Happy Meal
Monday, May 7, 2007 at 05:32AM 
“Remember "Freedom Fries"?
When France refused to participate in the war against Saddam Hussein in 2003, many Americans were angry with the French, and showed their displeasure by renaming French Fries as "Freedom Fries."
But now with the May 6 election of new French President Nicolas Sarkozy, a leader who is strongly pro-American, the French have once again shown that they are America's allies, and have reached out their hands to us in friendship.
In that spirit, I recommend that everyone who ever referred to their French Fries as "Freedom Fries" now change the name once again, this time to a more appropriate moniker that shows our appreciation for our long-standing frères the French. Henceforth, I suggest that French Fries be renamed..."
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (42)
How about calling them chips.
...I wouldn't agree with you there Patty. The name change in the State’s was a tripe reactionary tantrum. It was essentially racist... they hated France (and the French) so much that they couldn't stomach the very prefix ‘French' and so in that apt American style the changed it to 'freedom': a word with so little meaning in America now as to almost render it redundant.
No... I suggest that we keep the name French fries and discuss something of meaning and value.
...many Americans were angry with the French, and showed their displeasure by renaming French Fries as "Freedom Fries."
I'm sure the French - who know a thing or two about cuisine - were gravely offended by this gesture! LOL :)
At least Jerry Lewis can sleep well now. The whole fries debate is silly.
I never stopped calling them french fries. The whole thing was stupid. It still is.
Hey you lot, Pattie's holding out the fry of friendship, this is no time for chippy comments :)
call them surrendor fries....
Oh and what part of the communist/socialist EU do you live in ciarnan? You wouldn't know freedom if it bit you in the ass
As I said below, the calls for his head will be made within the next 60 days by many who are championing him as the French Ronald Reagan today.
orange: "How about calling them chips." ROFL
Colm: friendship fries - good one.
Ciarnan Helferty: Lighten up a bit, dude! The whole thing was silly. "Freedom Fries" did reflect a genuine angry reaction but it never gained any traction. You must admit the whole thing is rich fodder for comedy.
If you want serious discussion, the whole issue of "renaming" as a tool of reactive politics is a modern Orwellian trend which is troubling. Count on us Americans to be McOrwellian ... but I digress again into bad comedy. Sorry...
Colm: meant to write - ".. holding out the fry of friendship" good one
The Troll:
"Oh and what part of the communist/socialist EU do you live in ciarnan? You wouldn't know freedom if it bit you in the ass"
Very good.. made me chuckle.
I'm from Derry and am now a student in Belfast... But your wrong... I have a a better notion as to what freedom both is and represents that any of the trigger happy, right wing neo-con's who frequent this site.
The French understand that freedom, true freedom can't be obtained by shoving the barrel of a gun in the face of those you are try to free... It has to be a domestic revolution, one which is both lead and achieved by those who it affects most.
We can help and we can assist... but we can't impose our form and definition of freedom or our values or our way of life on those who don't want it in our form.
Both the French and the Americans lead domestics revolutions to obtain freedom... and for one to then demonise the other because it choose not to support and defend and illegal war is repulsive.
French Fries all the... You can't take you Freedom fries and your disaster of a war and consign it to history of failure... The war id already that, and the fries are on their way.
Well said, Ciarnán.
Ciarnan: I agree with you about the trigger happy, right wing, neocon bit.
That describes me pretty well although abit hyperbolic in the gun department, and you missed god-fearing, and abortion-abhorring. But I think your righteous indignation is misplaced.
I'm actually abit of a francophile, having lived there, I speak French - I think Sartre (and de Beauvoir) were wrong and that French post WWII literature sucks. I love their language, their insistence on precise thought.
Sarkozy apparently gave an acceptance speech referring to certain philosophers -
He was right to this. Action is the child of thought, and philosophy (whether intentional or random) frames all that happens. It's important.And the French know this.
I'm rambling for the heck of it. But just to say, the Americans aren't all bad (or good), the French aren't all good (or bad) - and the french fry allusion is just for fun.
I think many Americans were upset with the French because the Left in our country held up their decision re Iraq as more diplomatic, reasoned, and culturally elevated, while blasting all of us as cretinous backwoods beasts.
Instead of taking it out on our own lefties, some morons tried to bitch-slap the French. Showed 'em how tough we were, huh?
Viva la pommes frites!
Patty - good to read for you as you speak the lingo:.
http://www.letemps.ch/template/tempsFort.asp?page=3&article=206699
lol.. Patty, lol, going way over the top is my thing... lol... its ous indignation!!!! (self-rightous more like it)- i was reffereing to myself there, not you.
Anyway, in future i will try to include god-fearing, and abortion-abhorring in my rants... Thatnks for the help.
Ciarnan
I'm from Derry and am now a student in Belfast... But your wrong... I have a a better notion as to what freedom both is and represents that any of the trigger happy, right wing neo-con's who frequent this site.
A student huh well that explains your naivete and being from Derry and Belfast would also explain that the only thing you know about people with guns is from the people that run around your country wearing ski masks shooting other Irishmen because they are a different religion
The French understand that freedom, true freedom can't be obtained by shoving the barrel of a gun in the face of those you are try to free... It has to be a domestic revolution, one which is both lead and achieved by those who it affects most.
No the french don't even know how to show a gun to people invading thier country only the palms of thier hands as they surrendor, I also suppose that thier support of freedom was demonstrated by the weapons systems they have sold countries like Iran, Iraq, the Palestinians, etc, etc
We can help and we can assist... but we can't impose our form and definition of freedom or our values or our way of life on those who don't want it in our form.
Name one country that the US has IMPOSED it's form or definition of freedom on, name where in the world the US has even set up a colony.
Both the French and the Americans lead domestics revolutions to obtain freedom... and for one to then demonise the other because it choose not to support and defend and illegal war is repulsive.
ours was not a domestic revolution last I looked England was no where inside the US.
I demonise the French because they are socialist elitists NOT because they didn't support us in any battles in the war on terror. Who would want the French's support in military conflicts any way? We have enough of our own homegrown surrendor monkies with the democrats. The French have made themselves our political enemy over the years because of thier support for regimes that rule by terror, but for me to expect someone that comes from a country that makes heroes out of terrorists is to much to ask.
as for being an illegal war just adds to the proof of your lack of education..LOL
When you grow up and get more expierience in the world you might understand sonny...
Blimey Troll, the medicine truely has worn off.
PS - Why were the Americans so much more annoyed with the French than the Germans who equally refused to support the war resolution ?
Colm: I don't mind that they decided to oppose the war. But we've got servicemen buried in France having helped to free France. It isn't the "non" that bothered us as much as the way it was delivered. Oh yeah, and the commercial interests the French had in placating the Arab world and setting themselves up as the alternative far outweighed any opposition to the war itself.
Colm, I think the answer to your question above is that France is one of the permanent seats on the UN security council, and they said they would use their veto to block any resolution in favour of the war. Germany did not have that power.
Thanks for the replies guys, but let's be honest the real reason is just that it is so much more satisfying to moan at the French :)
name where in the world the US has even set up a colony.
Hawaii and the Philippines ?
Manifest destiny?
And all the colonisations by proxy....
The French were better to the UK than the USA was during the Falklands war!
Colm, I think the answer to your question above is that France is one of the permanent seats on the UN security council, and they said they would use their veto to block any resolution in favour of the war. Germany did not have that power.
Thanks for the replies guys, but let's be honest the real reason is just that it is so much more satisfying to moan at the French :)
actually - it's more that people are still scared of the Germans ;) Third time lucky ???
That's true Mad. If the Americans could have pressured the UK to do a deal leaving 'The Malvinas' in Argentine hands they would have done. Only when it was clear that Britain was prepared for war did they come off the fence calculating that a defeat for the UK and the consequences that would follow would weaken the cold war against the USSR.
Having said that, it was mainly French weapons that the Argies used against us....Bloody French even when they're with us they're causing trouble :)
Hawaii and the Philippines neither were ever colonies and the Phillippines are still independent and we shed blood to keep them that way, as for hawaii they just got sucked up like the rest of the US the native people were baught and screwed just like the american indians...
and what proxies???
as for the germans whats to worry, if we pull out our troops even now it will destroy thier economy
Bollix Troll - thats why the USA went to war with Spain!
Colm - even during the war the US were Hostile - Nott reckoned they were leaking to Galtieri - and they refused facilities for refuelling the Vulcans. The french on the other hand had sold the exocents before the war and during the war they did what they could to assis our boffins against them.
Sopranos - bad bing! Poof, I'm gone!
Troll:
"No the french don't even know how to show a gun to people invading thier country only the palms of thier hands as they surrendor, I also suppose that thier support of freedom was demonstrated by the weapons systems they have sold countries like Iran, Iraq, the Palestinians"
You a bit short sighted it would appear... The United States armed both sides respectively in the Iran - Iraq war, The then Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was the main conduit for crucial American military intelligence, hardware and strategic advice to Saddam Hussein… he met with saddam twice for what purpose???? To sell him gun’s and chemical weapons, the very same weapons Saddam then used against the Mrash Arabs and the Kurds in Northern Iraq (this was of course during the same time he was meeting with the leaders of Iran… selling them the same, providing them with strategic info on Iraq)
Or perhaps when they helped, during the Reagan Administration, train, arm and form the Taliban, including the man himself Osama bin Laden… But no, your right, lets complain about the French… because those people who the United States have helped arm have posed no threat to world peace and freedom in the last few years…
Ignorance is a terrible thing, but when coupled with you arrogance…. its disgusting.
TROLL:
“When you grow up and get more expierience in the world you might understand sonny...”
Maybe when you grow up (a bit more) you might learn that patronising people when you are so clearly wrong makes you look like a bit of an an idiot
Spain....LOL
and who would you rather depend on Mad the french or us....
oooh yeah we caused all the teror in the world it was Rumsfeld, you forgot to mention haliburton...lol
your dealing in issues that you have no basis in fact to back up. Yes we armed saddam and yes we helped train an arm the taliban. Both were fighting our enemies.
As for Iran we have had nothing to do with them since 79 your a fool, and if your going to hold responsible people for how they use the guns you sell them than you ought to look at your own death merchants in your country your people not only support terrorists worldwide you even blow up your own children
Tom,
France's veto was more or less academic at the time, as a supermajority of 9 out of 15 votes in the US Security Council would have been needed to sanction the war, and there was never any chance of that.
Germany's role was significant. It was presiding over the SC at the time and had declared it would work closely with France and do everything necessary to avoid war. Together they formed a solid basis for other countries that may have been wavering under US threats and bribes.
Having said that, it was mainly French weapons that the Argies used against us
Ahhh, good old De Gaulle! ;)
Viva la France!
>>As for Iran we have had nothing to do with them since 79 your a fool,<<
Trool doesn't even know the history of his own country. What a goon!
That's interesting, Cunningham.
I seem to recall from the news at the time that the US was frantically doing diplomatic deals and trying to achieve the majority it would need, and yes it was by no means certain. But then France said that whatever the outcome of the vote, it would use its veto and wreck the resolution. So the vote was never put to the table in the end, as there was no point.
"As for Iran we have had nothing to do with them since 79 your a fool..."
not sure if you noticed, but the Iran-Iraq war took place between September 1980 to August 1988...
Tell me how could iran have UD manifactured CH-47 Chinook helicopter's only off the production line in 1982 id all contact ceased (accoreding to you) in 79'
... oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.... I think someone has got his facts wrong (again) and looks even more foolish.
When you in a hole, you really should stop digging.
Ciarnán
Following the overthrow of the Shah and the US embassy hostage crisis surely all contact and official govt.trade (military or economic) would have ended between the US and Iran. I can't believe the US would have provided any military assistance to Iran from the moment the Embassy staff were siezed.
Tom, at first the US did think it could - with a lot of arm-twisting, get a majority. And you are right that France then did say it would in any case use its veto to block any approval. The US, however, decided to press ahead for a vote regardless, believing a majority would give them moral authorisation to invade. It was only when they realised (not least through tapping diplomats' phones) that they would not even get a simple majority (I think in the end there were only 4 votes in support, including the US and UK), that they decided the "moral mandate" would backfire and they dropped the whole idea.
In that case, I would say that although the invasion was not explicitly authorised (although 1441 said something about using all necessary means to make Iraq comply, or something like that?) neither was the invasion explicitly prohibited, so it was not strictly "illegal".
>>I can't believe the US would have provided any military assistance to Iran from the moment the Embassy staff were siezed<<
Colm, a naivety so touching in one so young!
Google to find out what those doyens of the Right Oliver North and Admiral Poindexter were up to in 1986.
Even Regan himself - just a few weeks after he had denied it - admitted that the US had supplied arms to Iran that year.
But don't tell Troll.
Cunningham
Yes I admit I had forgotten about the secretive Arms to Iran scandals, but surely that was a fix to help laundering of funds for the Contras as well , or have I got two arms scandals mixed up? (being so young I get easily confused :)
I was talking more about the policy of formally providing military assistance to a friendly regime which Iran most certainly would not have been after 1979
Troll - the treaty of Paris - the US took the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam from Spain - as colonies .... They also had Cuba for a few years before granting it independence in 1902 .... So , the USA HAS had colonies. The US granted the Philippines Independence 4th July 1946
http://www.yale.edu/kasama/philippines.html
The U.S. Occupation (1898-1946)
The first Philippine Republic was short-lived. Spain had lost a war with the United States. The Philippines was illegally ceded to the United States at the Treaty of Paris for US$20 million, together with Cuba and Puerto Rico. A Filipino-American War broke out as the United States attempted to establish control over the islands. The war lasted for more than 10 years, resulting in the death of more than 600,000 Filipinos. The little-known war has been described by historians as the "first Vietnam.” The war was followed by decades of progress. In 1935, an American Commonwealth government was established, complete with a Constitution.
Uhh can that fries really look as your friend? I dont think so. Jämför priser