TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Simpsons Speaketh the Truth!

The Simpsons Speaketh the Truth!

Yes this was kinda mentioned before but I just realized something pretty funny ...

From CNN. . .

The restaurant menus in the three House office buildings will change the name of "french fries" to "freedom fries," a culinary rebuke of France, stemming from anger over the country's refusal to support the U.S. position on Iraq. Ditto for "french toast," which will now be know as "freedom toast." The name changes were spearheaded by two Republican lawmakers who plan to hold a news conference Tuesday to make the name changes official on the menus.

From the Simpsons ...

Grampa Simpson: 3 wars back we called sauerkraut Liberty Cabbage. And we called Liberty Cabbage Super Slaw.

If anybody is a huge fan like me I know you'll appreciate this

Sigh ... I was hoping to make a rare, humorous escape from the constant reiterations of this forum. Oh well, I guess you can't take the political out of the political forum

- Well, I find it stupid, and funny how they are able to name FRENCH FRIES to FREEDOM FRIES.. besides sounding WACK! Its jsut plain IDIOTIC!. Its nothing against the Republican legislators, but COME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF is wrong with them??

-Instead of actually making me laught, it makes me puke of how this legislators (supposedly educated), are doing things their own ways just because of the way they feel. If I ever see a STORE with the name of FREEDOM FRIES, I swear I will up to them and go.. THIS FRIES ARE NAMED SOOOO GAAAAAAAYYY.. IM OUTTA HERE.. disgrace!

Future Simpson predictions:

Abe Simpson: Now, my story begins in 19-dickety-two. We had to say "dickety" 'cause that Kaiser had stolen our word "twenty". I chased that rascal to get it back, but gave up after dickety-six miles...

Replace Kaiser with Saddam

My last word about this "freedom" (insert food prefixed with French here) hullabaloo:

I really do feel the French are handling this whole situation in a very poor manner but I myself wouldn't go as far as to start changing menus nationwide to spite someone who honestly isn't our (main) antagonist, as Germany was in WWI.

Having said that I understand why people would be that upset with the French and its within their right to rename food items, boycott French products, not visit France, etc. However, it's also my right to think of these people as jingoistic and unreasonable dopes.

yeh kinda dumb. if they didnt want the word "french" in there, might have changed it to just "fries" or "fried potato sticks"

i'll have a burger and some freedom fries
>JM<

Maybe we'll rename french class to freedom class

or rename a french kiss to a freedom kiss




ha, all this shit is soooo dumb
it makes me ashamed

So Larry Bird is now from Freedom Lick, Indiana? hehehe

This could go on and on and on....

Mmmmm pass the freedom onion soup!

respect to the FRENCH ..atleast someone in this world has BALLS for fucks sake..

Yes let us not forget French natinal security

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030220-11583742.htm

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm

The Simpsons always speak the truth!

During WWI, in addition to renaming saurkraut "liberty cabbage," frankfurters were for the first time renamed "hot dogs" and german was banned in many states as foreign language in schools.

How little changes in 90 years...

Brilliant post Vesa.

I think it's hard not to be suprised by the overwhelming anti-French sentiment at the moment. From some of the articles I've read from US newspapers, you'd think it was the French who masterminded the WTC attacks and all this talk of renaming "French Fries" and boycotting French products would be comical if it weren't so gravely ignorant.

I think that the lampooning of the French in the right-wing media stems from the method of thought that's been conditioned in people from the speeches made by the US government since the Sept 11 attacks. It's been very black and white - good vs evil, righteousness vs evil, "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists". All of a sudden - due to 18 months of this moral "conditioning" - it may be difficult for the average American citizen to understand that the French - who are going against the US in this venture - are still, at base, US allies determined to preserve the "good" and "freedom" in this world and to eliminate terrorism, yet they just see a more peaceful alternative to this war. I think that, before any US citizen starts having a go at the French for their stance, remember, as Ves pointed out, we're all involved in this together and we all want the same outcome: namely, peace and security. Though the French view on how to acheive this differs from the US view, it should not be assumed that the French are in any way opposed to what the US are attempting to stand for in this regard and that contrary to the "us vs them" mentality the US have already succeeded in instilling in much of the world-wide community, both sides crave the same outcome and this stubborn "stand-off" stands to benefit no-one.

I hope that France vetoes the upcoming resolution (with strong support from Russia, China and Germany) and that the US - instead of adopting a self-righteous "We'll do what we like anyway" stance as we expect them to - can use this as a spring-board to identify the need for discussion and compromise instead of the knee-jerk rejection of opposing viewpoints that we see now. I hope that Dominique De Villepin gets the conference he wants (involving active discussion bewteen all the heads of states central to this debate) and that a compromise can be worked out without either side backing down from the humanitarian principles of peace and freedom that everyone should be working towards.

Sadly, having said all this, my hopes for a situation like this occurring are not high. The sides have already dug their trenches: France will veto, the US will go to war anyway. It's unfortunate, but if the US would just listen to international opinion - and organise the conference that De Villepin speaks of in the hopes of reaching a compromise of sorts - instead of just sitting defiantly in their corner deflecting any and all criticism directed at it, we might get somewhere. But first the US must be desisted from its unilateralstic mentality, and, personally, I can't see that happenning at any time in the near future.

Okay, what Vesa is basically saying is that Chirac merely takes the huge threat of his own Muslim population into consideration. Egoistically he fears that approving of the Iraq war would lead to increased Terrorism in his very country. To be honest...I don't buy that at all. By that notion Blair should do exactely the same, Britain having Europe's second largest Muslim community. 3 months ago France sent hundreds of troops to defend its interests in the Ivory Cost. An uprising was brutally smashed down. So? Did Chirac extendedly ponder about possible consequences in terms of Terrorism at home? Je ne crois pas.

Renegade, try to look at it from a different angle, too. You keep saying that the USA should "finally listen". What about France? Isn't their "NO" just as stubborn as the American "Yes" ? France doesn't care about Powell's speeches, evidence provided by Blix or anything else which suggests that the situation is not toally clear (war being a priori wrong). You complain about the dualistic world view indocrinated after Sept 11, but isn't France directly supporting such a Black/White world? After all, when you leave all the talking aside, you'll see that the Americans have NOT simply battered every country whenever they wished. Even it the much more "obvious" Afghanistan case, war followed 2 months of extensive diplomatic efforts.
Today it's been SEVEN months since the USA first proposed the disarmament of Iraq (sept. 12) and still no war. If the US were indeed as reckless and ignorant as you point out they wouldn't have given a fuck and concquered Bagdad in December. Without their military pressure (THEIR pressure not the French or Russian one) nothing, absoultey nothing would have been achieved.

If we look back a few weeks and months, the French hipocrisy is soon revealed.
Summer 2002: Schroeder on the top of his election campaign says he'd never support a war against Iraq. At that time he's left alone, but since the majority of the Germans strongly agree, Schroeder's win despite many domestic problems. A political "Ice Age" between Germany and the US starts.
November 2002: UN Resolution 1441 passed by (I think the entire?) council. After little amendments the council still agrees to threat with "serious consequences" if a breach of the resolution occurs. France and Russia support this policy: Comply fully and completely or face the consequences
January 2003: Iraq has still not "fully and completely" complied. Blix complains. The voices against war, however, get loudr and louder. Germany (still on the "NO, whatever the case"-road) and France (indifferent, leaning towards "peaceful disarmament") meet to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Elyse� treaty and decide to stand together against the American plans. France now insists on "peaceful disarmament".
February: Global freedom movement, even in Britain and the US. Does France really care? Well in the sense that it rides on the public opinion's back. France now finished its "metamorphosis" and recognizes the historical chance of building a big coalition against the superpower thereby raising its own status. France is on such an ego-tripo now that Eatern European countries who showed their support for America are ridiculed and condemened, treated like France's little pupils.
March 5th: That's it, France Russia and Germany made the historical decision of changing the current world order: Their NO doesn't have anything to do with Saddam, Blix or Al-Samoud misslies anymore. It's the poker game against the USA, USING the world's opinion for their own interests: Paralying and isolating the giant America.

France is not what I'd call hoenst about peace, as good as Dominique's Hollywood speeches might be.
What we got now is a fucked up Nato a fucked up EU and a much more fucked up UN. The west against the west.
Is abandoning war an escape? I highly doubt it. That would leave Saddam and Europe as the big winners without any real accomplishments. The world of diplomacy would have been damaged "for free".

here is a question that maybe someone can anwser. Why now, why not 3 years ago, why not 2 years from now, why does the US deside that Irak has once again become a threat? I think Bush just use 9/11 as a slig shot to carry a war and attempt to blind his own ppl of their growing deffecit. I really just can't figure out any other reason why all of a sudden Irak becomes a threat once again. anyone ?????

Oh and don't get me wrong im not saying they aren't, the timing for the war just puzzles me

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_B here is a question that maybe someone can anwser. Why now, why not 3 years ago, why not 2 years from now, why does the US deside that Irak has once again become a threat? I think Bush just use 9/11 as a slig shot to carry a war and attempt to blind his own ppl of their growing deffecit. I really just can't figure out any other reason why all of a sudden Irak becomes a threat once again. anyone ?????

Because past presidents were lazy in putting pressure on Iraq in the past. The fact that it was never enforced in the past is poor justification for it not being enforced in the present.

quote:

You keep saying that the USA should "finally listen". What about France? Isn't their "NO" just as stubborn as the American "Yes" ?

I don't deny that both sides are being unnecessarily stubborn in this issue, not for a second. My point was though, if the US had come to the UN and said "we feel that war may be for the best in this situation, what does everyone else think?" instead of "we're going to war, plenty of room on the bangwagon otherwise screw you" then this situation could have been averted. The US have never once given an indication that they are willing to compromise. They have made it clear: either the UN security council votes for their war on their terms, or they'll go it alone. Not once have I heard Powell, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney or anyone else give the slightest indication that they are going to acknowledge the perspective of anyone else in the UN. France, Russia, China, Germany et al, on the other hand, have repeatedly called for a unified security council, and have called for negotiation and compromise, yet it's impossible to make any progress in this regard when you have one nation who - at base - just does not care what anyone else thinks.

So France, while it's easy to view them as an "old superpower" just trying to reclaim some old glory by thwarting the current superpower, I think that that's an incredibly simplistic view. I don't think that the French national self-esteem is that low that they'd try to score a few points off the US by doing what they are now. Fact is, they haven't been left with much choice: the majority of nations around the world oppose the US's war (or, at least, do not profess support for it) and if the US is not willing to take this opinion on board and at least try to reach some sort of compromise, then I fail to see why France should be obliged to give the war a legitimacy it quite frankly does not deserve. The US can say what they want about this "undermining" the legitimacy of the UN, but fact is, there's only one faulty cog, and it isn't France.

For instance, consider the outrage coming out of the US that France would have the "audacity" to veto this war (even though only 4 of the 15 members are currently certain to sanction it any way) and cast your minds back to December last year (about 10 weeks before France announced they would veto):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/2596249.stm

Amazing how these sorts of things can get overlooked in the swarm of anti-French fervour. Then, take a look at the amount of resolutions that the US have vetoed despite overwhelming Security Council support:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/securit...to/vetosubj.htm

Notice a common theme here? Table any resolution that could in anyway been construed as pro-Palestinian or anti-Isreali, and the US - almost as a knee-jerk reaction - will veto despite the fact that in virtually all the cases listed there, 13-14 members of the security council voted in favour of the resolution. From an unbiased perspective, Trancegiant, would you not say that these actions - regardless of your feelings on the Isreali / Palestinian conflict - are undermining the integrity of the United Nations and is, at base, extremely stubborn? Can you honestly say that the behaviour of the French in this case (when Russia and China are likely to veto any resolution authorizing use of force in the near future as well - and that's if they get the nine votes to start with!) is more stubborn than the pattern of behaviour demonstrated by the US here?

To spell it out even further, since 1976, the US have weilded the veto 64 times. The next highest number of times the veto has been used (by Britain) is 19. The US represents 20% of the permanent members, yet is accountable for 61% of the vetoes over that period of time. Do you think that's fair? Do you think that the US really held the opinion of the UN - or of the international community in general - in that high a regard when they are willing to single-handedly subvert the will of other nations so blatantly and so consistently? Do they really have the right to accuse France of shirking it's responsibilities or to suggest that the UN is in danger of becoming "irrelevent" in the face of this case history? I don't think so.

The US have painted themselves into a corner in this situation by refusing any possibility of a compromise. If France must veto the resolution to have the voice of the international community heard (if not abided by) then so be it.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.