PDA

View Full Version : French and Germans are banned from Danish pizza joint


peter2002
Feb 25, 2003, 04:07 PM
Danish pizzeria has banned French and Germans from dining there because of their country's stance on a war with Iraq.

Aage Bjerre, who owns Aage's Pizza on the island of Fanoe, said he's tired of French and German attitudes toward the United States.

He's put two homemade drawings on the shop door, one a silhouette of a man coloured red, yellow and black for Germany and another in the red, white and blue for France.

Both silhouettes have a bar across them.

He says Germans will be allowed in if their country joins a war on Iraq, but the French will have to endure a lifetime ban.

Aage said: "Hadn't the United States helped Europe in defeating Germany, there would have been photos of Adolf Hitler hanging on the walls around here."

The ban has yet to effect his business because the tourist season only starts after Easter and peaks during the summer. "I do what my conscience tells me to do," he said.

He added: "Frenchmen have a lifetime ban here. Their attitude toward the United States will never change."

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_754383.html?menu=news.quirkies

I guess they can eat at Pizza Hut or KFC in Denmark.

Pete :)

http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2003080422,00.gif

alex_ant
Feb 25, 2003, 04:29 PM
I hope they'll ban chinks, too. Those "people" (they are all communists you know) piss me off.

Taft
Feb 25, 2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by peter2002
Danish pizzeria has banned French and Germans from dining there because of their country's stance on a war with Iraq.

Pete :)

If only we didn't have those pesky anti-discrimination laws here, we could ban them in our establishments, too.

Damn!

Taft

g30ffr3y
Feb 25, 2003, 04:48 PM
sarcasm galore?

conceptdev
Feb 25, 2003, 05:21 PM
This man is a moron. I hold two passports in one a French passport and and EU passport. First of all his action is completely illegal and violates a stack of EU laws if you want got check.

http://www.europa.eu.int/

Secondly, if I wanted I could waltz into Denmark today rent or buy the house next to his live there with my non EU girlfriend without a single care in the world appart from several forms which are completely routine.

Its just idiocy and while it may be absurd its not remotely funny.

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 25, 2003, 05:21 PM
There is truth to what the pizza man is saying. I think the new young generation that didnt have to go through WWII in europe have no idea what this man is saying. They think that their freedom was just handed to them on a silver spoon not really seeing what happen to their countries a mere 50-60 years ago. They just dont get it that they all would be worshipping Adolf Hitler right now if not for some hard ball American Presidents. Just as they still dont get it that those young Iraqi"s are worshipping Saddam with his picture everywhere you go in that country though this guy has killed more of his own people then anyone in Iraq's history. Allways amazed how his picture is everywhere, but here in America we dont have pictures anywhere of our president that is in office at the current time!Democrat or Republican. When you start seeing those pictures everywhere its time to take heed. Its up to the older generation to teach those young Saddam Lovers a little of their own history and lack of forsight when it comes to dealing with Tyrants.Way to go Pizza man! Ill have a Supreme and hold those olives.

Kid Red
Feb 25, 2003, 05:37 PM
I think that's great. There was a thread here recently about boycotting "french" fries and 'french' toast and so on. I'm there all the way (in spirit) If it wasn't for us, the french would be speaking German. Germany? Maybe that's why they are bitter against us.

conceptdev
Feb 25, 2003, 05:39 PM
We also would not be where we are now without the bloody Russians either, or the english or without half of the world. My Father lived through the occupation - my families house was taken by Nazi troops.

My Father as a child walking to school with a friend was strafed by american aircraft during WWII. Nobody in the family thinks it was intentional - and thats not my suggestion - but error and civilian casualties play a large part in any war.

Nobody here in the EU loves Saddam. Nobody here wants to see him in stay in power but neither do they want to see an unchecked super power embark on its second invasion in less than two years time.

The EU nations that are against a war have their own interests as well and that is about the future of their nascent intra-state union, what it means and what it stands for and the majority of Europeans support that vision firmly.

Europe has learned from WWII and its post-colonial spasms of violence. It objects to unchecked aggression and total war - having experienced it all itself - we have not forgotten and we will not forget.

We refuse to be either victims or executioners.
Albert Camus.

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 25, 2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Kid Red
I think that's great. There was a thread here recently about boycotting "french" fries and 'french' toast and so on. I'm there all the way (in spirit) If it wasn't for us, the french would be speaking German. Germany? Maybe that's why they are bitter against us. Yeah Germany would be speaking russian if not for us. The frenchies and germans by doing nothing all these years and resolutions have in fact supported the Butcher of Baghdad. Doing nothing is still nothing sorry.Conceptdev sorry too that your dad and friend got straffed but remember if not for those same straffing forces you would be a son of Hitler!So tell me are you glad we liberated your country and parents or are do you wish you were still occupied by the Nazi's? One way or the other there is no middle ground! Freedom or Oppression?

medea
Feb 25, 2003, 06:04 PM
Hey great idea, I'm going to see if I can ban blacks from my restaurant because I'm tired of their rap music and dirty hair.

what an a**hole, and anyone who agrees with him is one too. hey, why fight discrimination any more, lets go back to slave trading already.

medea
Feb 25, 2003, 06:05 PM
oh and on another note, maybe you guys are missing the fact that it's not just France and Germany against the war, it's the majority of the U.N.

conceptdev
Feb 25, 2003, 06:18 PM
But of course you realise you would still be a British colony if not for French assistance in your revolutionary war.

If you want to discredit that logically you have four basic rebuttals.

a. That history, in the case I specified is much older and therefore of a different category and not relevant to the current discussion.
b. French assistance during the revolutionary war was non essential.
c. You where of course just using WWII as an example to emphasize and demonstrate the neccesity of military force to liberate people.
d. American assistance during WWII, and indeed the entire conflict of WWII was of such a larger magnitude that it as well belongs to another category.

So if French military assistance in the past does not in some way balance out your logic of military assistance for obedience in the same spirit let me provide four rebuttals.

a. We are discussing a current conflict involving a fundamentally different generation of individuals actively involved in the decision making process.
b. America was not the only country that participated in WORLD War II, and though the assistance still is greatly appreaciated taking single credit for such a great human effort is an ugly thing to do.
c. WWII is a great metaphor for modern conflicts, and let us not forget Hitlers initial aggressions were based on extremely shaky interpretations of international law and norms.
d. Indeed unleashing massive military force that will result in large scale human suffering and casualties should be reserved for a certain category and magnitude of conflict - an example would be Rwanda or Bosnia or Yugoslavia.

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 25, 2003, 06:26 PM
All im saying is free the Iraqi people of this Killer. If you wont fine, America will with or without you and the world will be a better place for us, europe, and the iraqi children.

conceptdev
Feb 25, 2003, 06:37 PM
Good, you have abandonned your historical argument which was more or less the basis of this thread. Now you have reduced it to one simple and strong ethical argument - which I can & do respect.

If you want to argue your case based on these ethical principles or international law etc... I can respect that a great deal infact if there is any hope of comming to a consensus on Iraq and solving the problem (and I admint there is one) it is by having a dialogue based on these priniciples and not spurious rhetoric or prejudice - historical, cultural or otherwise.

rice_web
Feb 25, 2003, 06:49 PM
I am SICK and TIRED of EVERYONE thinking that the U.S. won the war.

We won WWI, not WWII.

In 1942, the Allies were on their way to victory, this is two years before D-Day. The Russians were ready to push back the Germans and the Allies were winning the Battle of Britain. Plus, the French Resistance was gaining momentum.

Yes, America helped during the war, but we certainly didn't win the war, we made the war end in 1945. Had it not been for the United States, war may have raged many more years, and Germany may have never "lost." (rather, it may have held on to Austria, etc.)

Mr. Anderson
Feb 25, 2003, 07:26 PM
Ah, that was a good laugh.

Hey he made his 15 minutes of fame, that's what its all about.

I wonder if his pizza is any good? ;)

D

macfan
Feb 25, 2003, 08:13 PM
That's pretty funny. Do you think the guy will ask for passports at the door? I doubt it. It is a political statement that he is still free to make in some countries, and is somewhat less offensive to me than the various Bush = Hitler signs we see at protests, and the comparisons of enforcing UN resolutions to Hitler invading Poland.

conceptdev,
WWII is a great metaphor for modern conflicts, and let us not forget Hitlers initial aggressions were based on extremely shaky interpretations of international law and norms.

I can see where you are going here. You can't see the difference between the United States in Iraq and Nazi Germany taking the Rhineland or Austria. That's quite an insult, not to mention a very weak interpretation of the events of today. How many more ceasefires and resolutions do you want Saddam to violate before you think he should be stopped? I find it hard to see the difference between France and France. I wonder if that is also an insult?

I read that France is a country where you can be put on trial for insulting someone. It's a wonder they aren't all in jail. ;)

rice_web,

we certainly didn't win the war, we made the war end in 1945.

We did make the war end in 1945. We made it end with the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers. That, my friend, is known as "winning" a war. You can look it up. Next to "winning a war" there will be a picture of a United States general accepting the unconditional surrender of the Empire of Japan on the deck of the USS Missouri.

Some of the French were helpful in winning WWII, others simply collaborated with the Nazis, sending their local Jews off to the ovens with great enthusiasm. Many countries contributed greatly to the war effort, and they should not be forgotten. Russia was almost bled dry. Of course, they had a treaty with Hitler when the war started, and proceeded to oppress all of Eastern Europe when it ended, and they didn't support us in our fight against Japan, including imprisoning US bomber pilots who flew to Russia after bombing Japan, but their contribution was critical.

The list of contributing nations is very long, but the list of nations who made the differnce in victory and defeat is very short. It is, the United States, the Soviet Union, and the British. France was a footnote. It is almost impossible to overstate the importance of American involvement in that war. Without the United States, it is safe to say that the allies would not have won. It's that simple. American industrial production, sea lift capability, aircraft production, tank production, and many other things along with American manpower is what won that war.

Here's what one of the leaders of the time had to say about it:

To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!...Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder.
- Prime Minister Winston Churchill (after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor)

conceptdev
Feb 25, 2003, 08:39 PM
First of all it is not a political statement - it is offensive to me as a citizen of the EU and its an internal matter and an illegal discrimination - infact its illegal for him not to employ someone based on nationality if they are from the EU.
I am a consultant and all these EU laws allow me to make my living with freedom of movement and employment with in the EU zone - so its not so funny for me.

The interpretation was very weak - that was the point, those rebuttals where meant to show the pointlesness of the WWII argument being presented in general - I am sick of it.

No contribution to WWII was unnecessary and every needed and appreaciated as far as I am concerned - but I refuse to accept "the if not for us you would be speaking German" line as an acceptable argument for anything other than military history. Its bull and its a complete diversionary tactic.

macfan
Feb 25, 2003, 09:27 PM
First of all it is not a political statement

It isn't? If that's not a political statement, what is? It is offensive to me, but him putting a sign in his shop should not be a crime in a free society.

You are sick of the WWII argument? That nice, but it's a very powerful argument when related to appeasement and ignoring a problem until it is too big to deal with effectively. The line of "you would be speaking German" isn't an argument in favor of action in Iraq, just a reminder intended to annoy. You are right that it is a diversionary tactic, but it is not bull. It is a pretty good assessment of history. Of course, you wouldn't actually be speaking German, just speaking French at the Nazi rallies across France.

More important than WWII history is more recent history, with France standing firm with Saddam against the United States, UK, Spain, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czech Republic etc. It may be that France will come around when the time is right, they have done so in the past, but we've missed the chance to stand together and force Saddam to comply without force, and that is a real shame because any use of military force represents failure.

medea
Feb 25, 2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by macfan
It isn't? If that's not a political statement, what is? It is offensive to me, but him putting a sign in his shop should not be a crime in a free society.

You are sick of the WWII argument? That nice, but it's a very powerful argument when related to appeasement and ignoring a problem until it is too big to deal with effectively. The line of "you would be speaking German" isn't an argument in favor of action in Iraq, just a reminder intended to annoy. You are right that it is a diversionary tactic, but it is not bull. It is a pretty good assessment of history. Of course, you wouldn't actually be speaking German, just speaking French at the Nazi rallies across France.

More important than WWII history is more recent history, with France standing firm with Saddam against the United States, UK, Spain, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czech Republic etc. It may be that France will come around when the time is right, they have done so in the past, but we've missed the chance to stand together and force Saddam to comply without force, and that is a real shame because any use of military force represents failure.
Do you actually pay attention to the news? "With France standing frim with Saddam against the United States..." France is not, and I repeat not, siding with Saddam or Iraq in any way shape or form, they agree that Saddam is an issue and want him disarmed as well, but it is not up to individual members to make a judgment on a material breach?but to the full 15-member Security Council on the basis of reports from weapons inspectors. With the rhetoric being tossed around in Washington and the Tabloids you might be forgiven for beliving the enemy is in Paris rather than Baghdad, but just look back on how Propaganda like this has been used to deface the "opposition" and you might wake up and realize who is creating the real problem here.

macfan
Feb 25, 2003, 10:06 PM
medea,
Ever hear of hyperbole?

Yes, I do pay attention to the news. I see France and others giving Saddam reason to believe there is a chance he won't be removed by force even if he doesn't disarm. I also see the US taking advantage of the situation to drive a bit of a wedge between certain members of the European community. That doesn't mean that the French carrier is on its way to the Gulf to support Saddam. The decision has been made. It's just a matter of whether or not Saddam will relent at this late date or whether France and other will join the coalition against him.

Saddam is creating the problem by his continued defiance of his agreements. I don't know who you think is creating the "real problem" here.

conceptdev
Feb 25, 2003, 10:26 PM
a bit of a wedge between certain members of the European community

Thats quite an understatement .

It would however be extremely ironic if the eastern candidates somehow missed out on there entry next year due to this - and if on top of that we could have a lovely change of government in Italy and Spain. That would be very funny because the EU constitution that would get passed which is now being written by an ex-French President would really give bush&co a coronary.

On a brief side note - where would we be today if the US had followed a dual containment strategy in regard to Iraq-Iran from day one instead of a Support-Contain?

The real problem right now is that the US is running out of "allies" to buy for this war. The global populace doesn't want it and neither do the worlds religious leaders except for some militant protestants & Islamists.

TMay
Feb 25, 2003, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by macfan
medea,
Ever hear of hyperbole?

Yes, I do pay attention to the news. I see France and others giving Saddam reason to believe there is a chance he won't be removed by force even if he doesn't disarm. I also see the US taking advantage of the situation to drive a bit of a wedge between certain members of the European community. That doesn't mean that the French carrier is on its way to the Gulf to support Saddam. The decision has been made. It's just a matter of whether or not Saddam will relent at this late date or whether France and other will join the coalition against him.

Saddam is creating the problem by his continued defiance of his agreements. I don't know who you think is creating the "real problem" here.


Saddam is doing no more nor no less than any other regional or global power with UN agreements. He uses agreements when it suits him, and ignores it when it doesn't.

It's convenient for the U.S. to point to Saddam not following the agreements that he made in 1991, but at the same time, the U.S. routinely ignores, or circumvents, the UN, the World Court, and trade agreements, dependent on the outcome would affect it.

Example. If the UN Security Council does not agree to the resolution that will be put forth by the U.S., Britain, and Spain, to initiate war with Iraq, then the UN will be ignored, and only the US and Britain, for all practical purposes, will provide forces for the invasion.

So, I see that France, which last I heard, is a right-leaning democracy, supports the views of myself and perhaps half of the US population when it determined that there isn't a reason for war at this time. Frankly, a case hasn't been made for war at all by the Bush Administration, let alone in the near term. Bush's timetable for Iraq's invasion is based on his reelection bid next year, which may be politically expedient, but certainly not a requirement for US security, based on all of the available evidence.

The U.S., France, and Britain all have histories of suppressing democracy in our own and especially in other countries with vital interests. The fact that the US is making deals with Pakistan, which is surely more dangerous than Iraq, (recall that Pakistan was supporting the Taliban, that they support terrorism, and that they trade WMD technology with the N. Koreans).

I provided a bit of backup info. More if you like, but I think that the picture is fairly clear. Waiting, with inspection, is the least dangerous policy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61856-2003Feb24.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,902366,00.html

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14552

macfan
Feb 25, 2003, 11:15 PM
It would however be extremely ironic if the eastern candidates somehow missed out on there entry next year due to this - and if on top of that we could have a lovely change of government in Italy and Spain. That would be very funny because the EU constitution that would get passed which is now being written by an ex-French President would really give bush&co a coronary.

So long as the Europeans don't go out and start a shooting war with each other again, I don't care what kind of constitution they have. There are already laws in Eurpoe that I do find to be odoious, particularly regarding freedom of speech.

On a brief side note - where would we be today if the US had followed a dual containment strategy in regard to Iraq-Iran from day one instead of a Support-Contain?

Hard to tell. We might have a unified, nuclear armed Iran/Iraq Islamic fundamentalist state run by a couple of ayatollas threatening the entire region and world. At one time there were those in the US who viewed Islamic fundamentalism as a protective barrier against Soviet domination of the Middle East region. I don't think that view survived the Carter administration given the hostage incident.

The real problem right now is that the US is running out of "allies" to buy for this war.

On the contrary, the real problem here is the failure of the international community to live up to its obligations regarding Iraq. The US has sufficient allies, even without the French. IN all seriousness, all the US really needs is one ally to provide a land base, and might not even need that. The French can get on board if they want to have an important role in the post-Saddam Iraq, but their absence will not change the outcome. The decision has been made, somewhere above France's pay grade.

digitalgiant
Feb 25, 2003, 11:20 PM
"My Father as a child walking to school with a friend was strafed by american aircraft during WWII. Nobody in the family thinks it was intentional - and thats not my suggestion - but error and civilian casualties play a large part in any war."

Then why bring it up?

"We refuse to be either victims or executioners.
Albert Camus." [/B][/QUOTE]

Thats it,,ride the fence. Who really needs a backbone anyway?;)

conceptdev
Feb 25, 2003, 11:29 PM
Digitalgiant: to illustrate that "collateral damage" is a very real part of any war.

Macfan: The constitution will outline Europes structure of power, foreign policy and defense in a way that could make life very difficult for US foreign policy.

And honestly - the Turks are being bought right now you already signed of the Northern chunk of Iraq to them and that is going to be extremely unpleasant for the Kurds. For Gods sake the Turks have been running genocide in southern Turkey for years now and its all under military control. On top of that the US is trying to sell the possibility of getting them into the EU. That doesnt include the "aid" package being discussed now.

Regarding the Poles - I can give you $10 Billion reasons in offsets as to why one could claim they have been bought.

So give Saddam weapons when he commits war crimes against the "enemy" and then use the war crimes he commited but the US was accessory to at the time to remove him when it is no longer convenient. That only works on paper - no one is buying it.

One problem is financing the war - the last gulf war the allies picked up the check, not this time.

macfan
Feb 25, 2003, 11:34 PM
Waiting, with inspection, is the least dangerous policy.

Waiting, with inspections, is not a policy. Rather, it is abdication.

If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. -- Winston Churchill

conceptdev
Feb 25, 2003, 11:39 PM
Now, as man is a free (moral) being, the notion of duty can contain only
self−constraint (by the idea of the law itself), when we look to the internal determination of the will (the
spring), for thus only is it possible to combine that constraint (even if it were external) with the freedom of
the elective will. The notion of duty then must be an ethical one.

Kant.

Constraint is the fundamental element of ethics according to Kant. I tend to agree - tell me where is there anything other than a simulacra of restraint in the US policy of war - regardless of all else.

voicegy
Feb 25, 2003, 11:51 PM
To every damn friggin' post or story about someone or some group banning this food or banning that food from whatever country that doesn't "like" us:

One Big Fat YAWN:o

macfan
Feb 26, 2003, 12:34 AM
conceptdev,

Constraint is the fundamental element of ethics according to Kant. I tend to agree - tell me where is there anything other than a simulacra of restraint in the US policy of war - regardless of all else.

The US has shown remarkable restraint on Iraq for 12 years in the vain hope that sanctions and inspections occasional bombing and exposing our own airmen and those of our friends to hostile fire on an almost daily basis would somehow check Saddam.

I'm sorry your father was strafed by an allied fighter during WWII. In war, bad things happen. My great grandfather died an early death after being exposed to German mustard gas while fighting to liberate France in WWI.

Macfan: The constitution will outline Europes structure of power, foreign policy and defense in a way that could make life very difficult for US foreign policy.

It sure would be nice if some European countries would actually start to pay for their own defense instead of relying on America to foot the bill. Of course, Europe might have to abandon some of their social programs to support it. Does the European constitution happen to include spending on its own defense as the US has been pleading with Europe to do for some time? Any chance of modernizing European forces so that they can carry some of the weight around the world as something other than glorified traffic cops? Any chance that Europe will end some of its oppressive policies towards agricultural imports from Africa? It doesn't seem that the US will ever get on the ball and fix that one in our own system. Any chance that European Union constitution will be anything other than the Articles of Confederation were in the United States?

ddtlm
Feb 26, 2003, 12:48 AM
macfan:

It sure would be nice if some European countries would actually start to pay for their own defense instead of relying on America to foot the bill.
So what is Europe being defended from, anyway?

Any chance that European Union constitution will be anything other than the Articles of Confederation were in the United States?
Probably longer lived. :)

conceptdev
Feb 26, 2003, 01:30 AM
Macfan:

The basis of the EU is laid down in a multitude of treaties which in aggregrate more or less represent the articles of confederation. There are standard procedures in virtually all matters Economic etc...

It would really be impossible to maintain a single currency without such a framework in place.

The real issue over the constitution has to do with EU presidency - what exactly is going I am not to clear and it is early in the morning. The basis of the problem is right now the presidency is rotating, which while being fair does not carry much weight. The idea is to introduce an elected president, elected by the member states - an each state gets x amount of votes. It is being crafted in a certain way to really center the power in the western EU and keep it as far away from the candidate states as possible. An other part of this is the requirement that this central EU power (or presidency) dictates foreign policy for the entire union.

Militarily Europe is in the course of setting a European Defense Rapid Reaction Force, a 40,000 - 60,000 strong body ready to move at the EUs bequest. This is primarily being pushed forward by France, Britain & Germany.

As far as defense is concerned the French and English are really stepping up their expenditures, both are building new carriers etc... The Eurofighter system is close to full deployment aswell as a good suite of missile systems.

Europes real defense problems are in aircraft. It lacks AWACS, EW, ECM, refueling & Long Rage Transport capability. I think this can be pretty easily remedied in a short time period using various Airbus platforms and the Eurofighter.

France is currently leading Europe in defense expenditure and then Britain and they are pretty much dragging the rest of the EU along whether the others realise it or not.

Everyone in Europe is very aware that we need a large defense mechanism in place to seriously articulate a unified foreign policy and its being worked on.

As far as social spending is concerned the EU does a very good job of splitting R&D and production across the states minimizing costs. As well the amount of spending no where approaches the US or is expected to. The force is for something different and won't be burdened with tasks like fortifying the DMZ.

As well recent developments could signal further defense cooperation with Russia which would be advantageous. There is a joint Franco-Russian helicopter deal that is working quite well.

The agricultural issue is imports of GM foods - which Europeans just refuse to accept. The issue with Africa I believe is that because the Europeans are refusing modified crops the Africans won't accept them either. This is difficult because those modified crops could be a real godsend for Africa.

I would say that the French in the Ivory Coast right now are more than glorified traffic cops, they are holding a potential Rwanda at bay while full diplomatic force is being put towards a political solution. Those troops are fighting and taking casualties, a month or two ago they rescued around 100 american school children, that got 5 minutes on CNN.

I do appreaciate the losses of US servicemen and don't want to denigrate them.

My great grandfather on my mothers side was a Maquis by the way - saved many people, they were not an ineffectual group of people. They may have been peasants, farmers, communists and terrorists but I don't think they should be left to the footnotes.

One thing that always puzzled me - why not indict Saddam for war crimes and go after him like that. Seriously that one little piece of paper gives you carte blance from me and probably the rest of Europe.

macfan
Feb 26, 2003, 02:44 AM
ddtim,

So what is Europe being defended from, anyway?

Given the Europeans historic propensity to start really, really big wars, they apparently need protection from themselves. Previously decimated by WWII, Europe was unable to defend itself against the Soviet Union. Thus you get the Marshall Plan whereby the United States poured massive amounts of money into rebuilding Europe. Thus you have the advent of NATO (although the French were rather reluctant on this and did not integrate their forces with the rest of us). You have decisions to provide US aid to Greece and Turkey and the policy of containment of the Soviet Union (this may not have been the best possible policy, but it did work in the end). You had such events as the Berlin airlift, where American planes provided food and coal for an entire free city in the middle of a Soviet oppressed East Germany. More recently, Europe seems unable to keep a lid of the Balkans (1914 ring a bell?) without the US having to make its presence known. Europe was unable to handle Bosnia until the US was belatedly drawn in--I think the US should have taken a leadership role sooner and we might have avoided some of the problems that followed, but that was not the policy of the Bush administration at the time. Then, Milosovec comes along and Europe can't stop whatever ethnic cleansing he had in mind for Kosovo, so it turns to--Dictator busters for a thousand, Alex--Who is Uncle Sam!--to carry the weight in putting Slobo in a little cell somewhere off in the Hague for his crimes against humanity.

The Europeans also seem unable to ensure their own engergy supplies from the middle east without the help of the US Sixth Fleet.

If Europe has finally established democratic institutions and turned its back on self destrucitve wars, and if they are finally ready to take responsibility for their own defense, then maybe the US can bring some of our people home instead of sendig them out to preserve the way of life that many European countries have grown to expect.

Probably longer lived.

One can only hope. It is hard to imagine the French giving up their cultural identity as French, and the Germans as German, etc. etc.

conceptdev,

So give Saddam weapons when he commits war crimes against the "enemy" and then use the war crimes he commited but the US was accessory to at the time to remove him when it is no longer convenient. That only works on paper - no one is buying it.

Worked with Stalin. As long as he was fighting Hitler, we build ships and sent him all the supplies we could. When he started fighting us instead, we turned around and shot his planes out of the sky in North Korea and spent billions of dollars to build a defense force capable of containing his empire. Remember that in any event, the US was a minor supplier of Saddam's arms when compared with the Russians and French. I suppose one might argue that the French are at least being consistent in that they have supported Saddam on a more regular basis, but they did break with him over the invasion of Kuwait (after much discussion and debate, of course). I haven't checked to see why we didnt sell Saddam high end jets and tanks and the like, but I think the US hardware just cost too much and was more advanced than we cared to sell to someone in that region who was not really and ally. This was not an ideal policy on the part of the US, imo, but we were constrainted by the environment of the Cold War, and we did't want either side to win. The French, meanwhile, had no problem selling Saddam Mirage fighters, Super Etendard aircraft with Exocet missiles, and other sophisticated munitions.

Regarding the Poles - I can give you $10 Billion reasons in offsets as to why one could claim they have been bought.

Regarding the French - I can give you $60 billion reasons in oil contracts between the French and Saddam as to why one could claim that France has been bought.

macfan
Feb 26, 2003, 03:12 AM
One thing that always puzzled me - why not indict Saddam for war crimes and go after him like that. Seriously that one little piece of paper gives you carte blance from me and probably the rest of Europe.

If that's all you want to see him removed, why not indict him yourself?! No one is stopping France, for instance, from promoting this. However, since about 1997, France has instead been calling for a weakening or removal of sanctions on Saddam. I don't like sanctions either, but I want to see them removed at the same time Saddam is disarmed (gone), and not before.

When I say that France is a footnote to the war, I do not mean to dengrate the courage of the French resistance after the French defeat at the hands of Hitler. Rather, it is an objecitve look at the role played by France compared to the role played by the US, USSR, and UK. Footnotes are important. Norwegian commandos, for instance, played a crucial role is stopping Hitler's heavy water project, but they are but a footnote in the overall history of that conflict. Poles played important roles in a number of instances. It is a question of scale rather than kind.

The French are doing a fine job in Ivory Coast (and they did get more than 5 minutes of coverage when dealing with the American school), but Europe as a whole is not able to handle these little crises very well without US backing. (See Kosovo, Bosnia etc).

The agricultural issue is imports of GM foods - which Europeans just refuse to accept. The issue with Africa I believe is that because the Europeans are refusing modified crops the Africans won't accept them either. This is difficult because those modified crops could be a real godsend for Africa.

That is a lot of the problem. It is not a health issue or a science issue. It is that Europe (and the US in other areas such as subsidies) care more about the votes of their farmers than the agricultural development and economic growth of Africa. Europe also imposes draconian labor regulations on African agricultural products that seriously limit the sale of African produce in Europe (there is some there, quite tasty, too, but it is nothing like what it could be, and African needs all the help it can get).

iwantanewmac
Feb 26, 2003, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
There is truth to what the pizza man is saying. I think the new young generation that didnt have to go through WWII in europe have no idea what this man is saying. They think that their freedom was just handed to them on a silver spoon not really seeing what happen to their countries a mere 50-60 years ago. They just dont get it that they all would be worshipping Adolf Hitler right now if not for some hard ball American Presidents. Just as they still dont get it that those young Iraqi"s are worshipping Saddam with his picture everywhere you go in that country though this guy has killed more of his own people then anyone in Iraq's history. Allways amazed how his picture is everywhere, but here in America we dont have pictures anywhere of our president that is in office at the current time!Democrat or Republican. When you start seeing those pictures everywhere its time to take heed. Its up to the older generation to teach those young Saddam Lovers a little of their own history and lack of forsight when it comes to dealing with Tyrants.Way to go Pizza man! Ill have a Supreme and hold those olives.

So we have to worship the U.S forever?
up my ass.....
Country's change....new leaders etc. etc.
And freeing Europe was neccesary because if the US didn't free Europe they would have had a BIG problem a few years later.

FelixDerKater
Feb 26, 2003, 07:35 AM
If that happened here, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have a field day with it.

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 26, 2003, 08:04 AM
Thanks macfan for pointing out how europe just keeps refusing to deal with these murders/killers/dictator tyrants. for some reason its just easier for them to bury their heads in the sand then actually ever doing anything!Milosovec was another good example!They just dont get this! nice posts and to the heart. Europe wake up and stop appeasing these damn Tyrants! appeasement has never been the solution.

pantagruel
Feb 26, 2003, 08:31 AM
it is pretty sick that someone not only justifies doing this but that others here agree with him. politics are politics and should not be a grounds for discrimination.

Also, people here shouldnt take every single political news article thread as their own personal playground for debate. when your debate strays away from the main point of the article/thread, then is should continue on in the Politcal Forum instead. Thats just my opininon, seems like some people are having personal political "wars" here, thats what the politcal forum was created for right?

Backtothemac
Feb 26, 2003, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by rice_web
I am SICK and TIRED of EVERYONE thinking that the U.S. won the war.

We won WWI, not WWII.

In 1942, the Allies were on their way to victory, this is two years before D-Day. The Russians were ready to push back the Germans and the Allies were winning the Battle of Britain. Plus, the French Resistance was gaining momentum.

Yes, America helped during the war, but we certainly didn't win the war, we made the war end in 1945. Had it not been for the United States, war may have raged many more years, and Germany may have never "lost." (rather, it may have held on to Austria, etc.)

Ok, you really need to go back and read your history. We played a much more minor roll in WWI. In fact, I would be embarassed as an American to say we won that war, when you Verdun, the Ardens, etc. When we came into WWII, it was not 1944 smartass, but 1941! It took that many years to plan D-Day. When we came into the war in Europe, an American Admiral after his primary briefing by British intelligence said "Damn, it looks like you are loosing this war" and brit responded with "Exactly". They had about 4 months left at best. Our airpower helped to deter the Battle of Britain. So, check you history before you talk about something that you obviously know nothing about. We did win the war. Had we not come in a created a two front war, Hitler would have been able to concentrate more Power to Russia, and no matter what happened around Moscow, Stalingrad, etc, when Hitler figured out a way to resupply his troops that far from home, he would have finished Russia.

DavidFDM
Feb 26, 2003, 09:13 AM
Let's remember Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds. This is sociopathic behavior and one cannot negotiate with a madman.

vollspacken
Feb 26, 2003, 10:35 AM
this f#*%in danish bastard obviously had too much to drink of his own disgusting mayonaise! next time I go to DK for holidays, I stop by and beat the s*#t out of this puny litte pizza-face!

just my 2 c for stupid people like this guy...:mad: :mad: :mad:

Kid Red
Feb 26, 2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by rice_web
I am SICK and TIRED of EVERYONE thinking that the U.S. won the war.

We won WWI, not WWII.

In 1942, the Allies were on their way to victory, this is two years before D-Day. The Russians were ready to push back the Germans and the Allies were winning the Battle of Britain. Plus, the French Resistance was gaining momentum.

Yes, America helped during the war, but we certainly didn't win the war, we made the war end in 1945. Had it not been for the United States, war may have raged many more years, and Germany may have never "lost." (rather, it may have held on to Austria, etc.)

We didn't win the war but we ended it? mm, seems to me the last one standing is usually the winner?

Banning germans and frenchies is in no way even remotely simliar to slavery, that's just idiotic. It's discrimination, but nowhere in the realm of slavery.

And to the poster who said 'not just france or german, it's the majority of the UN'. Who cares, it's NATO we care about and germany and france are against us currently.

Backtothemac
Feb 26, 2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Kid Red
We didn't win the war but we ended it? mm, seems to me the last one standing is usually the winner?

Banning germans and frenchies is in no way even remotely simliar to slavery, that's just idiotic. It's discrimination, but nowhere in the realm of slavery.

And to the poster who said 'not just france or german, it's the majority of the UN'. Who cares, it's NATO we care about and germany and france are against us currently.


Exactly, Kid, exactly. Great post, and thanks for speaking the truth!

Stike
Feb 26, 2003, 02:07 PM
I wonder if that pizza guy allows jews.
LOL
Gimme a gun, I want to end this disaster.
No, better, gimme a nuke. A big one.

I am sick of all of you.

Read Michael Mooreīs "Stupid White Men".
...and stop thinking YOU knew whatīs going on.

Backtothemac
Feb 26, 2003, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Stike
I wonder if that pizza guy allows jews.
LOL
Gimme a gun, I want to end this disaster.
No, better, gimme a nuke. A big one.

I am sick of all of you.

Read Michael Mooreīs "Stupid White Men".
...and stop thinking YOU knew whatīs going on.

Actually, having served this country in the military, and a Federal Agency, then yea, I do KNOW what is going on.

Michael Moore is an idiot.

macfan
Feb 26, 2003, 02:39 PM
Stike,

Read Michael Mooreīs "Stupid White Men".

Is that his autobiography?

Stike
Feb 26, 2003, 03:00 PM
Macfan, BTTM,

is this all you have? "Moore is an idiot" blah blah, how about arguments that count? I was planning not to reply to any posts here. But after those responses I can only shake my head.

If you want to criticize Moore, answer his arguments. I guess you donīt know them, so read the book first.

I wonīt discuss anything with people who are too faithful to a grotesque illusion to look at the other side of the coin. If you didnīt get that sentence, donīt bother about replying. I wonīt, too.

macfan
Feb 26, 2003, 03:31 PM
Stike,
Mr. Moore is not posting on this board. If you want to make his arguments for him, feel free to do so, but please be rational and specific. Citing his book is not sufficient, and I'm not going to make his arguments for you. I've seen his arguments, and they aren't particularly compelling.

Backtothemac
Feb 26, 2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Stike
Macfan, BTTM,

is this all you have? "Moore is an idiot" blah blah, how about arguments that count? I was planning not to reply to any posts here. But after those responses I can only shake my head.

If you want to criticize Moore, answer his arguments. I guess you donīt know them, so read the book first.

I wonīt discuss anything with people who are too faithful to a grotesque illusion to look at the other side of the coin. If you didnīt get that sentence, donīt bother about replying. I wonīt, too.

Well, I have seen his stupidity on National tv interviews, and he is a moron. Period. I have not bought his book, nor read it. Give me an example of his arugements, and I will squash them.

macfan
Feb 26, 2003, 05:35 PM
There's a radio talk show host named Larry Elder in Los Angeles who has invited Mr. Moore to come on and debate his ideas, but he has chickened out so far. I wonder if Stike will put any idea up for discussion.

Stike
Feb 26, 2003, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I wonder if Stike will put any idea up for discussion.

As I initially said: I did not want to reply, and I sure will not write any longer about this topic. I am fond of your polemics. And *you* use the word "discussion". LOL. Sad.

macfan
Feb 26, 2003, 08:20 PM
Sike,
As I initially said: I did not want to reply, and I sure will not write any longer about this topic. I am fond of your polemics. And *you* use the word "discussion". LOL. Sad.

I didn't expect that you would have an real issue to debate.