US Congress opts for "freedom fries"

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

monument

Originally posted by monument
Correction the US is currently occupying most of Iraq, and the Iraqis are currently fighting the US for their freedom.

Originally posted by chill
Yes they are.... after removing a brutal and gonocideal dictator, against the wishes of the anti war marchers.

So they are freeing them selves from the people who freed them from the dictator, nice.

Originally posted by monument
Can you back this up?

Originally posted by chill
Can you back up your claim that 'the Iraqis' are fighting against them?

Are even trying to suggest that Iraqis are not fighting the US?

Anyway above you just agreed with me that the "Iraqis are currently fighting the US for their freedom".

Originally posted by monument
That’s genocide you speek of.

Originally posted by chill No it isn't. It killing the enemy, the enemy of the people, and the enemy of freedom.

Again, above you just agreed with me that the "Iraqis are currently fighting the US for their freedom". So “the enemy of the people” and “the enemy of freedom” must be incorrect.

Originally posted by chill
Wrong. They have been liberated.

Once more, above you just agreed with me that the "Iraqis are currently fighting the US for their freedom".

So they are now trying to liberate themselves. Maybe the first liberation wasn’t so liberating?

Originally posted by chill
Wrong. Thngs are way better

By the fact more people have been and are still being killed and wounded, there’s now less infrastructure, the doctors say the hospital are pretty much the same, and there’s now a large scale of unemployment?

Yeah, way better.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by chill
Totally false and untrue. I believe that less than a thousand iraq civilians have died at the hands of the British and US army, and that compares with 10,000 slaughtered, tortured and raped each month when Saddam was in power.

Without your trying to worm out of it again, I really would love to see some credible evidence of this statement again (any part of it).

PHB

The US were responsible for Saddam Hussein getting into power in the first place.

Could you show anyone some evidence on this?

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by PHB
Could you show anyone some evidence on this?

I assumed it was common knowledge, but...

Google
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/3626448.html
http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

And when I say put him in power, I don't mean men in black suits flying him to a presidential palace in a black helicopter, before someone tries to point that out.

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
Totally false and untrue. I believe that less than a thousand iraq civilians have died at the hands of the British and US army, and that compares with 10,000 slaughtered, tortured and raped each month when Saddam was in power.

Yes, but haven't we had this from you before? Where you have refused to believe information, preferring your own "more reliable" sources....only to fail to be able to show why your sources are more reliable and/or more credible???

In fact, I dimly remember a discussion where it was eventually undoubtable that the information being presented was from credible sources, so you simply fell back on "well, I refuse to accept it".

So, when you say that "you believe" something, why does that make information with source-references "totally false and untrue" ???

I mean - lets face facts here :

1) Neither The US, nor any other involved government has provided figures for civilian deaths in Iraq or Afghanistan. So, we can rule out that you are basing your stance on the figures supplied by the people doing the killing.

2) Every easily-findable set of figures seems to base itself on testimony from medical- and humanitarian- aid groups who are working in the reconstruction efforts etc. These sets of figures tend to agree on somewhere aroudn 3,000 civilian casualties in Afghanistan, and set an absolute lower limit of 5,000 (and a more realistic lower limit of about 7,500) on Iraqi civilian deaths.

So...exactly what are your beliefs based on Chill? Any sort of evidence at all, or are you just picking numbers that sound somewhat acceptable to you so that you can - yet again - defend you nation from someone making a criticism of it???

jc

Memnoch

Originally posted by bonkey
So...exactly what are your beliefs based on Chill? Any sort of evidence at all, or are you just picking numbers that sound somewhat acceptable to you so that you can - yet again - defend you nation from someone making a criticism of it???

agreed

Zaphod B

Re Chill's previous comment...

Originally posted by monument
So they are freeing them selves from the people who freed them from the dictator, nice.

I have to point out here that I think you misread his post. From what I can see his "Yes they are" referred to the fact that America is occupying Iraq, not the suggestion that Iraqis en masse are fighting America.

Not that I'm saying he has any shred of credibility, just that I think you misunderstood him.

Incidentally PHB, I assume you're asking for evidence that the US were partly to blame for Saddam gaining power, on the basis that a statement should really be backed up with evidence, and not because you didn't already know this bit of general knowledge and/or find it difficult to believe. By assume I mean I pray to any God who happens to be listening... please tell me no-one is actually disputing that the US supported Saddam?

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
1) Neither The US, nor any other involved government has provided figures for civilian deaths in Iraq or Afghanistan. So, we can rule out that you are basing your stance on the figures supplied by the people doing the killing.

General Tommy Franks, US Central Command
We don't do body counts

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/3000296?view=Eircomnet

Brig.-Gen. Mark Kimmitt
Around 70 US led coalition troops and 700 Iraqi insurgents have been killed in fighting across Iraq since April 1st, but there is no authoritative figure on Iraqi civilian deaths

Brerrabbit

Yes they are.... after removing a brutal and gonocideal dictator, against the wishes of the anti war marchers.

heh heh death to the gonads!

Sorry bout that; doesn't contribute much but I had to say it

Yeah this "freedom fries" stuff is a tad immature and silly, someone pointed out that its similiar to name changes to german products during World War 2. A bit worrying all in all. Many Americans are starting to adopt the mindset that America is alone as some sort of last bastion of freedom etc etc. (kind of scary how that type of rhetoric just rolls off the tongue so easily).

In fairness though the American public isn't given accurate information on what is going on in the world and what its leaders are doing on "behalf of the people" in the media.

Whats going on in Iraq is teriibly sad, if the Americans had gone in to "restore democracy" etc etc it would be a wonderful thing and would have won the U.S some valuable friends in the middle East. The cynic in me doesn't believe this to be the case however.

I'll be ready to back up these points later on after pizza; not feeling particullarly eloquent right now.

ixoy

Originally posted by Brerrabbit
In fairness though the American public isn't given accurate information on what is going on in the world and what its leaders are doing on "behalf of the people" in the media.

True although I saw an article recently saying that - finally - the tide is shifting a little. There are more interviews with families who have loved ones come home in - what's the term again? transport tubes? However, I doubt they're getting much of a picture of the Iraqi death toll or - if they are - it's regarding the death of the insurgents. It's almost excusable that they'd have the mindset that they do, except there are - one assumes - papers still reporting a more balanced version of the truth as well as online resources to refer to. I'd have thought that, given the hostile reaction in much of the world to the occupation, many would be inquisitive enough to question the regime's actions rather than sanctimoniously declare their own way is correct and righteous.

Stark

Yeah this "freedom fries" stuff is a tad immature and silly, someone pointed out that its similiar to name changes to german products during World War 2. A bit worrying all in all. Many Americans are starting to adopt the mindset that America is alone as some sort of last bastion of freedom etc etc. (kind of scary how that type of rhetoric just rolls off the tongue so easily).

Hope all the starch and fat gives them heart attacks (a prayer I have that actually seems to get answered ).

chill

Originally posted by bonkey
Yes, but haven't we had this from you before? Where you have refused to believe information, preferring your own "more reliable" sources....only to fail to be able to show why your sources are more reliable and/or more credible???

I suggest that that applies to quite a few posts around here. Using convenient 'reports' or 'reports of reports' to justify figures and positions.

In fact, I dimly remember a discussion where it was eventually undoubtable that the information being presented was from credible sources, so you simply fell back on "well, I refuse to accept it".

Didn't happen.

So, when you say that "you believe" something, why does that make information with source-references "totally false and untrue" ???

It is totally untrue to imply that just because someone generates references to newspaper reports.. of reports.. of people.. who spoke to people... etc... that that inherently makes it true. The whole history of the Gulf war is stewn with wild inaccuracies and revisions. The reporting agencies and those they make contact with on the ground are full of poeple who are vigorously anti war and anti american as well as those who are anti muslim... suggesting that ther is a whole lot of 'truth' out there is misleading to say the least.

I mean - lets face facts here :

I'm always ready to face a fact... when it is a fact and not a 'report'.

1) Neither The US, nor any other involved government has provided figures for civilian deaths in Iraq or Afghanistan. So, we can rule out that you are basing your stance on the figures supplied by the people doing the killing.

Wrong... I have heard several tv interviews with local comanders who have estimated civilian deaths in their areas.... and most are due to insurgent indiscimination.

2) Every easily-findable set of figures seems to base itself on testimony from medical- and humanitarian- aid groups who are working in the reconstruction efforts etc. These sets of figures tend to agree on somewhere aroudn 3,000 civilian casualties in Afghanistan, and set an absolute lower limit of 5,000 (and a more realistic lower limit of about 7,500) on Iraqi civilian deaths.

My reading of these reports is that they are almost all based on reporters asking local doctors and hospitals and local people of uncertain credibility. These are *always* going to result in completely unreliable figures that will *always* overestaimate the numbers killed and most importantly they will never produce good figures for how many were killed by the insurgents and malitia instead of by the US. Web sites keeping track of the casualties are some of the worst.... I go down though their listings and over and over again find incidents attributed to US ordinance that have been completely exposed in the months since the war started... but they never get changed and the numbers stay inflated because one truth is that the number of web sites, reporters, commentators et al that are vehemently anti the US liberation vastly outnumbers those that support it.

So...exactly what are your beliefs based on Chill? Any sort of evidence at all, or are you just picking numbers that sound somewhat acceptable to you so that you can - yet again - defend you nation from someone making a criticism of it???

I base my beliefs on comparing the totality of the reports and taking them in the light of their sources...

Over and over and over again i listen to reports and read the small print in newspaper reports and it is clear that figures and facts are NOT witnessed by the reporter but are the result of contacts s/he has had with very dubious people who have agendas. Humanitarian groups have ghastly records for accuracy in this regard because they are so sympathetic to any heresay of casualties and injuries, perfectly understandably.
And yes, before you jump in, the army poeple have their own agendas.

So I say that it is simply not a valid argument by contributors to this or any other forum.... that they KNOW the figures and facts based on quotated references.... because there are NO references that are wholly reliable at this stage.

It all comes down to opinion and assessment, with a few isolated reliable facts thrown in.

In my humble opinion discussion and argument on fora like these would benefit enormously if people with passionate views spent less time reference bashing and more time discussing principles and the politics of the situation. But then again I'm in the tiny minority I know.....

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
I suggest that that applies to quite a few posts around here. Using convenient 'reports' or 'reports of reports' to justify figures and positions.

Yes, and you're right quick to cast aspersions on any of them which don't happen to provide you with the answer you want.

Didn't happen.

Like I said...I'm dimly remembering. Maybe I'm getting confused with when you were banned by gandalf for constantly making allegations without bothering to provide a source for any of them despite repeated requests.

It is totally untrue to imply that just because someone generates references to newspaper reports.. of reports.. of people.. who spoke to people... etc... that that inherently makes it true.

Thats neither what I asked, nor what I implied.

I asked why your "I refuse to accept that / I believe" approach - where you don't even bother to do us the courtesy of explaining on what grounds you refuse to accept it, or why the source provided is flawed - should be accepted.

All you're saying in repsonse is that there are plenty of others who also supply baseless comments. Yes, there are. And by and large, I take their baseless comments as being as worthless as yours in a similar situation.

So, may I take it that what you're saying is that your baseless opinions don't carry any more weight than other people's, and that there is no reason to believe you over someone who at least shows that they have a basis for their argument?

The whole history of the Gulf war is stewn with wild inaccuracies and revisions.

So how did you arrive at your figures???

The reporting agencies and those they make contact with on the ground are full of poeple who are vigorously anti war and anti american as well as those who are anti muslim... suggesting that ther is a whole lot of 'truth' out there is misleading to say the least.

So how did you arrive at your figures???

I'm always ready to face a fact... when it is a fact and not a 'report'.
....
Wrong... I have heard several tv interviews with local comanders who have estimated civilian deaths in their areas.... and most are due to insurgent indiscimination.

These two comments are entirely self-contradictory. YOu say the entire war is filled with revisions, exaggerations, etc., you dismiss reports, and then base your own figures on exactly the same stuff.

Not only that, but these are local commanders, who couldn't possibly supply you with enough detailed information to draw totals for the entire nation and the entire campaign.

Oh - and who cares whether the deaths are through insurgent indiscrimination or not. We are talking about fatalaties resultant from the war which the US started.

Its a bit cheeky to attack someone, and then say that you carry no responsibility for those killed by the defenders, given that you provoked the defenders into doing whatever it was that got those people killed.

It would be like me kicking a dog, and then telling my mate its not my fault the angry dog bit his kid while trying to get at me. Its the dog's fault for attacking the kid...not mine for provoking it, right??

My reading of these reports is that they are almost all based on reporters asking local doctors and hospitals and local people of uncertain credibility.

Really? And how, exactly, have your US commanders come up with far greater accuracy? Who have they been talking to? What are there sources? And what possible reason do we have to believe that their credibility in presenting their nation's side to the world is not also suspect? And how, incidentally, can we even be sure that you are remembering and passing this information on accurately. Weren't you just saying how second-hand information from people who may have agendas is inherently untrustworthy?

I base my beliefs on comparing the totality of the reports and taking them in the light of their sources...

Sure you do.

And yet you cannot supply a single link for any report which backs your figures. No - conveniently, they are based on a couple of interviews, seen on TV or heard on the radio, with a couple of commanders in the field, who couldn't possibly have enough detailed information to supply figures for the entire country.

You know....if you only listened to half of those reports, you'd probably believe there were only 500 casualties. I'll let you work out the implications

And yes, before you jump in, the army poeple have their own agendas.

So let me get this straight. Your sources are : local commanders, offering information on local - not national - activity, who have an agenda.

But these are the sources we shoudl trust, right?

So I say that it is simply not a valid argument by contributors to this or any other forum.... that they KNOW the figures and facts based on quotated references.... because there are NO references that are wholly reliable at this stage.

So you accept that your figures are totally wrong and untrue as well then?

One would imagine that the more logical process would have been to refute anyone's figures on the grounds that "we cannot know the answer", rather than saying "you're wrong, and this is a more accurate figure", and then turn around and say "but we can't get any accurate figures from anyone".

It all comes down to opinion and assessment, with a few isolated reliable facts thrown in.

Reliable? You still haven't offered a single shred of a reason why any unverifiable fact that you use is reliable.

In fact, you've stated yourself that there is plenty of reason to accept that they may not be accurate, as the US army are serving an agenda themselves

In my humble opinion discussion and argument on fora like these would benefit enormously if people with passionate views spent less time reference bashing and more time discussing principles and the politics of the situation.

So thats why you came in with a "totally false and untrue" allegation, and why you picked up a warning for being aggressively insulting to other posters before. Its because you feel we shouldn't do these things.

But then again I'm in the tiny minority I know.....

/me looks back at the post he's just replied to, which is full of reference-bashing.

If you practiced what you preached, you might be, yes.

jc

Sleipnir

You're arguing against your own points at this stage Chill.

Note:

m always ready to face a fact... when it is a fact and not a 'report'

And your next line

I have heard several tv interviews with local comanders who have estimated civilian deaths in their areas.... and most are due to insurgent indiscimination.

i.e. It was a 'report' from a local commander, not fact.
If you mean you only rely on facts and not what you read/see in the media (television, radio, newspapers, internet) then you'll have to go to Iraq yourself.

mr_angry

While I am already highly amused at the contradictory nature of the post (which has already been disected), I thought I'd highlight one or two more lines that annoyed me.

Originally posted by chill

Humanitarian groups have ghastly records for accuracy in this regard because they are so sympathetic to any heresay of casualties and injuries, perfectly understandably.

That is complete conjecture on your part chill. There is no evidence of this, and once again you are presenting it in the format of a know-it-all fact. The fact that you are complaining of these people providing innacurate information is one of the most hypocritical statements ever.

monument

Originally posted by Zaphod B
I have to point out here that I think you misread his post. From what I can see his "Yes they are" referred to the fact that America is occupying Iraq, not the suggestion that Iraqis en masse are fighting America.

I’d like to point out I have not misread his post. Although he may not have wanted to write what he has, it is up to him to correct such. I can only reply to what a person has written and not what I think they have.


If he wanted to say what you suggest he should haved quoted me on this...

Originally posted by monument
Correction the US is currently occupying most of Iraq [/B]

and NOT this...

Originally posted by monument
Correction the US is currently occupying most of Iraq, and the Iraqis are currently fighting the US for their freedom. [/B]

Zaphod B

Fair enough.
I just didn't see the point of using it a the basis for an argument when sooner or later he would have just turned around and said "I didn't mean that"; it would seem like a waste of everyone's time. Of course the problem with that is that I was assuming he was actually going to reply to you at some point

chabsey

Originally posted by chill
Well it may be a little petty but I think they are perfectly justified removing references to an appeasing nation from their food list.
I wouldn't buy anything french since then and many others feel the same.

Interesting. Do you just refuse to buy things that sound French like pate or champagne or vol au vonts or does your righteous indignation spur you to actually researching where a product was produced and refusing to buy it based on that?

Will you be attempting to pull down all art déco architecture you can find? Will all diplomatic attachés be fired? Can any au pairs hope to find work in America now? Would you support someone who said Bush organised a coup d'état?
Will Americans refuse to accept the sense of Vietnam déjà vu that everyone else is feeling about Iraq?

Originally posted by chill
The french did everything they could to keep Saddam in power and continue his slaughter of Iraqi people, their torture and mass rape.

Aside from the fact that your sentence makes little sense (whose slaughter and mass rape?) I think you're slightly over stating the matter. France's objection to the war wasn't based on the desire to keep Saddam in power.

Originally posted by chill

All for the sake of their oil money and other dubious debts owed to them by Saddam.

Whose oil money? I thought one of the biggest mysteries of this war was the Americans confusion as to just how American oil ended up underneath Iraqi sand.

Originally posted by chill

Thankfully the US broght freedom to the Iraqi people despite the French the germans the russians and the 'anti-war' marchers.

Yes, god bless America (make sure you get lots of people to repeat that, heaven forfend that God might actually forget to bless America one of these days)

Now, about those weapons of mass deception, would you say there might be a soupçon of truth in the contention that they never existed. You do follow me don't you, excuse my french.

Big Ears

In response to Irish forces not being in Iraq .

The majority of Irish forces are already deployed with the UN for peacekeeping and in Ireland itself for obvious reason's . Ireland dosent have a lot of troops but u think we should pull out the troops we have working with the UN and send them to Iraq . Although If the UN was for the war in Iraq there is a high chance there would be Irish troops over there .

As for Europe not supporting the war , u must have forgotten the following countries are in Europe : . England , Scotland , Wales , Northern Ireland , ukraine , Spain , Poland , Turkey , Italy . Theres more but im sleepy and cant remember them all .

So chill do some research before u start blaming any1 .

Capt'n Midnight

Anyway since the potatos don't come from France and since McDonalds use reconstituted potato containing substances I'd reckon the French would be delighted that their name was no longer taken in vain.

BTW: the Hagen Das name was picked at random out of a telephone directory..

http://www.able2know.com/forums/about5096.html

Neal Rowland, who owns Cubbie's in Beaufort, said the switch from french fries to freedom fries came to mind after a conversation about World War I days when anti-German sentiment prompted Americans to rename familiar German foods like sauerkraut and frankfurter to liberty cabbage and hot dog.

liberty cabbage more like liberty cabbages

So.. They were invented in Belgium, and the american troops there thought they were in france or the verb "frence" means to cut..