Support Finnish Conscientious Objectors
Because of the extremely high costs of the Finnish welfare state, the authorities force Finland’s male population into slavery. If you don’t want to join the army or spend over a year in civil service, men with guns haul your ass off to jail.
In a free society, military service would be voluntary and and the volunteers would be paid - but the state lacks funds for this due to our taxes which are wasted on thousands of frivilous state programmes (opera anyone?), so enslaving Finnish boys with the threat of jailtime becomes a viable option. Even George Bush isn’t totalitarian enough to suggest something this insane, I couldn’t even imagine how Americans would react to a proposal such as this.
Topi L. has sent me some interesting links concerning Finnish conscription. Check out the “Support Finnish Conscientious Objectors” page at MotherEarth.com, also check out their recent questionaire to the Finnish Presidential candidates (both in English). And here’s a blog of a conscientious objector writing about his experience in prison (in Finnish). And here’s an article (in English) from a Harri Soinila lashing out against conscription, but for different reasons than I give.
Being a foreigner, I’ll never have to submit to the Finnish slavery, I’ll be sure to apply for citizenship after age 34 (I believe that’s the age). But I’ve often thought about any future sons I might have - What will I advise them to do? I predict that our generation will finally put an end to conscription in Finland, but if it’s still around, I think burning the Finnish passport (and relying on just the American passport) might be the best solution.
My proposal to conscription is simple: Pay the soldiers and do not force them to join…just like every other job in Finland. I will welcome the tax hikes.
Finland still has a very extensive compulsory military service system. The alternative civilian service is up to twice as long as the most common length of military service, and the rights of civilian servants are not respected. For this reason, Amnesty International considers the alternative service to be a punishment, and has adopted many imprisoned Finnish conscientious objectors as “prisoners of conscience”. Their only “crime” is refusing to carry a gun, and refusing to train to kill and be killed.
The fact that a country such as Finland - which prides itself on having a good human rights record - is criticised in this way should become a major issue in the forthcoming Finnish presidential election.
Finland’s defence, with its long border and sparse population, is credible only if the potential agressor believes that the Finns could apply the same kind of tactics as the Afghans or Vietnamese. That again is possible only if most of the Finns know how to wage that kind of war or at least how to fire a gun.
Now, most Finns think that this country is worth fighting for and that in every country there is an army; if it’s not your own then somebody else’s. We have long historical experience about this. So, they think that a conscription army is rather a right than a duty.
I don’t expect a libertarian American to understand this, so, you can keep your ideas about slavery and what not for all I care. As a matter of fact, those who really have thought about these things and understand the issues involved (and thus excluding you) and still decide not to go to the army, well, that’s their right and actually a honorable conviction. (For them I could give an advice or two on how to, for example, get your doctoral thesis done on the expense of the state - and live at home - during the Slavery. I’ve know a couple of guys who did this and all they needed was a bit of careful palanning. But then again your credibility as a slave worker and martyr is not high enough to complain about the horrible things done to you by the state … but you just have choose, can’t have it both ways.)
Comment by TomiA — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
Just make it voluntary, that’s all I’m saying.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
If you don’t want to join the army or spend over a year in civil service, men with guns haul your ass off to jail.
In this case, “jail” is something like Keravan nuorisovankila, a country club where you spend your days in a home-like setting smoking weed and watching porn.
In a free society, military service would be voluntary and and the volunteers would be paid - but the state lacks funds for this due to our taxes which are wasted on thousands of frivilous state programmes
No. Conscription is in place because it is supported by an overwhelming majority. This is called democracy. Something that a “volunteer” military is exporting with dazzling success right now.
Even George Bush isn’t totalitarian enough to suggest something this insane, I couldn’t even imagine how Americans would react to a proposal such as this.
The American public is just fine with poor minorities drafted and being sent to die on the other side of the world. When white boys start dying, there is public uproar. I understand that the US military is having some trouble recruiting. With the ongoing democratisation of the world going strong (Anyone care to bet if it’s Syria or Iran next?), I bet we’ll soon be seeing the draft in the US. Snotty white Republicans, of course, will be having “other priorities” this time as well.
As for the civil service being a “punishment”, it is indeed twice as long as the shortest time of conscription service (which you don’t choose yourself, mind you). But whereas a conscript is forced to stay at the barracks and subjected to military discipline most of his “free” time, civil service is like a normal job. Free time is truly free.
From personal experience, I would say that for instance studying during military service is next to impossible, whereas in civil service it’s as easy as with any other job.
As for conscription being “slavery”, I don’t really see how creating an uneducated underclass with career opportunities limited to being a Wal-Mart clerk and a dog handler at Abu Ghraib is infinitely better. I do think, like presidential candidate Heidi Hautala (an officer’s daughter), that conscription doesn’t necessarily need to be as universal as it is - as the saying goes, not everyone is taken in school but everyone is taken in the army…
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
It’s funny how during the military service we were shown as “proof” some gallup etc. studies where it said that “even if military service was voluntary, 98% of men in age of conscription would still serve in the military” so this was to prove that the spirit is high and the military has full support.
But in reality? How large would that figure be? Young men deciding if they continue their studies or go spend some time in the military? 98 percent my ass! If voluntary service became a reality, all these young men who answered that they’d serve even if it was voluntary, they’d probably change their minds. Yeah, it’s easy to say something when asked about a hypothetical situation which they don’t expect to ever become a reality. With the current slave-wages, voluntary military service would be a disaster and you can bet there’d be very few conscripts.
And as far as the Finnish military goes. It should concentrate on a smaller better trained AND better movitaved forces with better equipment, rather than imagining that some mass of forest guerillas is going to stop the enemy. It’s not 1939 anymore, believe it or not.
As far as my personal experiences with the military. I almost died in the military, I developed a bad case if pneumonia which got awfully bad as the military hack-doctor couldn’t apparently tell it apart from a basic flu.
It was even worse when I had no fever for a few days and they’d send me back in line and of course saying you feel awfully weak etc. are just “excuses” and “poor motivation” (motivaatio vemppaa…).
I finally had to start coughing blood and be in a bad enough condition not to stand on my own two feet anmore for someone to take a simple bloodtest and immediately have me transported off to a REAL hospital with real doctors and nurses. The doctor who treated me said I was lucky, not a moment too late (warned my parents even that I might not make it). So perhaps I have a rather bitter image of the military and how motivated their staff is.
Poorly motivated staff, poorly motivated conscripts. Oh yes, that’s a frighteningly good defensive force. But the food there is still good, that’s the only positive memory I have of that place.
Comment by P.M — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
Just make it voluntary, that’s all I’m saying.
I looks like you changed your mind pretty fast. Now you seem to argue for freeriding
Not a good idea for many different reasons. Anyway, for all practical purposes it is voluntary in the sense that you don’t have to do anything military. If you don’t want to go you just have to serve a few months longer - but then again probably doing something nicer than learning how to crawl in mud or how to march 20 miles in sub-zero temperatures without your toes falling off. And the hours served are on average at the same level for both groups, I suppose.
Hopefully the time will come when learning how to defend yourself collectively will come obsolete. Perhaps that time isn’t here yet, though, but what do I know … or anybody for that matter, predicting future is difficult …
Comment by TomiA — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
Anyway, for all practical purposes it is voluntary in the sense that you don’t have to do anything military.
In practice, it is voluntary. If you don’t want to go, just develop some mental health problems. I don’t know if turning gay for the duration of the interview works anymore.
They used to be really hard-line on drugs as well. Perhaps they wisened up, as some 50% of their conscripts are raving drug addicts.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
I think that it’s ones patriotic duty to stand up and be ready to defend ones country. Finland isn’t the United States and Finland doesn’t have the world’s greatest army and Finalnd has a neighboring country that in the past has shown that we must have people ready to defend out land.
I think that very few finnish boys would be ready to go to the army if we made it voluntary. Too many have attitude problems towards this issue, and they wouldn’t like to go to the army basically because they see it as a waste of time.
Comment by Mikael — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
No. Conscription is in place because it is supported by an overwhelming majority. This is called democracy.
So American slavery back in the 1700 and 1800’s was perfectly okay because the majority of Americans supported it? Democracy in action!!
Comment by Phil — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
So American slavery back in the 1700 and 1800’s was perfectly okay because the majority of Americans supported it? Democracy in action!!
Conscription as slavery is just another bullshit libertarian mantra along with taxation as theft. Don’t expect me to accept it. For instance, conscription lasts from six months to a year, as opposed to a lifetime. For seconds, conscripts have rights, including the right to stop their service at any given moment.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
“In this case, “jail†is something like Keravan nuorisovankila, a country club where you spend your days in a home-like setting smoking weed and watching porn.”
There was just recently a documentary about one objector doing time here in Oulu and he had to apply for a place at secure ward, as the jail director put it, their other customers don’t necessarily accept his choices. So it is not always country club ‘Nuppulinna’ at Kerava or the Seutula colony.
Slavery? Noo…Just a special tax for the defence, you pay in the old fashioned ‘taksvärkki’ -way.
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
For seconds, conscripts have rights, including the right to stop their service at any given moment.
Oh, by the way, I believe this is a right that the “voluntary” US soldiers don’t have…
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
I´m a conscientious objector who spent 13 months chanching dipers of old men in a retirement home during my civil service. This was before euro, but I think I got paid something like 3,5 euros per day. I do agree with you about making military service voluntary, but it’s damn funny how you wrap your argument in big bag of irrelevant political bile. It’s a freking conscript-army not a professional army. Conscripts have never been paid well. Not in pre-welfare state Finland nor in any society in any time. No need to spout your hatred of wellfare state in this context.
Comment by Ittam — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
Yeah in usa they can say that you volunteered for this shit so quit whining and lick my shoes clean
Comment by P — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
Phil’s beating a dead horse again. Once again he attacks democracy without giving any alternative form of society. I guess in libertarian utopia it’s the libertarian elite who decides what people should or should not do.
Comment by M — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
Yes, most often you have to go to the army or civic service, if you are a healthy youngster and happen to live in Finland. But hey, think of it as a survival school. You know, you gotta go to school. Even in America, I believe. Why the hell is ground school obligatory?? After all, it lasts for at least 9 years. Who decides that’s the right thing?
Oh, and btw. I thought you have the possibility to get drafted, even if you live in a land that is not Finland. For instance, if your country fights a war in Vietnam. I’m not saying it’s wrong or right, I’m just saying it happens.
Conscription in the Finnish army isn’t so much about killing the other guy than staying alive yourself. Staying alive in case of war, which is always a possibility. After all, this is Europe, and history has taught us that Europeans like killing each other. Conscription is about staying alive in special occasions. Teaching practical skills that some people don’t know, like how to light a campfire, raise a tent, et cetera. Handy traits in a Finnish environment. Sounds impossible that someone would not know these things but I saw a couple of fellers who didn’t (mostly from Helsinki).
And you know, in case it’s winter and for some reason there are power shortages (which happens every year somewhere in Finland) that in a bad case could last for a day or two, many heating systems go offline. (Even oil-based heating systems oftentimes use electricty.) So it gets cold inside your house. And then it’s really nice to know how to use your fireplace, even if you are from Helsinki.
As for the reference to 1939 in comment #4… They didn’t teach the tactics of 1939 in my unit. They taught something to counter the probable enemy’s current tactics.
Comment by hnd — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 4:55 pm
I kind of like the idea of the citizen army - the professional military does not really fit our traditions well. Of course we do things on the cheap and conscription might be already an oldfashioned system, but I would not change it in a hurry. Somehow it sounds dangerous to allow only only those who want to to bear guns… It is funny how this libertarian thinking sounds always so superficial: every good thing exists automatically without any surrounding institutions and supports. If the state would wither away, we would have a rational, self-autonomous and selfmoderated society of equal individuals. Whereas in real life it would soon resemble the Lord of Flies with our murderous, panicky instincts. But as the libertarians are arguing within a well regulated, social liberal state they will not be confronted with the brutal reality of humanity without law and the state.
Comment by mjr — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
Phil, I must say that your comment was a load of crap. As pointed out earlier, Finland is not exactly a small country to defend. I quess that in event of war and occupation, Phil would still preach about ‘free market’ solution for this unfortunate thing.
To clear one thing immediately, I was briefly in the army but could not adjust there and applied for civil service. I quess I was not yet mature enough to be there.
Anyhow, if war would come, I would still volunteer for the army (and I belive all Sivaris will be drafted in anyway).
In the end I came to realise that civil service is very much lacking. For example, rather than teaching useless bullshit that they do in ‘Sivarikeskus’, they should train civil service people to assist for various crisis situations like oil damages (we have seen few in Gulf of Finland recently), forest firest or evacuations in time of war. Instead of current 1 month training/12 work, something like 3 month training/9 work would be much better.
If the law would have allowed me to make a different choice in ’sivarikeskus’, I would have quit it and gone to army few years later. Those who go to prison instead of either army or civil service are just stupid. Nothing more or less.
So as strange as it may sound Phil, some people are willing to stand for this evil nation with it’s ‘doomed’ welfare state and tax-theft. Libertarianism to me is anarchy for the rich and at the moment anarchy does not sound appealing to me.
Comment by Mr. S — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
When you look at the people, who are doing their civil service… It is a damn good that they didnt join the conscript army. And most important thing of all, they dont carry guns.
In my humble opinnion, this system what we have right now is just fine. Still, like P.M told, being sick in the army can be like hell. If you are sick, you should really have the right to say no for a service with good conscience, untill you are in a good shape again. This still doesnt mean that you could crawl in the mud on the next day, after the fewer has gone.
On the other hand, those who do ‘motivaatio vemppa’ every morning, should be transfered in to civil service or kick them out for a while.. Because, doctors can be bored of those people too. When a unmotivated soldier comes to meet the doctor, why would he or she want to give these cheating people easy time? After this soldier next one steps in, the doctor thinks this must be a joke too… What if this soldier really is sick? Mistakes can happen, with terrible consequences. In the end, doctors cant make any mistakes. So those with good acting skills can have easy time, while rest of the platoon does the job for him.
And I cant see the point of being in vemppa whole damn time of service. It isnt something you can be proud or brag about.
But the fact that you have done your job in military service, tells something about the people itself. Maybe the word for this is the infamous ’sisu’, no matter how hard it can sometimes be, in the end you have survived it. It is a story subject which you can speak with almost every over 18 year old man, because he has been in the army as well. And even hard it must have sometimes been, its always fun to laugh at those days. It isnt forced slavery, its something what you can laugh about.
Military is a tradition, its a checkpoint between being kid and being adult. The army doesnt make you adult, but it makes you understand that the life isnt always as nice it can be living with your parents.
Civil service is also not a crime against human rights, its a option you can make. You can either take the gun and have a good and bad times in the army, or then you can face the fact that Finland isnt that great place to be, if you are not willing to defend it.
I still dont shoot down the idea of volunteering the military service, there are people who really shouldnt be in the army. But those unmotivated people are sent back home after few weeks with this new system. So I dare to say, the motivated ones can continue their time in service much better.
And by the way, the defence forces didnt teach me to kill people, it just made me to follow orders. I still doesnt have, and probably ever will have the guts to shoot any living being, unless im under some kind of threat. Army just gave me the change to react. It also gave me training how to save people in certain situations, doesnt that sound odd?
So, treat the army like a old tradition. Traditions are forgotten when they become pointless after some period of time, maybe this one will too… Maybe when the world becomes a perfect place to live.
Im happy to pay taxes for the military, because military does have meaning. Its to protect.
But paying taxes because of opera, I think its terrible waste of time and oxygen… not to mention crimes against humanity.
Comment by JJ — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 5:58 pm
The current system is very bad. Soldiers are not really learning in the army how to be a fighter. For many, army is only a place to grow as person, and learn how to deal with people from different walks of life. However, I dont think that the mission of the state is to prvide such rising up for youngsters.
Army must be made voluntary. I’m sure that they could be able to reqruite enough people, because of the long tradiotions regarding this issue. Also, Finland must join nato. With these changes we could still have a very credible defense system.
If the army is to be kept compulsory, the minimun serving time must be made three months “summer army” at most. Then everybody would still learn how to fire a rifle.
The world has changed. We must look at sweden, at give up the present system. It’s just crap. Waste of time, and waste of life.
Comment by Tapi — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
I think that very few finnish boys would be ready to go to the army if we made it voluntary.
If we paid them well, there would be no problem finding recruits. Does Nokia have any problem finding people? Now if they didn’t pay you, or only paid minimum wage…that situation would change. The military is no different.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
Don’t expect me to accept it. For instance, conscription lasts from six months to a year, as opposed to a lifetime.
Slavery doesn’t have to last a lifetime.
For seconds, conscripts have rights, including the right to stop their service at any given moment.
Yeha, and do civil service or goto jail.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
I think that most people are afraid of dropping conscription, because they honestly feel that it would destroy our military. Therefore proposing professional military will just make you being ignored.
I would like to see studies, about how “free” our current military really is. Taking away an age-group of males from productive work every year, thus skipping the tax income they would otherwise produce, has to leave a mark somewhere. And that alone is enough of a point for me to support professional military. Not even mentioning about the whole slave aspect of our current system.
Still, I wouldn’t be that worried for my children. Recent cost-cutting plans make the following progress quite obvious.
Comment by Jani Kuusisto — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
Once again he attacks democracy without giving any alternative form of society. I guess in libertarian utopia it’s the libertarian elite who decides what people should or should not do.
Democracy is fine but you can’t vote away people’s rights like this. 51% of the population shouldn’t be allowed to vote the other 49% into conscription AKA slavery.
I guess in libertarian utopia it’s the libertarian elite who decides what people should or should not do.
In a free society, you decide what you want to do, just don’t bother others.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
In a free society, you decide what you want to do, just don’t bother others.
And of course, determining what constitutes “bothering others” is left to the libertarian elite, right?
I’ve heard libertarians argue that holding a “socialist” conviction (again, determining what constitutes “socialism” is left to libertarians) is grounds for execution without a trial.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
Slavery doesn’t have to last a lifetime.
No, but by default in the US, it did. Your comparison is way out there and an insult to those who suffered under slavery.
Yeha, and do civil service or goto jail.
Life is full of choices.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 6:43 pm
No, but by default in the US, it did. Your comparison is way out there and an insult to those who suffered under slavery.
There isn’t much that would ever compare with the slavery in the U.S., but that doesn’t mean something isn’t slavery. It’s not so black and white like that.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
There isn’t much that would ever compare with the slavery in the U.S., but that doesn’t mean something isn’t slavery. It’s not so black and white like that.
Sure, my job is slavery as well. If I didn’t go to work, I couldn’t afford my car payments. Then I’d have to take the bus to the KELA office. Oh, the horror.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
“Democracy is fine but you can’t vote away people’s rights like this.”
So, how we decide which those rights are? Democratically?
Comment by M — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
Criticism is fine, but Phil, you have to give us an alternative. What it is? Now you can go on and blame democracy or say that’s it’s ok as long as it pleases you, but tell us, how should we decide on matters such as this?
Comment by M — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 7:11 pm
If we paid them well, there would be no problem finding recruits. Does Nokia have any problem finding people? Now if they didn’t pay you, or only paid minimum wage…that situation would change. The military is no different.
I’m one of those people who don’t think that one should get paid for being ready to defend the country you were born and grew up in.
And it’s after all just between a half and one year that one has to be in the army and basically learn to handle guns and explosives. It would be a little late to start learning those things when the enemy is crossing the borders.
Comment by Mikael — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 7:14 pm
“Slavery doesn’t have to last a lifetime.”
Is compulsory education slavery too? You have to do it in some way or another. It takes at least 9 years of one’s life. By your definition it’s slavery. In fact, by your definition almost anything could be labelled “slavery”.
Comment by M — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 7:14 pm
Yes, that is true. And this “freedom” marketed by libertarians is oxymoron.
Comment by Mikko Moilanen — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
(By itself.)
Comment by Mikko Moilanen — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
Rather than saying that the military teaches you to kill and get killed, how about saying that it instills a sense of duty to protect your motherland and have some discipline in life?
To really understand the volatile world we live in, please visit some place outside Europe and North AMerica. You will then realise how lucky you are to live in a safe place, and have the criticize your government
I find it hard to understand when people are:
Pro Marijuna
Against Mandatory military service.
And then they talk about making the world a better place for the future generation!!!
Just because you feel safe now, it is stupid not to be prepared for any tragegy that might befall on my beloved country, Suomi.
Comment by Juggu — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
Slavery my ass. Only the pussies who’re not willing to pitch in even the least bit whine about the service. Taking everything possible, giving nothing back and still expecting the society to work.
I expect that the men refusing from all forms of civil service are also refusing all health care, free education and other state funded services as well.
Comment by SOIA — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
Freeridin’ Franklin says The American public is just fine with poor minorities drafted and being sent to die on the other side of the world. When white boys start dying, there is public uproar.”
You need to hit the stop button on your DVD player and pull your eyes off of Farenheit 9/11 for just a moment.
The largest group of new recruits in 2003  18 percent  came from neighborhoods with average annual household incomes of $35,000 to $40,000, compared to a median household income of $43,318. In all, the top two-income quintiles (comprising households with incomes starting at $41,688) produced 45 percent of all recruits in 2003. A mere 5 percent came from neighborhoods with average incomes below $20,000 per household.”
This study was done by teh Heritage foundation, of course a right-wing group you will say.. RESPONSE: Who else is going to do research like this? Obviously, this doesn’t mesh with the left-wing agenda, so they will certainly not pursue it, but rather rely on unsubstantiated rhetoric. Besides, your love-child, the New York Times, printed this article.
Even if the arguement was true, so what? The military provides free education, training, self-respect, employment and the opportunity to develop into a better human being, all things that poorer individuals need. However, you are completely wrong about this, just like almost everything else you post.
Get the emotional hate out of your comments and you may begin to make a liitle sense.
I, myself, am in the process of selling my swimming pool business and will be leaving for the Air Force soon.. I’m joining because I want to do something more challenging and also work for a country I truly love. I know this idea may seem rediculous to a “true patriot” like yourself, but there are some of us out there who do believe in this country are bright enough to see through the conjecture and theory.
US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.
George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
Hmm…. what did Clinton do again? Pull out of Somolia!
“I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let’s start with typewriters.” -Solomon Short
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
“Rather than saying that the military teaches you to kill and get killed, how about saying that it instills a sense of duty to protect your motherland and have some discipline in life?”
So I guess the women in this country don’t have any sense of duty and they lack discipline in life?
Comment by Nirva — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 8:07 pm
Is there any Radio Free Finland this aftern….. tonight?
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 8:30 pm
Nirva,
With Bush president, I think Freeridn’ Franklin would prefer you say “ze Fatherland”
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 8:31 pm
On 25: No offense Phil but quite a few of your posts are quite black and white as you refuse to see anything positive in some things, such as in conscription or civil service.
Comment by Mr. S — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 8:32 pm
I did ten days of army, quit, and in two years time went to doctor and told that the idea of army made me very depressed. Sufficient to say, Im in group C now “Freedom from service during peace time”. For medical reasons.
I have a friend who did three months of army, got bored and told how he was a big drug addict before army - he had used cannabis maybe once. Got released too.
If you want to get out, it isint that hard.
Comment by a — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 8:38 pm
Oh, one more thing. I wasnt aiming for ‘C’. I didnt even know I could get them. I just told why I left the army after so short a time, and even said I was willing to go back. The Doctor offered - and I repeat: offered - me Cs.
Comment by a — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 8:40 pm
With Bush president, I think Freeridn’ Franklin would prefer you say “ze Fatherlandâ€Â
I’m all for taking care of defense by ourselves, i.e. without the “help” of expansionist superpowers, whether it be by conscription or a professional army. If a credible defense requires quadrupling of defense spending, I have no problem with it. Bring on the tax hikes. But I’m always ready to pick up the rifle myself.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 8:52 pm
The largest group of new recruits in 2003  18 percent  came from neighborhoods with average annual household incomes of $35,000 to $40,000, compared to a median household income of $43,318. In all, the top two-income quintiles (comprising households with incomes starting at $41,688) produced 45 percent of all recruits in 2003.
Interesting spin, mixing neighbourhoods and individual households. I wonder what the truth to the matter is.
Of course, there are so many different positions in a modern high-tech military. I wonder how they are divided among the different recruits. “Hide behind the darkies”, anyone?
I, myself, am in the process of selling my swimming pool business and will be leaving for the Air Force soon..
I’m sure you will be seeing lots of combat…on CNN.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 9:02 pm
Juggu:
“I find it hard to understand when people are:
Against Mandatory military service.”
I find it hard to understand when people say that mandatory military service isn’t a form of slavery. What is it then, when you take a man and force him to service, while the alternative is jail?
Comment by Jani Kuusisto — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 9:05 pm
US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.
George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
Yes, but how many civilians did Clinton kill? And how many civilians has Bush killed?
BTW, Air Force is for cowards. They kill people from a safe distance.
Comment by Erik — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
phil talk to finns that have done there time in the army, i have still to meet one that looks on it as a bad thing.
you have not done it so you really dont have any knowledge of the benefits it brings. you talk of it as slavery because its compulsary, but so is education.
compared to most finland has a very low crime rate and a lot of this can be put down to the maturing effect of conscription on young male adults
Comment by sppuuddy — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
TomiA:
“Finland’s defence, with its long border and sparse population, is credible only if the potential agressor believes that the Finns could apply the same kind of tactics as the Afghans or Vietnamese.”
Childish. Do you really think we’d choose the path of the Afghans or the Vietnamese in case of a Russian invasion? Hahaa!
A bunch of ineffective & lazy conscripts is not going to prevent anyone from attacking.
Comment by Mikko Sandt — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 9:36 pm
Defense budget of Finland is not that big at the moment, compared to many other comparable countries. A professional amy might perhaps change that. For sure if they would like to keep the same number of soldiers. Still, a professional army would have my vote. I am against a conscript army. I don’t regard it so much as slavery, but I think it’s just stupid tradition and traditions must live forever here in Finland, even when nobody knows why it was started. People should think more about in what time we live! (and that’s where I stop, since I don’t want to have Finland Journal forms revisited…) A volunteer army sounds nice, but only aside of a professional army.
Please took also a good look at other countries (and not the US, please) where they have a good professional army that also perfoms lot of civilian -emergency- tasks. Quite different than about a year ago in Finland, when some river flooded in Lapland and only way too late some 100 spotty soldiers were sent to help, while I was already thinking for days “where is the goddamn army?”.
Comment by majava — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 9:45 pm
I didn’t like the military service too much, but I wouldn’t make it voluntary. The Russians are a weak people who love strong leaders who make them go to war against weaker nations. We need a large reserve.
The service is also something that unites the Finnish men. Whether you’re poor or rich, educated or uneducated, you still sleep in the same room with men from all social classes and backgrounds. And that is a good thing!
In my opinion, if you don’t manage to live through 6 months in the army, you won’t manage in life either. Everybody needs to learn to adapt to situations and be flexibel.
Comment by Janne — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 9:47 pm
forms=forums. The one that is not anymore.
Comment by majava — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 9:47 pm
Freeridin’….
There’s no combat shown on CNN, only car bombing aftermath!
Besides, I got a 97 out of 99 on my ASVAB, so no, I won’t be riding through the streets of Baghdad in a Humvee… However, a satellite is just as effective as a rifle in 2006…
Franlkin says” Of course, there are so many different positions in a modern high-tech military. I wonder how they are divided among the different recruits. “Hide behind the darkiesâ€Â, anyone?”
Ah, typical leftist racism… Unabomber says:
Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 9:56 pm
Janne:
“The Russians are a weak people who love strong leaders who make them go to war against weaker nations. We need a large reserve.”
How exactly is our reserve going to fight against the Russians? We don’t have much hi-tech equipment and our non-hi-tech infantry is of no help against the massive Russian army.
“The service is also something that unites the Finnish men. Whether you’re poor or rich, educated or uneducated, you still sleep in the same room with men from all social classes and backgrounds. And that is a good thing!”
It’d be sick to advocate conscription just because of someone’s personal preferences.
“In my opinion, if you don’t manage to live through 6 months in the army, you won’t manage in life either.”
Nonsense.
Comment by Mikko Sandt — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:05 pm
This guy, Kaczynski, an obvious mental case, still makes more sense than you, Franklin…
Look, everyone is entitled to their opinions. The diversity of opinions is a huge strength in the United States. However, you do yourself a disservice when you become so consumed with hatred and conspiracy that you cannot look at facts cleary.
Has Bush and this government made mistakes? Obviously, they have. But when you somehow portray George Bush as somehow more insidious or evil than Islamic radicalism/facism, then you have fallen of the “turnip truck” long ago…
Does this country make mistakes? Of course.. When you look at stories with pessimistic eyes, you will always get results that mesh with your hopeless world view.
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:07 pm
Jason,
Left wing views = pathological psychological problems?
Pointless and stupid rhetorics. We Finns live in a politically permissive multi-party democracy and most find it very hard to accept such drivel…
Comment by Drakon — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:10 pm
Ah, typical leftist racism… Unabomber says:
Well, if the Unabomber is the source of your ideological inspiration, then your Bushism is quite understandable. Have fun blowing people up!
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:11 pm
He’s not my source of inspiration, but he hit the nail on the head with his descriptions of leftist psychology….
Way to dodge criticism, yet again….
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
Left-wing views and normal liberalism is fine, in fact, is great for societies…
Radical leftism is dangerous, just as dangerous as the radical right, I would argue even more so…
Furthermore, radical leftism has become accepted in the mainstream, which makes it doubly dangerous…
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:15 pm
Read this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/12/
do1202.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/12/12/ixop.html
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:15 pm
Written by a Dane……
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:16 pm
you have not done it so you really dont have any knowledge of the benefits it brings.< .i>
I don’t doubt that it has benefits. If it has so many benefits, just make it voluntary, who wouldn’t want these benefits, right?
you talk of it as slavery because its compulsary, but so is education.
We’re talking about adults here, not children.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:19 pm
Radical leftism is the scourge of our times… The radical right is exposed and kept in check (ie. LePen, German SDP), however, radical leftist control the EU (Halonen, Zapatero, EU bureaucracy)….
Therein lies the danger…
Radical leftism kills children
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:21 pm
And child slavery is OK ten?
Comment by Erik — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:22 pm
dont worry about russia if they ever did decide to attack the hardest part of any war is logistics moving soldiers and equipment to the battle zone, i will sleep soundly tonight with the knowledge that they couldnt get a fleet of ladas near the border never mind an army that requires fuel food repairs oh and ammunition, trust me when they set off for finland there more likly to end up in turkey.
Comment by sppuuddy — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
Yah, if the Russians want to attack, we’re fucked. Finnish reserves aren’t going to protect us. If you really want protection, join NATO. But I don’t suffer from Russiaphobia like so many Finns do, so I don’t see the need.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
I’m no Bush fan, but the left scares me much more than the far-right
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
We’re talking about adults here, not children.
Except for those “adults” that write this: “In my opinion, if you don’t manage to live through 6 months in the army, you won’t manage in life either.â€Â
hehehe.
Comment by majava — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
It’s OK, ten
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
as long as I can buy a $20 pair of Nikes, fuck it, it’s fine
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
And child slavery is OK ten?
Fetuses are slaves in the womb.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
The diversity of opinions is a huge strength in the United States. However, you do yourself a disservice when you become so consumed with hatred and conspiracy that you cannot look at facts cleary.
Indulge me and share some of these facts I’m unable look at clearly. Do me a favour and don’t quote Kaczynski.
But when you somehow portray George Bush as somehow more insidious or evil than Islamic radicalism/facism, then you have fallen of the “turnip truck†long ago…
Well, let’s see…who is responsible for more deaths in the 21st century?
Does this country make mistakes? Of course.. When you look at stories with pessimistic eyes, you will always get results that mesh with your hopeless world view.
Ditto for rose-coloured glasses.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
is there any Radio Free Finland today?
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
Well, let’s see…who is responsible for more deaths in the 21st century?
Islamic Radicals, obviously…. You know, Van Gogh was right, it is submission… I must have missed that story about the Marine who drove his explosive-laden Dodge Dart into a group of police recruits in Iraq
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:26 pm
Written by a Dane……
And not just any Dane, but that Lomborg charlatan.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
Fetuses are slaves in the womb.
And abortion is liberation. Operation Vomb Freedom, or something.
Comment by Erik — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
As unstable as Kaczynski may be, he does make lucid points that cannot be ignored.. It is easy to say “he is crazy” and ignore his writings, but this guy is brilliant and you cannot answer this critique because you will expose yourself for what you really are…
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:30 pm
I must have missed the news about Islamic radicals killing 33773 civilians this century.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:30 pm
OK, so refute this article… Is he wrong? Is the EU letting children starve in the name of Kyoto?
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
Fully 58 percent of Americans are very satisfied with their lives compared to the 15-country European average of 31 percent. Fifty-six percent of Americans think that their lives have improved in the last five years compared to 45 percent of Europeans. Furthermore, 65 percent of Americans expect their personal situation will improve in the next five years compared to only 44 percent of Europeans. However, Europe is not at all homogenous and the mood varies widely from country to country.
Pessimism is a dangerous thing!
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
Phil: “Yah, if the Russians want to attack, we’re fucked. Finnish reserves aren’t going to protect us.”
I tend to think the main word is “deterrent”. If we train some 80% of the working age male population to fight and are ready to arm them (at least) with automatic weapons if need be, it will make the Russian leadership think twice before attacking Finland. The reserves are not going to stop the Russians from conquering the country, but at least the Russian autocrat-du-jour has to consider the possibility that he will lose a lot of men and resources for taking (and controlling) a big country of mainly heavily forested terrain. Stalin did notice the problems inherent in this and finally abandoned his plans of conquering Finland. it was just not worth the hassle. See the point?
Comment by Drakon — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
Finns are pretty tenacious, so I wouldn’t count them out completely.. However, the Russian army is much stronger than it was after the purges of the late 1930s.
Finland will be fine.. Polls have shown that Finns will rush to join NATO if the Russians turn hostile towards Finland..
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:38 pm
If NATO were to come to Finland’s defense, I wonder if Franklin would care about how much money the soldier’s parents make back in the States
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:41 pm
Phil, you can do better than this. Do you really have to resort to conscription to bring out controversy? It’s almost like cheating (and same goes for mandatory swedish)… But what the hell, let me give everyone my two cents.
Whenever I see someone defending conscription, I want to puke, or punch them in the face. The only half sensible claim in all the comments was made by Janne about the fact that conscription is a Finnish “ritual” which unites the Finnish men. Everything else? Plain bullshit.
They want to teach Finnish people survival? I think there are whole lot better ways to do that than conscription. Finnish needs conscription to maintain a credible army? Pfft. In my opinion conscription itself is already a joke in a modern country. And just what do you actually think Finland would manage to do with an army? Sweden wouldn’t attack us. And if the Russia wants to conquer us, I don’t think we stand a chance, even if every single Finnish person was fighting for Finland (granted, murdering whole nation would make the victory cost them quite a bit). I don’t think there will be too many wars internal wars in europe anyway in next few centuries, we depend on each other too much to make it worth while.
But most importantly, as Nirva quite subtly put it, what about Finnish women? All that great talk about how conscription is about sense of duty and willingness to protect to homeland and how Finnish people have “sisu”, etc, etc. And while claiming these, you are suddenly claiming that women have none of these? Essentially, defending conscription as it is will make you quite sexist indeed. Make your arguments valid at least, demand mandatory conscription for women too. Land of equality my ass.
The whole conscrition thing is just one big mass mentality thing. Everyone’s doing it, so it must be right. Quite frankly, Phil doesn’t need to give us any better alternatives. How is every other nation handling it? It think it is more than fair enough just to point and laugh at conscription. Finnish deserves it.
I don’t usually agree with Phil, but here, I will make an exception.
FYI, I’m 19 and yet undecided whether to go to jail or do civil service, or get changed to C/D papers with few tricks up my sleeve. The truth is, If war comes and I’m dragged into front lines (you do know that no matter what you do EVERY Finnish man belongs to army, except D paper people) I’d rather shoot my officer and do lifetime in jail/get shot in attempt than defend my country with a gun. Call me unpatriotic. Whatever. We’re all big hypocrites anyway.
Comment by Rithiur — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:41 pm
OK, so refute this article… Is he wrong? Is the EU letting children starve in the name of Kyoto?
Pretty pointless rhetoric, as this is about the projected cost of upgrading infrastructure to be less dependent on fossil fuels over a period of 100 years - something that is inevitable regardless of global warming.
For me personally, aiming for Kyoto compliance means taking the bus (or ideally, a train and a tram) instead of driving to work. It doesn’t cost me a dime. On the contrary, I save money. And when I ride a bicycle, I get a good early morning aerobic exercise as a bonus.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:41 pm
See the point?
What year are you living in? Did you travel back in time or something? This Russophobia everyone has is comical.
If Finland were to join NATO, would you then agree we don’t need conscription?
Comment by Phil — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:42 pm
That’s wonderful, Franklin.. You are doing a good thing.. In fact, I’ve only put about 1,000 miles on my car in the past year. Conservation is good for everyone..
But when you demand people change through dogmatic terms, the likely result will be the opposite of your desired effect.
The EU is so consumed with their leftist environmental concerns that they are ignoring problems that Kyoto money could solve.
Comment by Jason Ward — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 10:49 pm
The EU is so consumed with their leftist environmental concerns that they are ignoring problems that Kyoto money could solve.
Remind me again how much this Iraq adventure has cost so far. Me, I’ll take “leftist environmental concerns” any day.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 11:11 pm
What year are you living in? Did you travel back in time or something? This Russophobia everyone has is comical.
It’s so comical how people don’t see how we are living in a time of no wars and an absence of aggressive superpowers.
If Finland were to join NATO, would you then agree we don’t need conscription?
It would not affect the need of conscription per se. Of course, NATO membership would mean a substantially increased standing army.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 11:27 pm
FYI, I’m 19
Well, this explains your drivel mostly. But still:
I’d rather shoot my officer and do lifetime in jail/get shot in attempt than defend my country with a gun.
This is interesting. You’d rather shoot your own than enemy soldiers. Would you care to elaborate on the ideological foundations of this?
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 11:32 pm
Little boys talking about army, like knowing something about it. One is talking about shooting his officer, while american/russian comes telling how’s the Finnish army. Oh yeah. You hit the absolute bottom of this blog, if that’s possible.
Comment by Markku — Sun, Mar 26th, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
Phil:”What year are you living in? Did you travel back in time or something?â€Â
So you think my view is outdated? Well, it could be, if you think all relevant history happened in the last decade or so. I would be more than happy if I could believe in all that “end of historyâ€Â- stuff about the final victory of the market economy and the liberal democracy. But the truth is that the world looks like a more unstable place year after year, and not the least because the world’s only superpower is effectively undermining the structures designed to maintain an international balance of power and rule of law. No more collective security, but every country for itself. Preventive wars are okay, if the enemy can be painted evil enough. If you want the job done, ignore the UN. And so forth. What the US does first, the regional powers like Russia, China and India do next. Indeed, Russia has already accepted preventive wars and counter-terrorist operations on foreign soil as part of their official military doctrine.
“This Russophobia everyone has is comical.”
Russophobia? No such thing here. Only realism. But if you really think the future will be all peace, happiness, flowers, red wine and good sex, why not abolish the military altogether? That would be much more effective than the introduction of a professional army, both in terms of the rights of the people and the national budget. Maybe next you could call for the dissolution of NATO and a massive scaling down in US defence spending.
“If Finland were to join NATO, would you then agree we don’t need conscription?â€Â
Not really. While NATO- membership might be beneficial to some degree, it would really not change the essential characteristics of the Finnish defensive problems: large land area, small population, peripheral location and a large volatile neighbour. Even with NATO support, a conscript army would be the most cost-effective deterrent and defensive system. The limited resources Finland is ready to allocate to defence would not buy a big enough professional army to make a real difference.
The professional army would probably be universally loved by all males under 18 years of age, though: those not wanting to go to the army would be happy and relieved and the “war nuts†would just love all the cool new gadgets they would get to play with after voluntarily joining up.
Comment by Drakon — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 12:37 am
“I understand that the US military is having some trouble recruiting. With the ongoing democratisation of the world going strong (Anyone care to bet if it’s Syria or Iran next?), I bet we’ll soon be seeing the draft in the US.”
- We’ll see a draft ONLY if the Democrats get control of congress, and then their own will get them. The only Congressmen to introduce legislation has been a Democrat. (NY’s Charles Rangel.)
“Snotty white Republicans, of course, will be having “other priorities†this time as well.”
- There are lots of snotty Republicans in the military. (I’m one.) How else can you explain the huge support for Bush, and Rpublicans in general umong the military?
Comment by Fred Fry — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 2:27 am
By the way, I think mandatory service in Finland is a good thing, for Finland. Completely different situation than in the US, especially considering the potential pool for recruits.
No-related:
Americans Anonymous
http://www.eriksvane.com/aa.htm
Comment by Fred Fry — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 2:39 am
- We’ll see a draft ONLY if the Democrats get control of congress, and then their own will get them.
What will you do when the Democracy Export Co. runs out of cannon fodder?
- There are lots of snotty Republicans in the military. (I’m one.)
I’m mostly referring to the type of Republican who actually benefits from Republican policies (the Texas oil billionaire variety), not the kind who has been duped into supporting them with some hollow “family values” rhetoric.
How else can you explain the huge support for Bush, and Rpublicans in general umong the military?
Republicans are warmongers, and war means more work and better adcancement prospects for soldiers, in particular officers.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 2:43 am
I’d rather shoot my officer and do lifetime in jail/get shot in attempt than defend my country with a gun.
Naah, they wouldn’t give you a gun. They’d give you a dictionary, a few kilos of hash and a boquet of flowers and send you walking to the other side to go preach pacifism to the “other side”. You’re the Defence Forces most strategic asset, the ultimate secret weapon. Operation Hippie.
Comment by Hank W. — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 7:21 am
Actually, if anyone has cared to read the news, Finland is recruiting a “professional” military of sorts. The “RDF” which operates more or less as the National Guard in the USA, that you have to be ready leaving on a few weeks notice.
I would be against conscription if I lived in… Portugal or Ireland - both far enough from Russia
Comment by Hank W. — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 7:26 am
What good are civil service graduates during wartime? What if everyone began choosing civil service? (does anyone have any stats on this?)
Comment by Phil — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 7:41 am
“On the other hand, those who do ‘motivaatio vemppa’ every morning, should be transfered in to civil service or kick them out for a while.. Because, doctors can be bored of those people too. When a unmotivated soldier comes to meet the doctor, why would he or she want to give these cheating people easy time? After this soldier next one steps in, the doctor thinks this must be a joke too…”
That’s true and somewhat explains my bad luck. Being a doctor at the military (well actually the conscript doctor was much more motivated than the paid staff-member… ) isn’t exactly the most motivating thing. So many people trying to get an “easy time” and constantly getting a VMTL etc. But there’s no excuses if someone would die since they thought he was “faking it” and just having “motivational problems”.
I remember there was a huge amount of B-health class people and I don’t know why some of the worst cases were in the military to begin with. I mean, some there were super motivated but others really enjoyed the easy time. Having shorter service days, minimal physical stress and some even being a coffee maker and getting the higher up’s some donuts etc. from the sotilaskoti.
I do think they could have easily saved on the military’s resources by giving straight C-classifications for a lot of the B-health people. They didn’t really do anything necessary in the service most of the time and their rooms were really crowded compared to the company I was in for example. And I do have a feeling that the Finnish military will in the future ease up on putting b-class conscripts into a “peacetime” c (unless they absolutely want to serve) This might be done as a way of cutting costs and concentrating resources on more motivated conscripts and conscripts of better health. Or simply saving resources instead of re-using them at all.
Comment by P.M — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 8:18 am
> By the way, I think mandatory service in Finland is a good thing,
> for Finland.
Well, I never went to the Army. And I’m a native Finn.
Why? Because there is ABSOLUTELY NO fucking way I’d value our society, state or people more than my own precious and unique LIFE. It’s as simple as that!
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 8:43 am
It’s just sad that Finland’s defense is still relying on a poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly motivated horde of cannon fodder sitting in a forest. To make it worse, the military is a stain in our otherwise good human rights record. See Amnesty International’s page about Finland to see what I mean. The slavery just needs to go, and I’m confident that we will get rid of it during my lifetime. Finland is very anti-progress on just about every issue so these things can sometimes take time.
Comment by Nirva — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 8:50 am
“Why? Because there is ABSOLUTELY NO fucking way I’d value our society, state or people more than my own precious and unique LIFE. It’s as simple as that!”
Well, I am very gratefull to the veterans. What a luck that they valued Finland more than you do.
Comment by Mikko Moilanen — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 9:22 am
Im finnish, I went to army, and i would do it again. If theres still compulsory service when my son(s) turn 18, i hope they go too. Civil service is like going to a job normally. If your active so youll get good civil service place and get normal salary and everything. Phil: You havent been in either, so what do you know really?
Comment by Jips — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 9:25 am
101 Jips: I must correct you there that Civil Service people don’t get normal salary. They have ‘päiväraha’ like conscripts, even if they are doing professional work such as being a doctor. I met one in ‘Sivarikeskus’ and I think he ultimately got assigned as doctor for some money-stricken part of Finland as regular doctor.
96 Phil: Not much probably, except more meat into the grinder, unless the taken some courses in voluntary defense training (not sure if that is the actual translation) like me.
Then again, perhaps all of us ‘Sivaris’ get put into front line and after two weeks 90% are dead. After that we are all half-crazy bloodthirsty partisans who jump to APCs and go behind enemy lines to rape and pillage civilian population:)
We can always be trigger-men for roadside bombs (like in Iraq) that someone with proper military training builds for us and film snuff videos where we decapitate ‘contractors’ in the name of FALA (Finnish Atheist Liberation Army).
Comment by Mr. S — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 9:41 am
Interesting how heated the debate always gets about the Army. I have to say I value my own experience greatly: as an institution it was very dreary, and certainly I would not leave it to teach values to “isänmaan toivot” (spes patriae), but in our unit there really was a great spirit of co-operation and solidarity in the face of shared hardship, very rare in today’s jungle environment (man is a libertarian to man). It is a very outlandish, absurd place and my life would have been much poorer had I not witnessed it. Of course, for Finland it still makes sense to keep conscription - the Army is much valued and respected, and as long as we won’t ally militarily conscription will be the only realistic option in our circumstances.
I would myself shorten the civil service time, but don’t have much respect for these martyrs of the cause that choose prison over the current option. I guess it gives a thrill to battle the cause of all evil in the world, the mighty and violent Finnish state… Phil should know, he’s our leading dissident, shouting heroically landing instructions for the free markets passing in the night.
Comment by mjr — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 9:55 am
“I guess it gives a thrill to battle the cause of all evil in the world, the mighty and violent Finnish state…”
Not all of them want to battle against the Man. They just want to mind their own business, just like all the women do, without having their asses thrown to jail. Refusing to work as a slave should not be a crime. The imprisoned people could be productive tax-paying citizens, but no, we can’t have that. Let’s instead lock them up and spend our tax money on them.
Comment by Nirva — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 10:18 am
Childish. Do you really think we’d choose the path of the Afghans or the Vietnamese in case of a Russian invasion? Hahaa!
Yes, I know it’s a disturbing idea, something you would rather not think about (alhtough “you” is probably wrong because I’m pretty sure you have no intention to defend this ountry). So you propose a more “adult” solution, let’s put 20 000 professionals on the border. They surely will stop the Russians and the rest of us will watch the enemy flee on CNN drinking beer. Sounds much nicer, I agree.
To put aside your childish fantasies, in the real life Finland’s defense doctrin is - or at least used to be - the only viable solution: give nobody a reason to attack (neutrality) and keep the costs of an attack high (areal defene/guerialla warfare). Nowadays we have the “NATO option”, which would remove the first part of the doctrin (”give no reason …”) but then again would raise the costs of an attack much higher.
A professional army would be a joke in both cases, of course, if the goal is to defend the whole country, but in NATO we could have a purely voluntary service, I suppose.
Comment by TomiA — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 10:20 am
… there is ABSOLUTELY NO fucking way I’d value our society, state or people more than my own precious and unique LIFE. It’s as simple as that!
Not quite. Finland’s army is a defense force, a deterrent. The idea is to prevent you from geting in a life threatening situation, to defend civilization, so to speak, which in turn guaranteens security. This is the other side of the coin - there always is the other side when you talk about democratic intitutions. The pacifist side is a valid one, too. But your argumentation is neither, just plain egoism to put it nicely.
Comment by TomiA — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 10:46 am
#35:
“The military provides free education, training, self respect, employment and the opportunity to develop into a better human being, all things that poorer individuals need.”
Sir, we need also jellybeans. Can I trade my self respect and development into better human bing for them?
Comment by issi — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 10:50 am
Thanks for bringing up the subject, Phil. I fully agree with your post.
Comment by Johannes — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 10:57 am
The imprisoned people could be productive tax-paying citizens, but no, we can’t have that.
Perhaps. Then again what would prevent them from deciding that other laws don’t apply to them either? I wouldn’t want to, say, drive the same streets with Iso H because he could - if you are right - decide that the speed limits don’t matter.
I’m not saying that Iso H would be that stupid, but if you decide to go to prison you either you want to protest, as mjr wrote, or you have serious problems with authority, laws for example. Of course it can be both, I guess. WHo would you trust?
Comment by TomiA — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 11:09 am
Rithiur,
Already pointed out a couple of times, of course the attacker might have an army so big that our “poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly motivated” conscripts can’t win them. Some people think this is a good reason for having no conscription at all. Eh? They’ll still cause serious damage to the other side. I could possibly win some dude smaller than me in a fight, if I attacked, but he still might be able to take one of my eyes and arms out before that. So actually it would be better for me not to attack, unless I consider it as a real bargain. You wrote this yourself and yet you seem to not understand it.
I might agree on some of your opinions. Yet I disagree on the idea of sending women to the army to make us more equal, for a couple of reasons. As for the claim that army would teach men e.g. discipline, it’s not the same as saying women weren’t e.g. disciplined. As for it being sexist, pfft yourself. I hope you’ll notice someday that sexes do have differences, both mental and physical, so it’s just natural they also have different roles. Of course, I’m generalizing, there are most probably some individuals who don’t fit in the middle of the bell curve. Statistical anomalies always happen.
Why is conscription a joke in a modern country? And if it is, how does it counter the need of a credible army?
So, you’d rather shoot your officers yourself? It’s like shooting yourself to a leg, it most probably doesn’t help you in any way. In what way is it smart? I’m not calling you unpatriotic. I might call you psychopatic. There’s a difference.
As for those tricks up your sleeve. This is just a presumption, but maybe you are going to act as a retard. From your arguments, I believe you’d do just fine. I’m not saying you are one. You see, in the end, there’s a good reason for you getting those “not fit for army” papers anyway. I’d just value the retard who does not choose to be retard a bit higher than the non-retard who makes a willing choice to become one.
An intellectual person might disagree on a topic where the majority agrees. It might be (s)he is the only one who has given a deep thought on the subject, so it is justified. It sounds as if you disagree because the majority agrees, or because your impression is that majority agrees, and then try to justify your predefined viewpoint. Maybe you’d like to be seen as an intellectual. Unfortunately, then you are working the other way around. It gives the impression that you are, in fact, only pseudo-intellectual.
Mr. Anonymous,
I wouldn’t be defending my “state” in a war. I’d be defending myself, my friends, my family, my fortune and my way of life. They are kind of an important part of my “own precious and unique LIFE”.
Comment by hnd — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 11:40 am
I think it is the society’s decission if there is a compulsory army or not. The majority can democratically change it. But in Finland there are no big forces to change the present situation.
And remember there are many other European countries with similar type of compulsory army without salary.
This critics seems to be against the biggest part of Europes armys and not only against the Finish army.
I think it is better for Americans to keep very low profile on this issue. No other western nation has missuceeded as much as Americans in decissions about military actions and human rights during last 10 years. Even counties like Turky are improoving human right situation and questionable military actions.
The US was mooving backwards in these issues and looses more and more support in other western countries.
There is one issue I disagree in the present military/ civil service systems: Only boys have to do an unpaid job for the home country.Why do gils not need to do any such job? Especially when considering that women get paid during materity leave. Even men can stay home for materity leave while women are working.
rgds
Tom
Comment by Tom — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 11:48 am
‘I’ll be sure to apply for citizenship after age 34′ (Phil)
Freerider! And the age limit is 31 (over 30 equals 31 or older, not 30 years and a day, as at least one person found out the hard way).
Of course the easiest thing you can do is fake a minor mental illness. The military don’t really want everybody. Nuts and whiners are worse than useless. But a lot of our more patriotic citizens would definitely object to other people being allowed to freeride on this. Which is fair enough. If you really believe in something, like patriotism, you’re ready to line a few people against the wall to enforce it. (Edge of a gravel pit might be more Finnish, but Anglos shoot people against a wall.)
BTW, what is the Libertarian position on actual chattel slavery?
Should I have the right to sell myself into slavery if I wanted to?
If not, why not? I mean, a contract is a contract, right?
Comment by prince of dorkness — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
‘I’ll be sure to apply for citizenship after age 34′ (Phil)
Phil, why on earth would you want to be a citizen (and tax slave) of two countries? Planning on getting rid of your US citizenship? Be careful as the IRS can still come after you for years if they think your doing it for tax purposes. (But I suspect that Finland is not a place people flee to for tax reasons.)
Being a citizen of one country is enough!
F.Franklin:
“I’m mostly referring to the type of Republican who actually benefits from Republican policies (the Texas oil billionaire variety), not the kind who has been duped into supporting them with some hollow “family values†rhetoric.”
- And there are no Democrats benefiting from all this?
- “Duped?” Oh please. Look at how the Democrats were all duped into supporting Kerry simply because he had a couple of shiny medals. This guy benefited from hatred of Republican policies more than any other person. (Thank God he still lost.)
Comment by Fred Fry — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
Phil, you can’t completely miss the slavery as long as you live here, if a crisis break out. Also foreigners resident in Finland can be called to service during a war or the like. No, not to the army itself bot for civilian defence, yes.
Comment by Anon — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
The moral behind killing your own officers instead of enemy soldiers is following: Thee nemy soldiers are slaves just like you, they have been forced to fight in war. Your own officers instead are the ones who enslave you. So instead of killing innocent enemy soldiers who don’t want to fight, you should kill your own officers who force you to fight.
Comment by nosla — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
The moral behind killing your own officers instead of enemy soldiers is following: The enemy soldiers are slaves just like you, they have been forced to fight in war. Your own officers instead are the ones who enslave you. So instead of killing innocent enemy soldiers who don’t want to fight, you should kill your own officers who force you to fight.
Comment by saynotoslavery — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
What could the Finnish conscript army do if Russia was to nuke Helsinki? A-Bomb sure makes a hell of a difference. Ask Japanese, they should know. Maybe it’s not very probable, but then again war is not either.
Comment by Johannes — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
I must have missed the news about Islamic radicals killing 33773 civilians this century.
Comment by Freeridin’ Franklin
You might look more intelligent if you look at your source before you try to lampoom someone with it. Go through the database from that website and you will see that the vast majority of those killings are committed by Islamic radicals, not U.S/Coalition forces. You only strengthen Wards argument.
Comment by Unit — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
It seems that many are very eager to critize the system. That doesnt help anyone thought. Give me a solution. What is the right way to handle the defense?
And those who say that “we cant beat Russia so why try?” kind of stuff is pretty stupid. Its not about winning, its about making it not worth the cost.
Comment by Green — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
Also foreigners resident in Finland can be called to service during a war or the like.
I’d go hide in Canada.
Comment by Phil — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
It seems that many are very eager to critize the system. That doesnt help anyone thought. Give me a solution. What is the right way to handle the defense?
Like I said in my original post, make it voluntary. If you’re having trouble recruiting people, pay them more. Pay them and they will come.
Comment by Phil — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 4:49 pm
I think theres no trouble recruiting people in Finland. Only about 10 goes to jail every year for this. Something to prove by this? Proves youre fucking idiot or fucking genious
6-7 months in warm cell, or 6 months in fucking cold tent. Easiest way to get out of army is going there and peeing your bed every night. At least 5th time they think youll crazy. True story. Btw. I was in army for 12 months and loved it 
Comment by Iod — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
117. Johannes: Didnt Soviet had nukes allready at winter war? And they didnt use them. USA is only one whose use it on humans. Dont let radical islamics have it, or theyll use it in a heart beat.
Comment by Iod — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 5:58 pm
And whatta hell Russia would do with radioactive Helsinki?
Comment by Iod — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
And I take back that one sentence on 123 . How stupid of me, sorry
Comment by Iod — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
So more taxes, Phil? How else would you get the money needed to recruit more people?
Comment by Pave — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 6:03 pm
Didnt Soviet had nukes allready at winter war? I think Soviets’ first succesful A-bomb experiment was 29.8.1949.
Comment by Johannes — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
And whatta hell Russia would do with radioactive Helsinki?
Well that’s another story. Maybe they’ll cover the ruins with concrete and build a new Putingrad there. I would just like to know how has the Finnish Defence Forces prepared for a stretegic nuclear strike.
Comment by Johannes — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
f* you p*sies. when war comes i’ll first chase & slay all social-bums, civil service peeps and members of green alliance.
Comment by brlpbrlp — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 7:16 pm
So more taxes, Phil? How else would you get the money needed to recruit more people?
Yup! And I would welcome them.
Comment by Phil — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
Phil, I thought you were against big government and taxes. And you claim to be non-russophobic. So why on earth do you think we should increase spending on defense? I get your point on voluntary service but not if it means more money to the ministry of defence.
Comment by Pave — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
#128
when my father was in the army they had this strategy of ‘magic capes’ they would put on a magic cape (raincoat) and clean the ground contaminated by the radioactive fallout by sweeping it with a branch of a fur tree.
to put it simply sweep sweep sweep
thats the finnish strategy against strategic nuclear strike.
Comment by Blah — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 8:52 pm
“I would just like to know how has the Finnish Defence Forces prepared for a stretegic nuclear strike.”
Here and there something around 100m inside the rock and EMP-proofed gadgets, Nasse, the magic rain cape, butyl rubberboots and a trust that the russians are not going to be that mulquist to their non-nuclear neighbour or at least don’t want the fallout at St. Petersburg.
Of course, if you really want to be prepared for a nuclear strike, the only way is to get the nuclear deterrent yourself. We’ll see that a lot in the future, if the world politics turns more to every nation for itself.
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 9:15 pm
Are death and taxes somehow voluntary in the US? In Finland there are three things that are (almost) inevitable for men and they are death, taxes and military service.
Comment by Dunk — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 9:58 pm
You might look more intelligent if you look at your source before you try to lampoom someone with it. Go through the database from that website and you will see that the vast majority of those killings are committed by Islamic radicals,
First of all, the invading party can be held at least partly accountable for insurgent violence. And if you take a better look at the statistics, you might find out that while the majority of attacks are indeed by insurgents/radicals/whatever, the death toll for each is only a handful of people, whereas in US strikes the death toll is often in the hundreds, sometimes thousands. It seems that the Democracy Export Co. isn’t quite as discriminating in its practice of totaling civilians as the terrorists. Of course, you need to understand numbers to grasp this.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 10:10 pm
The imprisoned people could be productive tax-paying citizens, but no, we can’t have that.
I know a few “totals” personally and none of them could be described as very productive tax payers under any circumstances.
It’s just sad that Finland’s defense is still relying on a poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly motivated horde of cannon fodder sitting in a forest.
Wow, aren’t you quite the military expert. Seriously, I feel that we strongly overestimate the level of training of a typical professional footsoldier. If you look at the world’s largest all-volunteer army, they’re currently sending grunts to war after six weeks of basic training. To be a bit provocative, I’d seriously doubt that Pfc. Lynndie England would be worth 10 Finnish conscripts/reservists in combat.
As for the more technical staff (air force, navy et al.), those tasks are being increasingly handled by professionals in the FDF as well. It doesn’t really make sense to train F-18 pilots in the reserves, does it? There’s no need to do away with conscription because of that.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 10:22 pm
Fully 58 percent of Americans are very satisfied with their lives compared to the 15-country European average of 31 percent. Fifty-six percent of Americans think that their lives have improved in the last five years compared to 45 percent of Europeans.
This always takes me back to when the right-wing horns of truth (”totuuden torvet”) declared on this blog that a similar study conducted in Finland (which revealed that an overwhelming majority - I believe it was 80 per cent - of Finns were happy with their lives and had a positive outlook for the future) only showed that the state-controlled media has brainwashed poor stupid evil Finns into not realising how miserable their lives are in this failing welfare-state…
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
“…poorly motivated horde of cannon fodder sitting in a forest.”
Ahem…I might add, if the commentator just sat in the forest during his service, that was some poorly organized “forest”. Among the other pulsations, we have to move the tent few times per night, when the “enemy spotted our position” + once 2 meters towards south, when the corporal heard somebody speak about freezing weather in wrong tone…Now the motivation part may have something to it.
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 10:49 pm
Lemme see - there’s actually a couple of sensible posts among all those 100 bullshits.
As to those babys crying about nuclear bombs: A Russian once said to me they’ll nuke Helsinki to the ground. I replied, well, that will be defenite end of Russia, then. I have to give it to that Russkie, he was intelligent and knowable enough to know I was right, and did not reply. Believe or nor, that logic does not come from Donald Duck.
The main reason (as some perhaps already put it here) for existence of the Finnish Army is to make it impossible for the Russian army to make a fast and swift taking over Finland. Finnish Defence Forces are strong enough today (and since 1939) to prevent Russians thinking about taking over Finland (in case of some crisis). Even contemporary Russian generals know wery well what happened in -39, when Red Army was supposed to reach Helsinki within two weeks.
And BTW, I was not serving in the Finnish Defence Forces, but in special forces. BTW2, I think Finland should join the Nato.
Comment by Markku — Mon, Mar 27th, 2006 @ 11:26 pm
Markku, how would that be the end of Russia? Because we would nuke them so hard and eventually invade the whole damn country? Oh wait, we don’t have any nukes nor enough soldiers…
Sure, nuking Finland wouldn’t be the best move especially when we join NATO but I really really do not understand your über-patriotic ranting.
Comment by Pave — Tue, Mar 28th, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
So why on earth do you think we should increase spending on defense?
So boys aren’t taken into what I consider to be slavery.
Comment by Phil — Tue, Mar 28th, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
“So boys aren’t taken into what I consider to be slavery.”
Exactly. Conscription is a serious violation of human rights, which unfortunately is being ignored by a lot of people here. I’m willing to pay some extra taxes to fix that issue. If I didn’t have a problem with slavery I would actually somewhat agree with the majority here: conscription works better in Finland than it would in the US. It’s not the best solution by any means but it could be worse. And as we know, in Finland “could be worse” means perfect.
Comment by Nirva — Tue, Mar 28th, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
a trust that the russians are not going to be that mulquist to their non-nuclear neighbour
It’s interesting how the Defence Forces frequently mention the importance of credibility in defence, but Finland’s only defence for nuclear strike seems to be ‘a trust’ that the Ruskies are nice enough not to nuke us. Since when war is about being nice to one another? The Finnish Army really isn’t match for Russian Army. I can agree with Phil on the fact that if Russia wants to attack us, we’re fucked. I would sleep more restfully if we’d join NATO.
Comment by Johannes — Tue, Mar 28th, 2006 @ 6:53 pm
I guess the credibility here means not being a no-brainer walk-over. Thinking goes, that if the russians are really up to something, there is already a grand scale mess-up going on in Europe and they can’t concentrate all their power on Finland. The goal is not to have a parade on the red square, but to keep them reasonably at the bay until a favourable time slot opens, where to have a lätt och lagom counterattack and jump out.
Yes, the generals spoke all through the 70’s and 80’s that the axiom of the finnish doctrine was that we are not a prime target for a nuclear strike. On the same time they were building fiber optic communications networks and command centers deep down into the rock.
I have heard we were freeriding under the U.S nuclear umbrella at the time, but if the memoirs of one U.S Strategic Air Command colonel are accurate, we were under the edge with all the water dropping on us, as he remembers being very close to take off for a target in Finland with the big one.
The russians were nice enough not to nuke Kabul or Grozhnyi. In Finland’s case they might end up having their share of the radioactive fallout. Besides, the generals like to go to history as great strategists and tacticians, not as somebody, who hit the chessboard with a sledgehammer.
NATO might be a one solution for the security equation. Probably they will sneak the membership through sooner or later. What I suspect, is that the russian autocrat of the future just might call the cards of the west and notice that the finns are for the sale, like usually.
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Tue, Mar 28th, 2006 @ 10:09 pm
I don’t know about you Phil, but those girly Amnesty International principles seem suspicious to me.
Amnesty talks much about how the alternative service is too long. I think there’s even been some discussion in Finland about shortening the length of it, so we could get rid of Amnesty, at least concerning the conscription.
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/fin-summary-eng
In Finnish: “Why Amnesty adopts Finnish conscientious objectors as prisoners of conscience?”
“Amnesty does not take a stand on conscription but… alternative service too long… bla bla… international standards…”
http://www.amnesty.fi/history/ukk.htm#eighth
Amnesty is giving a picture, like if the alternative service would be shorter, there would be no problem!
But, what is the definition for a ‘prisoner of conscience’:
“…a person who has been imprisoned… because of his/her political beliefs… religious beliefs… sex… national background… or other position…”
http://www.amnesty.fi/history/mielipidevanki.htm
Clearly one could still be a prisoner of conscience for Amnesty, even if the alternative service was just 6 months long. It would still be imprisonment because of his sex (conscription only for men), imprisonment because of his political beliefs, imprisonment because of his religious beliefs (not a Jehova’s Witness), maybe imprisonment because of his background (not from Ã…land)…
But Wikipedia doesn’t list imprisonment because of sex as a reason at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_conscience
I couldn’t find information about this from the Amnesty International’s English site.
I guess I’ll have to ask Amnesty, are they really supporting human rights and equality! Or do they just want the alternative service to be shortened a few months (which would still be slavery), so their hippie friends could go to the service.
Comment by Zetko — Wed, Mar 29th, 2006 @ 12:29 am
…Damned articles, the last sentence should read “for sale, like usually”
Comment by antti (the redneck one) — Wed, Mar 29th, 2006 @ 8:57 am
Ok, how about we outsource defence?
Islamic states historically often had armies of foreign slaves (mamelukes, janissaries), who were among the best and most professional troops of their time. I’m sure we could get some really cheap troops from the Sudan or the Congo.
Or we could buy them in bulk from, say, North Korea.
Or we could just privatize the whole thing, let everybody handle their own defence. Get government out of our lives, like winter says.
Comment by prince of dorkness — Wed, Mar 29th, 2006 @ 10:20 am
“…which are wasted on thousands of frivilous state programmes (opera anyone?),..”
It’s not the opera that’s worst. Try the covering of Olympic stadium while kicking mental patient to trams of Helsinki. Bloody sports.
Comment by sampsa — Wed, Mar 29th, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
I am just wondering. If you turn service into something voluntary and compensate soldiers with a good salery, at what point will people start to complain that soldiers are making too much?
Say 150,000+ euros for a pilot.
…..60,000+ euros for a foot soldier.
The salaries will have to be high enough to attract the required number of recruits. What happens if being a soldier ends up being some of the highes paid jobs in Finland? Why shouldn’t these be the highest paid jobs in Finland? After all, you are agreeing to risk your life for others.
Comment by Fred Fry — Wed, Mar 29th, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
Hei Amerikan idiootti, koskaan ei tiedä millon Ryssä tulee! Ase käteen ja maata puolustamaan, perkele!! Kyllä on nynnyjä nuo ameriikkalaiset kun pitää mennä armeijaa pakoon. Täällä puolustetaan isänmaata eikä juosta karkuun niinkuin pikkutytöt!!
Comment by Perkele — Wed, Mar 29th, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
151: Sitä se teettää kun huutaa sen yltiö yksilöllisyyden perään ja vahtia ‘pahan valtion’ kamalia päähänpistoja kuten asevelvollisuutta/siviilipalvelusta/toimivia julkisia palveluja.
Pää saattaa täyttyä keltaisella nesteellä, niinkuin nyt katsoo tätä Philin ‘Ammutaan lonkalta’ raportointia asioista joista myöhemmin huomaa että asiassa oliko enemmän kuin musta ja valkoinen.
Comment by Mr. S — Thu, Mar 30th, 2006 @ 8:08 pm
Drakon 91. But the truth is that the world looks like a more unstable place year after year, and not the least because the world’s only superpower is effectively undermining the structures designed to maintain an international balance of power and rule of law.
Those structures were useless to begin with, as they did not maintain an “international” balance of power, and certainly had nothing to do with the rule of law.
Doctrines such as pre-emptive strikes are actually quite useful in redefining the balance of power as it manifests itself in the real world. Flimsy, useless “international” treaties, - especially ones that forbid genocide, but do nothing to stop them - tend to distort power balances, and thus make the world a more dangerous place.
Comment by Finnpundit — Thu, Mar 30th, 2006 @ 9:58 pm
Yeah pre-emptive strikes are so good for the world. Let’s just wait till Russia and China etc. start following America’s example…
Comment by Pave — Fri, Mar 31st, 2006 @ 8:47 pm
I was myself in civil service here in Finland. Yes, but that was fortunately mostly good experience because I got mostly good work place from another side of the country (together with place to live). Anyway, I hope that in future the amount of civil service would get shorter from that 13 months because it’s just too long time when compared to “normal” military service.
Comment by Mr. Nobody — Mon, Apr 3rd, 2006 @ 1:42 am
I’m not sure if this has been said already. Phil, if I remember correctly, there’s