French and Germans are banned from Danish pizza joint

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by peter2002, Feb 25, 2003.

  1. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #1
    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 :)

    [​IMG]
     
  2. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #2
    I hope they'll ban chinks, too. Those "people" (they are all communists you know) piss me off.
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #3
    Re: French and Germans are banned from Danish pizza joint

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

    Damn!

    Taft
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    g30ffr3y

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    buffalo ny
    #4
    sarcasm galore?
     
  5. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2002
    #5
    This Man Is a Moron.

    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.
     
  6. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    #7
    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.
     
  8. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2002
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #9
    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?
     
  10. macrumors 68030

    medea

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Location:
    Madison, Wi
    #10
    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.
     
  11. macrumors 68030

    medea

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Location:
    Madison, Wi
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2002
    #12
    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.
     
  13. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2002
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    rice_web

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota
    #15
    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.)
     
  16. Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #16
    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
     
  17. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #17
    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,
    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 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:

     
  18. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2002
    #18
    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.
     
  19. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors 68030

    medea

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Location:
    Madison, Wi
    #20
    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.
     
  21. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #21
    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.
     
  22. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2002
    #22
    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.
     
  23. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Location:
    Carson City, NV
    #23
    ...defiance of agreements...


    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
     
  24. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #24
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  25. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 29, 2002
    Location:
    Knoxville Tenneesse
    #25
    "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?;)
     

Share This Page