Jump to content
Hondo's Bar

NO MORE FRENCH FRIES!!!!


Piggylover69
 Share

Recommended Posts

House cafeterias change names for 'french fries' and 'french toast'

Move reflects anger over France's stance on Iraq

By Sean Loughlin

CNN Washington Bureau

Tuesday, March 11, 2003 Posted: 5:45 PM EST (2245 GMT)

 

 

 

Reps. Walter Jones, left, and Bob Ney announce the name changes on House menus as a Tuesday news conference.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Story Tools

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

RELATED

Restaurant serves 'freedom fries'

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The cafeteria menus in the three House office buildings changed the name of "french fries" to "freedom fries," in 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 be known as "freedom toast."

 

The name changes were spearheaded by two Republican lawmakers who held a news conference Tuesday to make the name changes official on the menus.

 

Across the country, some private restaurants have done the same.

 

"This action today is a small, but symbolic effort to show the strong displeasure of many on Capitol Hill with the actions of our so-called ally, France," said Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, the chairman of the Committee on House Administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uhm...ok.

 

I admit, the lil battles can be funny. Heartless once told me this story of a bake sale the student republican comittee over by Berkley (didnt know they had one) had in honor of affirmative action: cookies were for sale, about 50 cents if your black, 75 if your asian, a buck fifty if youre white.

Like it or not, it was clever. More so than our house and its menu i guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More so than our house and its menu i guess.

Menu. That's another word that needs to go. From now on, menus will be refered to as "food lists." Now, what to do about French Stewart.

 

In case you didn't know, this is exactly what we did in WW1 with germany foods. Hamburger bacame salsbury steak. Frankfauter became hot dog. Saurkrat became Victory cabbage or something liek that. I'm tempted to say we haven't evolved, but then I remember France isn't our enemy, they're our ally who doesn't agree with us. That mean instead of simply not evolving, we're actually devolving. God Bless America!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

France isn't our enemy, they're our ally who doesn't agree with us.

 

Sure their an ally but why should I not be pissed at france? They've told us they don't care what plan we offer they will VETO anything involving force. I'm sorry but force is going to be neccessary against Iraq. This man won't leave on his own accord, he won't improve his treatment of his people, and he'd rather destroy it all than let anyone else take over. Sooner or later War will happen in iraq.

 

Its not so much even the disagreement that I'm pissed at. Its the fact that they don't care what resolution we come up with or what proof we find, they won't sign of on war just because its war. The french president was quoted as saying "To us, War equals Failure" All surrender jokes aside I agree with this comment. Wars means the failure of diplomacy.

 

When diplomacy fails then war is neccessary to bring things back to rights. You can't just ignore atrocities and hope they go away, you can't just sit back and say its not my problem, you can't push a diplomatic resolution when its not being listened to. War doesn't happen because its fun, war happens because there are no other options that will work. To ignore that and do nothing once diplomacy fails will send a green light to Saddam, N. Korea and anyone else that has a beef with us to come join the fun and kick the harmless USA in the ass while it can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lemme ask you all something? Does George W. represent your exact views on everything?

 

naturally that means that we can't blame the french for their leaders' attemp to prove that France is still relevant to the world.

 

We should not antagonize the French either. They might decide dto kick our asses and they have a strong military history:

 

 

So the French still aren't on board with us spanking Iraq. Oh

boo hoo. Let's take a look at the mighty French military

prowess, shall we?

 

 

Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next

2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all

things, an Italian.

 

Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female

schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French

Warfare: "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a

Frenchman."

 

Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country

to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians. Wars of Religion -

France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

 

Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but

manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that

eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

 

War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red

flowerpots as chapeaux.

 

The Dutch War - Tied

 

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian

War Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces

deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the

height of French military power.

 

War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the

French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved

every since.

 

American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar

to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English

colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle

Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare:

"France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

 

French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the

opponent was also French.

 

The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the

First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being

no match for a British footwear designer.

 

The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of

drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday

night.

 

World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by

the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's

like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call

her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American

forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

 

World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United

States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel

Song.

 

War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to

bed with the Dien Bien Flu.

 

Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a

western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades,

and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: "We can always

beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of

the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish,

Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

 

War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history,

surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to

surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in

a McDonald's.

 

 

The question for any country silly enough to count on the French

should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How

long until France surrenders?"

 

 

 

==============================

 

I don't know where that piece came from, but it's author is definitely a brilliant historan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All very true. While any president will probably never bee 100% in line with his peoples views he does represent his country when he speaks. I haven't heard much from the french other than boycotts and namecalling.

 

And their Military history is very embarassing. They probably wouldnt even be contributing troops though. Their merely opposing the principal of a war they wouldn't be much involved in. AND they've basically said even if its proven to the council's satisfactin that war is needed they'll ignore the proof and still veto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what? While we're at it, lets get rid of some more bullshit French words we use for decoration...

 

Rendezvouz - Howabout just "You Are Here" or "The Weed spot" or something. The meeting place.

 

Bouquet - Just call em a dozen, 1/2 dozen, 2 dozen, whatever... fuck bouquet.

 

Croissant - Howabout just "flaky bread". Fuck that cwa-sont pronunciation, doesn't make sense anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sacre bleu! I bet you dont mind lingerie. I used to think it was funny when my old man pronounced french words phonetically.

 

Wow, there's wars on that one i didnt know took place, but my favorite bit:

 

War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.

 

On a side note, Chrpnbrd was recently telling me she believed she read an article that said France's true reason for the opposition to the war wasnt as much humanitarianism as it was their own oil interests in Iraq...have others read this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could we be involved with such losers...?

 

Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

 

Damn you AIDS!!!! :angry: If it wasn't for that then mabey we could have some allies that back up up. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All opinions about the French aside, the thing that disappoints me the most here is that two Republican lawmakers actually spent their time, energy, and I'm sure a decent amount of our taxes, to push this little proposition through the House. And they even took the time to hold a press conference on it! What are they trying to do? Show the French just we will do to humiliate them? Something tells me that no one in France gives a damn about what we do with our food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, No, No NO.

 

This is all wrong.

 

France was wrong to oppose the UN resolution, especially if they did it out of selfish reasons.

 

BUT

 

we can't expect them to support the US just for WW2.

 

First of all, the US didn't rescue France. Russia beat the Germans. THey killed 10 Germans for every 1 that the US got. And they lost 20 Million people doing it. So, if the French owe anyone anything it's the Russians.

 

Second, France gained freedom from Germany so they have a right to excercise that freedom. And to think that France owes the US is like a jerk who takes a girl out for dinner and thinks that she owes him some pussy.

 

France SHOULD have supported the US resolution, but not out of some imaginary gratitude.

 

================================

 

Something else: We all like to make fun of the French's military 'glory', but if the US had shared a border with Germany in 1940, they would have gone down just as quick. They had no proper tanks, no proper airplanes and would have stood no chance against the incredible German war machine (which was to the rest of the world then, what the US is now.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not arguing wiht you there but we had an allience with them so we stood up agianst them even when it look liked we were gonna get our ass kicked.

 

We may not have killed as many Germans as the Russians did but We helped them Because of our allience so did Russia. After siding with Germany but soon found out that Hitler was using them... When Russia was going in they were fighting them like they just raped their sister. When we were going in we didn't especially wan t to but we did for two reasons. (1)We were afriad that Germany's power would grow too great for us to stop them by the time they started making it over the ocean. (2)We had an allence with France so we stuck with it because that is what you are suppose to do!!!

 

You stupid pussys France!! :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, The Russians planned to fight Hitler all along. They just entered into a peace treaty with Germany so that they could get time to build up their forces.

 

 

The French are still in Alliance with the US. they never broke any agreement.

 

NATO is a defensive alliance, which states that an attack on one is an attack on all.

 

The US is attacking another country FIRST. So the Alliance doesn't enter into it.

 

The French have no obligation to follow the US into a fight that the US goes looking for. The French people Genuinely believe that it's wrong to go to war so quickly. They aren't Saddam supporters.

 

They're wrong, in my opinion, but France has a right to do that.

 

I remember something the French President said - "Only your real friends tell you when you're wrong."

 

The French see themselves as friends stopping America from doing sometihng it shouldn't do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They shouldn't do!!!

They shouldn't do!!!

 

What the hell they think????

 

They are terrists. Storing, hiding, and building bombs.

 

France is one of the closest NATO members to them if they wanna strike someone from NATO then what makes them think they will not attack them????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have no reason to attack France. Hell, they didn't even have a reason to attack us until we recently voiced how much we'd like to bomb the shit out of them. And it's a cop-out to call them terrorists. Calling Iraq a country of terrorists is like calling the US a country of racists just because we have a few KKK members in our borders.

 

France simply doesn't want to commit its money, supplies, and troops to a war when there is still no conclusive proof that one is neccessary. Who can blame them? It's not their fight. Sadam is a sadistic tyrant but he's done nothing to provoke the rest of the world. Unlike, say, North Korea who is probably the first country in history that verbally threatened to use their nuclear weapons if attacked. Sadam is a sick man, but he is first and foremost a politician. He's not as insane as our president tries to make us believe. If he was he would have made a mistake by now, and he would have gotten himself killed. But no, Sadam is not insane. He's a smart man, and even if he does have weapons of mass destruction he's not just going to go launching them at members of NATO for no reason. He's going to keep them to himself in case he needs them, just like every other nuclear armed nation in the world. What worries me the most is, now we're going to attack him. Now we're determined to take control of his country from him. If he does have weapons of mass destruction, now he will have reason to use them, either on his facilities, his people, our troops, or even our country. Think about it - if Sadam has these weapons, he's not going to let us have them. He'll soon realize his days are numbered and he's either going to want to take us down with him or he's going to want to give those weapons to someone else who is willing to use them against us. Yes we should get Sadam out of power. But we should have done it back in the Gulf war when we knew we could do it with reasonable safety. Now we have no idea what he's completely capable of. France knows all this. They know we have no solid proof for war. They know Sadam may have weapons that could devastate our forces. And they know that a man with his finger on a button has no reason to not push it when he knows he is going to die. Who can blame them for wanting to keep trying to solve this diplomatically?

Edited by Silent Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saddam Would not attack FRANCE! France is Saddam's best ally. And western business partner.

 

But there's nothing to stop Saddam from attacking Arabia, Israel, Kuwait or even a US carrier group with nukes.

 

WHY?

 

Because in the past, America had promised to respond to a nuclear attack with nuclear weapons of their own. That kept the Russians honest.

 

But the US would never retaliate against the PEOPLE of Iraq for what their leader did. The US would end up looking like the monsters and alienate a lot of the world in a huge way.

 

So Saddam can be fairly sure that a nuclear attack would not be met with a nuclear response.

Edited by Jumbie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know... Keeping this whole Freedom fries thing in mind:

 

Turkey decided not to let US troops attack Iraq from their territory...

 

Thanksgiving is gonna be a whole lot different this year :darwin: :kat: :stabbed: :mohawk:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...