redman Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 My father, who loves the Danes after having done some business with them, forwarded this one on to me. I don't have either a link or a source: Danish pizzeria bans French and Germans A 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." See, there are some sane Europeans out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 actually that sounds ALMOST as ridiculous as "freedom fries" I am assuming you are of the opinion also that anyone against the war is somehow commiting treason or a traitor?? I still don't understand why someone opposed to going to war is any less of a citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Europeans are correct that the US has to take a more active role in trying to rebuild some semblance of a peace process in the Middle East. The Palestinian/Israeli war of attrition is only aiding those forces that wish to exploit the violence to show that the US doesn't care about the welfare of anyone in the Arab world. what the mainstream European press is WRONG about is that action on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict alone will reduce or eliminate the threats of terrorism we have faced in the US and Europe over the past several years. It will not. we have to maintain a TWO track approach that BOTH seeks to address that long standing regional conflict AND seeks to disarm and pull the teeth out of regimes and groups that have committed themselves to open confrontation. because of the their economic ties to even the most extreme regimes in North Africa and the Middle East, the French believe this latter step is not necessary. dialogue and continuing economic engagement will moderate the course of these governments and the groups they support. glancing back at the history of the 20th Century this is not a position that has shown to hold much merit. less so when considering the actions of those who believe they are operating not out of mere self-interest (such as Hussein) but out of a commitment to a religious-based ideology. so, if such a particular approach to engagement has not and is not working with Hussein, it will stand no chance of working with Al-Qaeda and governments like those in Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by NoCalMike actually that sounds ALMOST as ridiculous as "freedom fries" I am assuming you are of the opinion also that anyone against the war is somehow commiting treason or a traitor?? I still don't understand why someone opposed to going to war is any less of a citizen. I think you don't quite understand the whole situation Mike. I don't have a problem with other countries having valid objections to fighting a War but France and Germany don't. The only reasons why the French are against the War is because they have an 8 billion dollar contract with Iraq for oil and they like to stab us in the back every chance they get. They have been doing it for the last 40 years. The Germans have trading interests in Iraq and they have been selling Iraq prohibited materials for the last 10 years. That's the reason why their stance against a War is bullsh*t IMO. It's not because they fear war or hold some moronic "honorable" stance against war. It's only because they will lose money over the situation. Also, for government leaders in France and Germany to compare our President to Hitler is another reason to dislike them. In case you don't realize this France is trying to kick the US out of Europe and set themselves up as the new leader. They want to have control of European affairs and policy. They have gotten the Germans to buy into their idea but not many others (oh Belgium too). The funny thing is most other European countries view a possible French led Europe with horror esp eastern European countries who soon will be a part of the EU and NATO. Chirac was so upset by their pro-US views he said they needed to "shut up" and they were "Infantile." I have never heard a leader of a country make those kinds of remarks about another country in my entire life. It just shows how desperate the French want to silence any Pro-US view in Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by 56Arrington56 I think you don't quite understand the whole situation Mike. I don't have a problem with other countries having valid objections to fighting a War but France and Germany don't. The only reasons why the French are against the War is because they have an 8 billion dollar contract with Iraq for oil and they like to stab us in the back every chance they get. They have been doing it for the last 40 years. The Germans have trading interests in Iraq and they have been selling Iraq prohibited materials for the last 10 years. That's the reason why their stance against a War is bullsh*t IMO. It's not because they fear war or hold some moronic "honorable" stance against war. It's only because they will lose money over the situation. Also, for government leaders in France and Germany to compare our President to Hitler is another reason to dislike them. In case you don't realize this France is trying to kick the US out of Europe and set themselves up as the new leader. They want to have control of European affairs and policy. They have gotten the Germans to buy into their idea but not many others (oh Belgium too). The funny thing is most other European countries view a possible French led Europe with horror esp eastern European countries who soon will be a part of the EU and NATO. Chirac was so upset by their pro-US views he said they needed to "shut up" and they were "Infantile." I have never heard a leader of a country make those kinds of remarks about another country in my entire life. It just shows how desperate the French want to silence any Pro-US view in Europe. if you think we're in this thing for any other reason than money you're naive. And I also think the freedom fries thing is dumb. just because some other country isnt gung-ho about sending soldiers and starting a destabalizing war, is no reason to stop selling french fries or french wine. We spend so much time talking about free speech and freedom of action, but the first time someone doesnt agree with us we pull this crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by 56Arrington56 I think you don't quite understand the whole situation Mike. I don't have a problem with other countries having valid objections to fighting a War but France and Germany don't. The only reasons why the French are against the War is because they have an 8 billion dollar contract with Iraq for oil and they like to stab us in the back every chance they get. They have been doing it for the last 40 years. The Germans have trading interests in Iraq and they have been selling Iraq prohibited materials for the last 10 years. That's the reason why their stance against a War is bullsh*t IMO. It's not because they fear war or hold some moronic "honorable" stance against war. It's only because they will lose money over the situation. Also, for government leaders in France and Germany to compare our President to Hitler is another reason to dislike them. In case you don't realize this France is trying to kick the US out of Europe and set themselves up as the new leader. They want to have control of European affairs and policy. They have gotten the Germans to buy into their idea but not many others (oh Belgium too). The funny thing is most other European countries view a possible French led Europe with horror esp eastern European countries who soon will be a part of the EU and NATO. Chirac was so upset by their pro-US views he said they needed to "shut up" and they were "Infantile." I have never heard a leader of a country make those kinds of remarks about another country in my entire life. It just shows how desperate the French want to silence any Pro-US view in Europe. Umm, well I'd say those reasons you listed could also reflect on why the USA refuses to go after Saudi Arabia even though 75% of the terrorists were Saudi citizens, for money and oil. Every country has pros and cons to a war between the USA & Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Oh yeah, we are in it for the money!!! It's going to cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars to wage war against Iraq. After that it will cost us hundreds of billions more for humanitarian aid and to rebuild the country. And you call me naive? Get a clue...:doh: And don't even say it's because of oil because that is a load of bullsh*t. Also, you didn't challenge one single thing I said in my previous post. You just spouted the typical liberal crap as usual. The first time someone disagrees with us??? Are you for real??? The French have been doing this since the 1950's. This isn't "the first time someone doesn't agree with us." Destabilizing to whom? All the countries that border Iraq are in support of the US. Hell, the Iranians are even in support although they won't say it publicly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by NoCalMike Umm, well I'd say those reasons you listed could also reflect on why the USA refuses to go after Saudi Arabia even though 75% of the terrorists were Saudi citizens, for money and oil. Every country has pros and cons to a war between the USA & Iraq. I would like to know who we would go after in Saudi Arabia? Are you talking about the Saudi Government? The same government we have had a positive relationship with since 1933? The problem isn't the government so to speak. They tried to play both sides of the fence (US&terrorists) but now they realize that doesn't work. That's why they announced that they will be reforming the government and starting elections for a new parliament soon. Just because the majority of the terrorists were Saudis doesn't mean it's the governments fault. It makes sense that they were if you think about it. Osama is a Saudi and the biggest reason why he attack us was because we have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. It is understandable that message will appeal most to Saudi Terrorists because they think it effects them personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Holdup now... I was perfectly fine reading everyone's opinion until the Saudis were brought up. Don't think for a second that the Saudis don't have an interest in either the Israeli/Pallestine conflict or the U.S. involvement in the destabilization of the Middle East. The Saudis are our "allies", and I use that word lightly, only because they are aware that they would be Iraqis or Iranians or Syrians without our protection. Let's not forget that had we not interferred in the land grab the Iraqis executed in Kuwait in 91 that the Saudis were next. I think it's becoming rather clear that the Saudis don't have our best interest in mind, from the hijackers they breed and raise money for, to the refusal to send their flight passenger lists to the U.S. before their planes land on American soil. One more thing, it's quite clear what the solution to the I/P crisis consists. The removal of the 70 something jewish settlements on Pallestine recognized land, the formalizing of a neighborhood in Pallestine to be recognized as the capital, and an international force to control and monitor the "holy sites" that both claim a right to. Unfortunately, no one is willing to accept the above terms....so the fighting will continue to for another 100 years until every young jewish and palestinian boy is either dead or maimed. Finally, if we're not careful.... We being the United States... the Israelis will have us killing their natural enemies all over the world. I'm waiting for the independent media to find what would amount to the Balfour Declaration outlining their wants and compensation for our help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Northern Cal, It's not that being against war makes you less of a citizen. It's being against a war that doesn't yet exist that makes you questionable, but even that doesn't make you less of a citizen. What makes a person less of a citizen is when they agree that Saddam is a problem, that something must be done, that the people of Iraq deserve freedom, that there is a potential threat here, and yet, the U.S. must let the U.N. guide U.S. foreign policy. Any person who thinks the U.N. should have control over how the U.S. deals with threats it deems real to the nation is a lesser citizen because that person is willing to subjugate the U.S. and the U.S. Constutition to a toothless body of nations that treats free governments and murderous dictatorships as equal partners. Anyone stating the U.S. should do what the U.N., or France, or Germany, says, is a lesser citizen. Storm, You wrote about a destabilizing war. I had no idea we were talking about a rock-solid, stable region here. Are you seriously of the mind that this region can be destabilized by the removal of a leader who has attacked three other nations in the region? If so, don't you realize that might be a bit foolish? I mean, its destabilizing for us to take out a guy who repeatedly attacks his neighbors? Do you even get how over the top that is? War also wasn't destabilizing in Afghanistan. In months we did what the Soviets couldn't do in years. We removed a government, installed another, and have begun the process of pacifying a nation that will take years to pacify. Further, the whole freedom of speech and action thing does allow people who are disgusted by the pacifism and ignorance of another to be expressed does it not? Or is it your thought that freedom of speech and action can only extend to one side. That one side should be freely able to do anything it wants and the other side shouldn't express any thoughts? Doesn't that seem odd to you as well when you think about it? As for Saudi Arabia and North Korea and Pakistan and any other country the left enjoys throwing up there as an example of a nation we aren't going after right now as if it means Iraq should be left alone. Of the nations in the world which one is living under the terms of a surrender caused by its own military action toward a neighbor? Iraq. Which one has failed to live to those terms and proven time and again to flaunt those terms? Iraq. While no one doubts there is a potential problem in North Korea and Saudi Arabia that may one day require our attention, the fact remains that no other country in the world is Iraq. Iraq stands alone in this world. And its actions in the recent past allow a certain moral authority to the rest of the world over how it behaves. As tangible as the problem may be in Saudi Arabia, you can't proceed against them as you can against Iraq because of the history. That said, when we get the "new government" of Iraq to sign a treaty giving us land for a military base on their soil that can never be broken, we'll come out of Saudi Arabi and perhaps start to look that direction in a little while . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 NoCalMike....you have to be kidding? right? What the French are doing is cynical in the extreme.......their true objective is undercutting American power....nothing more...nothing less.... They are not abiding by the very resoultions they helped establish! A lot of hard negotitiation went into 1441 and the other dozen or so resolutions. The French have been among the first to violate these resolutions and they have undercut the true legitimacy of the security council by refusing to enforce the wording, which all understand, of 1441..."serious consequences".... one can be free to voice anti-war opinions...there's no special pass however from vociferous criticism of one's opinions....I personally throw in the rejoinder that there is no free pass from accountability either........ these folks may not be "less of a citizen".........so what....they may still be Forest Gumps...."Stupid is as Stupid Does"......and when they advocate positions that influence the collective risk...then, yes, it's more than some idle barbershop conversation and placard waving.......sorry.....but there is nothing wrong with shouting back........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Storm....you have no clue what is going on if you think this is all about money.........and economic actions are a legitimate (and some would argue peaceful - given alternatives) method for venting frustrations.....even if the efffect is at the margins....I will cease buying French and German goods for a while........ and I think we should follow-up on the low-level discussions underway for moving much of our basing structure in Europe to East European countries.........want to see some true "destabilizing" in action?.....ok........let's play some real high stakes hardball......... and btw.....all the money we funnel through the UN and other organizations for medical supplies, food, economic development....I quite agree that we need a less expansionist, "hegemonistic", posture in the world........it's time we neo-colonialists recognize that we have exceeded our bounds and that we retrench......let's address our problems at home first.......time to cut back the military presence overseas...and it's time to flow the $$$$ back to our own citizenry......no more American taxpayer money overseas!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Cmon guys. It's all about oil. The French oil contracts, the German oil contracts............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 the Wesson oil contracts...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 26, 2003 Author Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by NoCalMike Umm, well I'd say those reasons you listed could also reflect on why the USA refuses to go after Saudi Arabia even though 75% of the terrorists were Saudi citizens, for money and oil. Every country has pros and cons to a war between the USA & Iraq. I love how opponents of Bush seize on any argument that seems available to them without looking at the larger picture. On the one hand, NCMike, you're probably one who utilizes arguments like "So we're going to bomb every country that we don't like?" when speaking about Iraq. OTOH, you turn around and try to say that Saudi Arabia is the same as Iraq and advocate attacking them. It's a stupid argument and a ridiculous dichotomy. There are a multitude of reasons to decide in favor of or against waging war on the threats against us right now, and you focus only on one: idealogy/anti-American sentiment. That's incredibly simplistic, but I know why you do it and that's out of convenience, to make an argument against a policy and a president that you don't like. Do you weigh the alternatives and their corresponding risks and effectiveness? Do you bother to note the difference between acts by individuals and acts by governments? Do you bother to even mention a long-term, comprehensive plan or goal? No, you just seize on a stupid argument that's convenient to you at the moment. I'm sure it will soon be forgotten as you move on to the next one. You're free to do that just as I'm free to tell you how stupid and simplistic and disengenuous it is. Ain't freedom great? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 26, 2003 Author Share Posted February 26, 2003 Challenge to those who say we're in it for the money: Explain this. How are we going to get money by invading Iraq? Did we get money out of invading Kuwait and Southern Iraq in 1991, and if so how? Do you believe that we're going to simply steal/take land and oil from Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 The Liberal answer will beone of the following 1- Bush is a moron, a ******* or a baby liller, or maybe Hitler. 2- We gave Saddam the weapons. 3- Haliburton is Cheneys old company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.