, fought their neighbors, were retaliated against by the world; now they have maintained stable democracies for 60 years and are among the most stable and peace-loving of powers. They didn't have 50 years of democracy TOTAL in their thousands of year histories prior to that.
As for Nem's moderator status... bah. When you have Super Admin we can talk... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well, there's the catch. Again, are we going to settle for someone like our partner-in-peace Abdullah, where we have to turn a blind eye to . . . . well, pretty much everything he does, except for his oil policies?
And back on topic: What will become of Brussel Sprouts? Or Turkey? I'd hate to have to rename that one.
Did I say anywhere that Hussein wasn't a ****? No? I guessed as much.
The problem about Nazi-comparisions is what is called the 'moralic club' in Germany - once you have compared something to Hitlers regime, it's burned. If somebody was to take a stance against your argument, he defended something <i>just as bad</i> as the Third Realm - which nobody would want to, <i>would you</i>?
I don't doubt that Hussein is a mass murderer, and will support any motion which has a chance of getting him in front of a fair trial, but that still doesn't make him comparable to that monstrosity Hitler.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Didn't it work for Germany and Japan? They were aggressors, fought their neighbors, were retaliated against by the world; now they have maintained stable democracies for 60 years and are among the most stable and peace-loving of powers. They didn't have 50 years of democracy TOTAL in their thousands of year histories prior to that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, yes, but you've got to admit that keeping both countries healthy was necessary because they were used to contain the Soviet Union.
If you want comparable situations, take a look at the winter of '46, when it still seemed as if a kind of agreement between east and west could be reached - no winter in the war was as horrible for the German population as the first one under the administration of democratic forces.
Yes, there are - thank god - some achievements to be seen in Afghanistan, or more exactely Kabul and surrounding. Outside that area, the former allies of the US have already started picking the best parts out and took de-facto government to themselves.
If the same was to be applied to the Iraq, Bagdad and the most valuable oil fields would reach democracy, wheras the rest would fall back into anarchy.
And try renaming Fish & Chips if the Brits ever oppose us.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Smoke, you need to take your sarcasm detector in for a tune-up . . <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for keeping both Axis countries healthy, the main reason was they would be less likely to covet their neighbor's wealth if they had enough wealth of their own. Heck, we fixed up a lot of countries through the Marshall Plan just because it was good for the world and for us. Letting them get out of control was what gave the earth WW2 in the first place.
Getting back (for the billionth time with NemesisKneeJerk <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) to the hitler versus the %your_dictator_of_choice% argument, why do you need to get so reactive? I don't sit hear and argue that Stalin was a much worse mass-murderer than hitler just because he killed 20 million of his own people, do I? Or Pol Pot being the worst for killing 2 million and having cannibal followers eat many of them? Or Idi Amin? Or the Romans? Or Edward the Longshanks? A mass-murder is a mass-murderer, and you can compare them at will. Once you go over the genocide line, all bets are off and every argument you put up is specious.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As far as how much civil rights and democracy and law have spread from the urban centers in Afghanistan, how about we give it a little time and see before passing judgement? It's not like you can remake 3000 years of barbarism into a shining pillar of truth within the period of a few months.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny. You managed in Germany, which was, as you told me, comparable. Before you bring it up, communication and infrastructure were on an all time low here, too.
Afhanistan doesn't lack time, it lacks funding, as most countries, including the US, bailed out of their promises, it lacks military support by those who promised to provide it, but now are busy <i>elsewhere</i>, and it lacks a competent leadership that doesn't consist of warlords.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for keeping both Axis countries healthy, the main reason was they would be less likely to covet their neighbor's wealth if they had enough wealth of their own. Heck, we fixed up a lot of countries through the Marshall Plan just because it was good for the world and for us. Letting them get out of control was what gave the earth WW2 in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I won't discuss that economical considerations were one of the reasons of the Marshall plan (similiar to the time of the Dawes plan, the US had to start thinking about ways of getting those war debts back), but can't agree on the idea of war-prevention.
Both Germany and Japan were down to zero. Nothing, 'kept for ruins and a starving population.
They were no threat to anyone, and there were ways of keeping them there - the Morgenthau plan went into that direction, for example.
The SU, on the other hand, had managed to widen its influence into Europe and would've been, had it been able to get access to the North Sea, capable of threatening France and Great Britain, the closest allies of the US. It was critical to contain them, and to do that, one needed a German population that was economically healthy enough not to be lured into a Revolution by the Soviets.
Ask yourself why the Berlin blockade was the first big humanitarian action of the US, whereas the hunger before had already claimed more victims than one could've expected from that situation.
The help for the ex-Axis was politically motivated. This is in no way meant to be a reproach, I'm actually *quite* glad Western Germany didn't become socialistic, but it's still the case, and coming back to our actual situation, there are no such considerations to be applied to Afghanistan, which is why Bushs government doesn't engage seriously in it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Getting back (for the billionth time with NemesisKneeJerk ) to the hitler versus the %your_dictator_of_choice% argument, why do you need to get so reactive? I don't sit hear and argue that Stalin was a much worse mass-murderer than hitler just because he killed 20 million of his own people, do I? Or Pol Pot being the worst for killing 2 million and having cannibal followers eat many of them? Or Idi Amin? Or the Romans? Or Edward the Longshanks? A mass-murder is a mass-murderer, and you can compare them at will. Once you go over the genocide line, all bets are off and every argument you put up is specious. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You said it yourself in your answer - there are sadly lots of mass murderers, but there's luckily only one Hitler. He crossed the line that lies <i>behind</i> genocide and stopped murdering humans - he slaughthered them in an industrialized system <i>and made that the purpose of his life</i>.
There is just no more inhumane treatment of humans in history, period.
The second problem I have specifically with the comparision between Hussein and Hitler:
It's the purpose G.Bush senior created it for: To legitimate a war against this man and to put it up into the 'tradition' of great just wars, like Woodrow Wilsons 'Crusade for Democracy' and even more Roosevelts struggle against the fascist menace.
The truth is however that this just glorified (and glorifies) a war against a megalomaniac armed thug whom the people in Bushs cabinet helped create, that was (and will be) fought for various reasons, oil being one of the main ones.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Moving on to your next revisionism,
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Both Germany and Japan were down to zero. Nothing, 'kept for ruins and a starving population.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do they teach what Germany was like in the teens and twenties after WW1? It was already a ruin. And it was kept that way for 20 years by the Versaille Treaty statements, as 'punishment'. All it did was get 99% of the population goosestepping around in a mood for revenge. We learned that lesson after WW2, and propped Germany up as fast as we could. The russians were ruined as well, after all, and we sent them some cash for a while even. As for the Berlin airlift being the first humanitarian operation after the war, that's utter nonsense. Our first major humanitarian operation started the day after you surrendered, and continued for decades. We funnelled billions of dollars (and these were 1940/50's dollars) into Germany during that period of time, continously helping in rebuilding the infrastructure, sending subsidized food, and generally repairing the country you had forced us to destroy. I suggest readings <a href='http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/57.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>, <a href='http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/featured_documents/marshall_plan/' target='_blank'>here</a>, and <a href='http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/marshall/large/marshall.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>, as you're missing out on a bunch of history to back up your views.
As far as classifying hitler as the worst mass-murder ever just because he had an efficient way of killing people, rather than the clumsy Soviet method of shooting possibly as many as 53 million people (<a href='http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm' target='_blank'>sources</a>) in the back of the head with a revolver, is, well frankly, almost like you're proud of it. You might want to rethink why you want hitler to be the worst mass-murder ever and somehow that makes other mass-murders better in some way. You keep missing the point that if you are a mass-murderer and genocidal maniac, it doesn't matter if you killed 10 million people in a gas chamber or 5000 people in a village. You should be stopped.
After all, it was old Joe Stalin himself who said '1 death is a tragedy. 1 million is a statistic.'