Tervetuloa | Welcome
I'm an American who's been living in Finland for six years (damn!). I started this blog to address some of the political, cultural, and current event issues in Finland and the United States.

...but mostly what you'll find here is: Finnish and American stereotypes, Funny YouTube videos about Finland, rants about our high taxes and low salaries, and [not-so] comedic differences between Finns and Americans. Enjoy! :-)

23.8.2006

Finland makes for happy time

Tags: Uncategorized — Author: Phil @ 10:13 pm

Ain’t nothing like taking a break during your busy day to read some engrish…

52 Comments »

Hey about A Scanner Darkly. I’ve read some buzz from the net that the film will be shown on R&A (www.hiff.fi). I’m sure to attend.

Comment by m — Wed, Aug 23rd, 2006 @ 11:24 pm
Sweeet!!!

Comment by Phil — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 12:17 am
‘Open the television’

Comment by Fred Fry — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 12:37 am
I find English (mis)translated to Chinese much more entertaining.

http://www.hanzismatter.com/

Comment by Basil — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 1:12 am
Where is the “French Flag of surrender” ahead sign, warning “no spine left here”.

After the no show of the EU in Lebanon, you all need one in front of every house in the EU.

Comment by winter — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 3:09 am
Ahh winter, somehow I knew we could count on you to provide us with a good non sequitur to break-up the flow. Thanks

Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 4:24 am
Actually I was kinda hoping the EU after all that crying over Israel’s attacking the launchers shooting rockets at Israel, would actually do something.

I guess your next move, just like in Kosovo, will be to ask the USA to do your dirty work again.

But the good news: There will not be 9,000 muslims frog marching off to a machine gun, with the EU standing by.

Comment by winter — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 4:59 am
Confirmed. It’s on the R&A newspaper: http://www.hiff.fi/RA.pdf

Comment by m — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
winter: Where comes your stupid disdain towards French? During cold war France did have obligatory military service for all men. Basically, all west European nations did have obligatory conscription and Finns, Germans and many other nations still have.

Today, France still have a formidable military force SUITED for THEIR NEEDS and unlike your overextended US army, French army is not bankrupting France and declaring totally useless wars in the name of whatever BS this week.

Yes, you Americans had your Vietnam but apart from that, you could just sit down and be coach generals behind our backs. Those nukes in East Germany were just a couple of minutes away. Remember, you guys were almost scared shitless when Russians tried to install a few nukes to Cuba. Oh mama! THAT CLOSE! ….For example, Finns did hear that biggest nuke blast ever (Tsar Bomba) in the 60’s.

Comment by tim73 — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
tim73: You’re right that there still is conscription in Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Germany

“Of all men reaching draftable age, currently less than half actually serve. In 2005 about 15% served in the military, while 31% performed civilian service or some other form of alternative service. More than 36% were screened out for medical reasons.”

A big reason for why they can’t abolish the draft is that they would have to abolish the civilian service that caters for care of the elderly etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Greece

The similar wikipedia article on Greece notes that “66% of the draftees evaded service in 2005″.

These are NATO countries and I bet nowhere in NATO in those countries that conscription is still in use is it working the way it was originally intended.

About Turkey, though, it’s hard to say.

“It is estimated that there are around 400,000 draft evaders currently present.”

“Refusing the military service due to conscientious grounds is illegal in Turkey, and punishable with imprisonment by law.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Turkey

Comment by Helsinkian — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
I wonder who posts more non sequiturs, winter or Helsinkian?

Comment by Finnpundit — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
I had hard time in finding data on what conscription actually means in different countries but here are some figures (on the percentage of the men reaching draftable age in a given year, hopefully recent figures) on how many men actually do military service these days in countries with conscription:

Finland 80%
Austria 75%
Sweden 40%
Belarus 35%
Denmark 30%
Norway 30%
Poland 20%
Germany 15%
Estonia 15%
Russia 11%
Lithuania 10%

Latvia is abolishing conscription next year, the Russian timetable (according to this source) is as yet unclear.

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A4rnplikt

The figure for Greece was 76% but if the English wikipedia entry on conscription in that country is correct, the correct figure would be 34%. Anyway in most Western countries the trend is steeply downward, given the mostly negative attitude in NATO toward conscription.

Comment by Helsinkian — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
#11 Finnpundit, are you counting?

Comment by Helsinkian — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 6:17 pm
One more on conscprition as I’m still thinking about #9… Conscription is in place in many nations, absolutely. It’s quite common in Latin America and in Africa. In Europe there is a movement toward abolishing the draft, as many nations (Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia) have done it as NATO has expanded eastwards. Austria and Greece seem not to be as keen as before on the idea that most men should do military service. Finland may soon be a very rare country in Europe if more than 50% of the male population will continue to do military service. Most likely the figure will go down sharply, as it has done in Sweden, but conscription will indeed remain in place.

Comment by Helsinkian — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
tim73 wrote (in post 9):
“Yes, you Americans had your Vietnam but apart from that, you could just sit down and be coach generals behind our backs.”

The USA has been driving its own agenda in many places (also by organizing and/or facilitating the assassinations of democratically chosen leaders who would’ve been “problematic” for the US to influence) but never has any of its military campaigns been won through any strategic skill supremacy or tactical knowledge. Behind their successful campaigns are basically two key reasons: overpowering resources and overpowering manforce. Although it’s still amazing how they managed to lose in Vietnam, considering what they were up against and how big their overpower was.

Comment by Ãƒâ€¦boy — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 6:41 pm
tim73
Just what does the USA and Vietnam and military service have to do with a “No Spine” waive the white flag of surrender EU?

Look, you guys cried rivers of tears for Lebanon, when it was Israel that was attacked by Lebanon in the first place. Yet when it comes time to actually do something, we get what, a piddley 50 extra French troops?

You don’t even see your Spine missing here, that what is really pathetic.

Comment by winter — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
What’s the problem here? They are deciding over those EU troops on friday and Winter is already selling sackcloth and ashes. As it is the EU, there sure is plenty of chance to get an egg on one’s face, but let’s see first, how it turns out.

Speaking of overpowering resources and overpowering manforce, it’s worth remembering, that U.S. won all the battles in Vietnam, but the military victory turned out to be irrelevant for the final outcome. It looks like Israel is having the same symptoms of mammoth disease. I would have expected something more clever from the IDF, than playing their hand like a pulloperse sika and hitting mosquitos with a sledgehammer.

In the Soviet Union they had a theory about the war between a socialist and capitalist state. According to that theory, the socialist state would prevail, because the workers in the capitalist state would rise against their “oppressors”. Well, the workers of Helsinki and Tampere didn’t like getting bombed at. Now this failed theory is alive and well in the Middle-East. Bomb the scheisse out of the ordinary Lebanese and they’ll revenge it to the Hizbollah. Nice going.

The problem with the sole brute force solution is that one has to go so far, that there is no one left fearing, loathing and setting up a revenge. And who’s the nazi then, if one really goes that far. Usually, the brute force is applied up to the “Oh man, that felt good” point and then you can retire to wait for the next round, blaming the bloody politicians and peace opposition for obstructing you before the job was finished.

Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
Winter: That is called strategic thinking, French and EU sure as hell do not want to do Israel’s dirty work for them and get caught in the crossfire with no powers to shoot back. That is what happened in Jugoslavia in the 90’s, UN troops were powerless to do anything within their given set of rules and Serbians sure as hell did know that.

Iraq is and will be total disaster for USA. Now terrorism is skyrocketing all around the globe, thanks to Americans angering those one billion Muslims. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and still you attacked them like bunch of stupid teenagers with no careful tactical or strategic thinking whatsoever.

Comment by tim73 — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 10:20 pm
IsraelÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s dirty work for them ? And yet you have no problem telling Israel to get out of Lebanon, a place where rockets are attacking them?

“Iraq is and will be total disaster for USA.??”

Please tell the world you measure of success for Iraq? I just can’t wait for this one. By the way please compare you measure of success with Iraq at 4 years with Germany, 4 years after that war was over. You may find that Iraq is actually ahead.

“Americans angering those one billion Muslims.” Humm you got me on that one. So they did not hate America back in the Jimmy Carter days and the take over of an US embassy? I must have missed all the love they had for us back then.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Wow the light goes on. You figured it all out. We went into Iraq because of the attacks on 9/11 by 19 kids from Saudi Arabia. How brilliant, but I thought it was for all the oil? Naw, maby it was because Sadam violated UN resolutions? Naw, maby it was because Sadam tried to kill a US President, an act of war. Naw, I like the oil one better.

“no careful tactical or strategic thinking whatsoever.” Humm, I guess the real problem in the middle east, Iran, now has the US 4th Infantry Division right on its boarder. Wow, and next door the Afghan government is sorta pro friendly. But you may be right, no tactical thinking anywhere. How brilliant you can be to find Iran with pure friends all around. Want to run for USA president? If not how about a Governor?

Comment by winter — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 10:49 pm
I will give you one metric to help you with Iraq:

“On the metric of violence in Iraq, it appears that about 80% of Iraq has a murder rate no higher than in the roughest neighborhoods in Chicago, Los Angeles, or Miami. This is worthy of being classified as ‘violent criminal activity’ rather than ‘civil war’. The remaining 20% of Iraq has a higher rate of violence, but no higher than it was two years ago. Note that life expectancy in Iraq has actually risen.

and the metric that really counts

Iraq’s GDP will grow 16.8% in 2006 and 13.6% in 2007, making it the fastest growing economy in the world, and many times faster than the world average of around 4%. This huge surge will snap Iraq out of its long misery (the US snapped out of the Great Depression in the same way with massive WW2-driven economic growth in 1942-45). Many Iraqis are set to see their financial situations improve dramatically, and as stated by PR master Bill Clinton, “It’s the Economy, Stupid”. Appeal to people’s prosperity, and much else works itself out.

Comment by winter — Thu, Aug 24th, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
Echa A Rodar Tu Corto. . .
Your short feature to travel all over the world…

cinevivo

http://www.cinevivo.com.ar

Comment by S. — Fri, Aug 25th, 2006 @ 1:48 am
“On the metric of violence in Iraq, it appears that about 80% of Iraq has a murder rate no higher than in the roughest neighborhoods in Chicago, Los Angeles, or Miami. This is worthy of being classified as Ã¢â‚¬Ëœviolent criminal activityÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ rather than Ã¢â‚¬Ëœcivil warÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. The remaining 20% of Iraq has a higher rate of violence, but no higher than it was two years ago. Note that life expectancy in Iraq has actually risen.”

So 80 percent of Iraq is basically one big rough ghetto and 20 percent is MUCH WORSE OFF. June 2006: Over 100 Iraqis killed per DAY. The bloodiest month so far. There are about 24 million Iraqis so that would equivalent of 456 000 AMERICANS killed every year or 1250 per DAY or about 50 road bombs going off every single day all around USA! You call that success?

There is a civil war going on. Only a totally FOX News brainwashed Republican like you could say such a BS.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

Comment by tim73 — Fri, Aug 25th, 2006 @ 2:24 am
You call that success?

Well lets ask some Iraques. 64% of Iraqis believe that Iraq is going in the right direction, and 77% are still glad that Saddam was removed. Given that Shiites and Kurds are the ones Saddam had killed millions of, these high approval numbers are a surprise only to anti-American fanatics, who the Iraqis are obviously not listening

Well yes. Life is better than under Saddam. You seem to miss that idea.

But then again you want Saddam back? Do you want this war to be won? It seems you are for losing, and thats the sad part.

Comment by winter — Fri, Aug 25th, 2006 @ 2:45 am
IraqÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s GDP will grow 16.8% in 2006 and 13.6% in 2007, making it the fastest growing economy in the world,
Correct me if Im wrong, but this is calculated in relation to previous year? Seeing as how in 2002 and 2003 the whole countrys GDP was near that of a stone-age nation, it is pretty hard NOT to improve. Examble; Finland goes from 100 to 104 points. GDP Growth is 4% USA goes from 124 to 134, and thats even more (I cant make myself calculate how much).

Iraq goes from 56 (2001) to 13 (2003) and then rises the following years to 20 and 25. Thats huge growth, but the end result is still less than half what it was in 2001. How much has Iraq gone up since 2001? I bet the figure would be something like negative -30%.

Comment by iJusten — Fri, Aug 25th, 2006 @ 5:49 am
Is there any chance that you guys could give this organgrinder’s monkey, Winter, what he deserves? To respond this village idiot is more than he propably gets anywhere outside this forum and makes him feel that he has finally accomplished something in his miserable life. Please, stop feeding the monkey!

Comment by Petteri — Fri, Aug 25th, 2006 @ 7:22 am
@petteri,
OK, but who’s the organgrinder and why’s he abandoned the poor dumb beast?

Comment by prince of dorkness — Fri, Aug 25th, 2006 @ 11:46 am
Regarding US and the French: Rich Lowry’s latest column is titled “You’ll never confuse George W. Bush with a Frenchman”:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjRkZTNhM2Q4ODQ1ZTBmOTQ4YzE4MDNhOTU2MDk2NWU=

Comment by Helsinkian — Fri, Aug 25th, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
Let me summarize the EU

You guys ignore what the Iraques are saying, about their own country. Why? Because it may not be what you want to hear.

You guys support the other side, and are hoping the USA will lose. In other words you don’t think Iraq will turn out like Germany did 50 years later. So no comparisons allowed, we just might not like the results.

You supported Hezbollah and their shooting of rockets into Israel. And gasp, we can’t let Israel even defend itself, thats against the law.

You guys send troups out on defensive missions only, with sunscreen so they will not get burned. Let the USA do all the hard work, as thats what they are there for.

When you do get stuck in a hard place, one where you can’t complain about the USA, you let 9,000 Mulsems get frog marched off to a machine gun. Boy did the excuses flow on that one.

Did I get your powerfull position in the world correct? You do have a larger population that the USA, a large GDP, so just why aren’t you considered a superpower?

Comment by winter — Fri, Aug 25th, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
Allow me to quote the ending of that Lowry column:

“When President Bush is gone, conservative foreign policy will change. But it won’t be a change the foreign-policy establishment likes. It won’t be toward a let’s-talk-even-more-to-the-French multilateralism as represented by Nebraska’s tiresome Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel. It will be something more selfish and hardheaded, something more French in its motivation - Bush without the soft touches. Then, the world will miss the earnest do-gooding United States of old.”

(Rich Lowry, Conservative columnist in National Review)

Comment by Helsinkian — Fri, Aug 25th, 2006 @ 6:40 pm
winter: you know very well why the EU is not considered a superpower. In essence there are several competing foreign policies and differing national interests. Rather the EU is an economic superpower, not a military superpower. One of the reasons is that when European integration was getting started in the 1950s, the European Defence Community treaty fell in the French National Assembly. Since the military integration was not politically possible, the economic pillar had to become the central one. Europe would look different today, if a common military had been successful early on. The other founding members of the EEC would have accepted the idea but the French blocked it.

Comment by Helsinkian — Fri, Aug 25th, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
Of course, because of NATO, building a European military was never that important. Europe could count on the US, and this has suited the US quite well until our day because Europe has not become a superpower that would compete with America in the military field.

Comment by Helsinkian — Fri, Aug 25th, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
“Europe has not become a superpower that would compete with America in the military field.”

either quite wasting you dollars on a military that goes no where with out suntan oil, or get serious. Because as more disfunctional nations get the nuke (Iran), you will wake up someday needing one.

Comment by winter — Fri, Aug 25th, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
#30

“Of course, because of NATO, building a European military was never that important. Europe could count on the US, and this has suited the US quite well…”

Yep, we provided the US with a nice launch pad to the Soviet Union. We were the front line. I can only say, I’m glad we’re not imperializing anything big these days. And nobody wants anything from us. No need for a big military.

However, it was quite effective during a major flood disaster I experienced a few years back. And we even had some resources left over to help with Katrina.

Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Aug 25th, 2006 @ 8:45 pm
“Europe could count on the US” is a good comment. But I think that is not true now.

You folks need to realize this USA bashing, with no real off-setting effort on your part, has had its effect. I don’t think you could ask, or even expect the USA to help you anymore. The next little Yugoslavia you have, well don’t ask the USA for any help.

I for one will be loud and vocal to not help you in any way.

Comment by winter — Fri, Aug 25th, 2006 @ 11:33 pm
winter–if there’s something in it for you, like in Yugo, then you’ll be there. Trust me. And we’ll be there too if there’s something in it for us–with our cowboy hats on

By the way, I’ve been meaning to ask… Most people who post here have some connection to Finland–they live here, have lived here, heritage, or they’re just interested for some reason. Where do you fit in? Are you just visiting because we’ve got the EU presidency? Or maybe you found this blog by chance?

I’m really just curious and I hope you don’t mind me asking a personal question. I actually enjoy reading your posts. They remind me of when I lived in the states.

Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Aug 26th, 2006 @ 2:29 am
The only good thing with the Yugo war, was the complete destruction of the Yugo car factory. For that one act alone we should get a pat on the back.

Finland?? I have been to your country. In the summer. Your Raindeer were the most interesting creatures you have up north.

Comment by winter — Sat, Aug 26th, 2006 @ 3:09 am
@25
Prince, Winter holds a tin cup in his little hairy hands for the orator extraordinaire, the leader of the “freedom loving people” (whether they want it or not), the guarantor of the second coming of Jesus C, the saviour of all life as long it’s unborn, the champion of simple solution to every complex problem, the one and only (thank god!) the organgrinder par excelence - George W. Bush himself.

Comment by Petteri — Sat, Aug 26th, 2006 @ 11:08 am
Ah GW Bush. A second comming of R Reagan. Good guy. He even has a spine. Watch out Iran, we have a leader.

Comment by winter — Sat, Aug 26th, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
I think winter has got you guys on Iraq. Let’s take sections of time of say maybe one day or even 5 minutes out of WWII and compare to Iraq. I believe the bombing of Dresden killed over 300,000 civilians, D-day killed over 3,000 US soldiers in less than 5 minutes, and nobody has been complaining that it was a failure.

Iraq has been much more tame and yet all the Euros do is bitch. Thank
God the US has staying power(at least so far). Ask how many town meetings have been held, businesses started, hospitals built and nobody knows. It’s such a boring statistic and difficult one to measure. It’s much easier to look at the body count.

Same thing with government health care; people just talk about life expectancey and infant mortality, which have very little to do with the health care system. But they are the easiest statistics. Once you get substanative, people roll their eyes and change the subject.

I’ve had many friends and aquintences in Iraq or who have done tours of duty; one drops bombs, one operates a machine gun, another is a sniper, one works with Iraqi towns to set up government sturcture and teach them how to hold REAL town meetings, another builds hospitals and schools, one’s a nurse practitioner helping Iragis, another in intelligence(he speaks three dialects of Arabic, Spanish, Finnish, and Russian), two National Guard members who hold logistics positions, and finally two who were in the service for the first 2 years and now are hired guns for Blackwater Security.

Most of them are quite frank with their opinions of how things are going there. It seems to me that it is a three steps foward, two steps back kind of situation. They all say today or this week might be horrible but when they compare their progress to 6 months ago things look pretty good. They all think that it was a much bigger can of worms than was originally bargained for. They all HATE the political side of the US Military. They say most journalists are a bunch of pussies who remain in heavily guarded areas and run their stories based on the rumor mill(which I guess in Arabic nations is quite large)… They also say that journalists are targets so in a way they can’t be blamed for staying in heavily guarded areas, but can be blamed for lazy journalism and reporting shit.

Americans have a great interest in what’s going on in Iraq, because most of us have people close to us that have been there. I’ll bet winter knows more about Iraq than all the other posters in this room combined.

One more thing. Seems that every 8 months or so Iraq is on the verge of civil war, meaning it may start tomorrow. Media all over the US( and more so in the rest of the world) talk about how things are going to hell in a handbasket. Then 2 months later the civil war talk dies down. I bet it’ll continue to ramp up in the US until the November elections and then all of a sudden it will be off the radar for a while(this will depend on who wins the elections)

Comment by maksalaatikko — Sun, Aug 27th, 2006 @ 12:56 am
Agreed, maksalaatikko. The more interesting information about Iraq is not being properly reported in Europe, - nor in the States - for political reasons. This has, perhaps, for the first time revealed the political fault lines in different societies, and within societies.

I always supported the liberation of Iraq, even though the subsequent occupation hasn’t gone off without a few hitches. But when all is said and done, the neo-con strategy did, in fact, work. However, there was one bit that I wasn’t very sure of: how would a democracy, like America’s, be able to handle a long-term occupation and democratization process, as America has tried to do in Iraq? A democratic people are enormously fickle when it comes to the prioritization of interests. I’ve been very worried about the long-term struggle (but only domestically, in America), as a war of attrition is always very draining on a democracy that needs to keep the public’s attention on the issues on a constant basis.

The Bush Administration, in this regard, - I think - has made several mistakes of omission. A long war of attrition needs to have an articulate leadership constantly in the limelight, assuring and confirming, - and leading - the public. Bush hasn’t been an exact success in that regard, to say the least.

Yet what is surprising to me is that the public still supports the effort in spite of the rather poor public leadership. The public is not swayed by defeatist arguments, as it was during the Vietnam War. There has been a sea-change in how the public reacts to information, mainly due to a new, more skeptical relation the public has with media. This gives us hope, for the future, that democracies can engage in risky endeavors like the one in Iraq, without as many adverse domestic consequences as happened after Vietnam.

As to the international consequences, they are irrelevant. That’s what the world attains when it adopts anti-American bigotry as the mainstay for their political stances. They simply lose leverage in dealing with America.

Comment by Finnpundit — Sun, Aug 27th, 2006 @ 3:32 am
What a strange world we are living in. Anti-Americanism, defined by neo-cons such as Finnpundit, is rapidly multiplying world wide and has taken a firm hold in the hearts and minds of the good folks in the U.S.A., too. The shrinking support for this illplanned, poorly excecuted, stay the course even if we don’t know where the hell we are adventure to Iraq is telling to most of us that the damn course can’t be stayed on any longer. Real people are dying for the ignorant ideologs that have forshaken all the rationality and replaced it with their dead end dogmas and myths. That there still is, after all that has gone down in Iraq so far, any support for these fascists is absolutely mind boggling.

These knuckle heads in the White House went, in their monumental ignorance, to Iraq to set an example in Baghdad what the Jeffersonian democracy is all about and thus set wheels in motion to change the whole region forever. Well, I suppose they succeeded but hardly the way they envisioned. It remains to be seen, how much longer the American people are ready to finance this insanity and how many more of their sons and daughters have to die before they say; ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

Comment by Petteri — Sun, Aug 27th, 2006 @ 10:41 am
“ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!” the cut and run folks are here. Lets all celebrate. But heck, we don’t care what happens after we cut and run.

After all did any of you shred one tear of the 9,000 Muslims killed after a short frog walk in Yugoslavia? I did not see any. I really don’t think you guys care.

Comment by winter — Sun, Aug 27th, 2006 @ 4:42 pm
40: Fascinatingly clutzy diatribe from Petteri. On one hand he bemoans the rapidly multiplying neo-cons, on the other he claims “shrinking support” for the war. But I guess the “enough is enough” takes the cake, as if Finns have any real say in such matters.

Comment by Finnpundit — Sun, Aug 27th, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
I hope the Yankees stay the course and pacify Iraq. Bugging out now would be an even worse disaster.

A lose lose situation for sure, but they’ve got no one else to blame but their nonexistant post-war planning.

Comment by m — Sun, Aug 27th, 2006 @ 6:45 pm
Petteri is a classic example of a know-nothing on the Middle East. Emotional tirade throught red hot hatred. War is war if we measured it by sons and daughters dying, this would be the most succesful war in the history of the United States much less the world.

If we compared that to WWII we would have quit and returned home less than 15 minutes into our combat involvement in the war.

Petteri, your hatred defies all logic. Facts do not matter to you. I believe you have been manipulated by your hatred and the “anti-American” parts of the Euro media. You take one of the best arguments that the pro-liberation people have going for them and make it your own. In terms of death, this has been a succesful war so far.

I’m ready to be rational and say mistakes were made and still are being made, such is the way of war. I also offer my opinion based on what I have heard from people on the ground and from the media, but seething hatred does not factor into my thinking. I would guess that my hatred of Islamic terrorists is greater than Petteri’s hatred of America, yet I don’t let it cloud my thinking.

I thinks it’s interesting we have post #40 by a rabid leftist lunatic who is imeadiately tuned out, and post #43 by a leftist who I disagree with in almost all counts; but who I also think is rational human being worth listening, however misguided he may be(insert smiley face here).

Comment by maksalaatikko — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 12:41 am
#42

Finnpundit, if I ever needed the proof of you wearing the neo-con collored specks, I got it with this comment of yours. Go back and read my comment #39 and maybe you’ll find what I said was that anti-Americanism is growing even in America. I also refered “Enough Is Enough” to Americans and it is as clear as Dick Cheney’s forehead and which you managed not to understand. I am totally aware of your incapability in taking in any new ideas, but surely you should be able to understand those words that have been put together to form a sentence. Then again…maybe not.

Comment by Petteri — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 2:11 am
Speaking of anti-Americanism…

For a large part, people here in Finland were always pro-American. Some theorize that it was the Finnish population’s effort to distance itself ideologically from the Soviets (whom they pretty much hated). So, looking enthusiastically toward the west was just a natural reaction.

And the pop culture was also seen as cool, as were American cars. In fact, in the 70’s and 80’s, this was like Cuba with classic American cars cruising the streets–round and round the Esplanadi…Stray Cats on the radio, ducktails, etc.

Yes, Finland’s population was known for being the most pro-US country in Europe. Hell, even my family was pro-US, and they still hesitate to speak badly about it. I think lots of older people feel that way.

But now, since the US attacked Iraq, the younger generation has a much more cynical view. It still likes the pop culture, as the parents did. But, whereas the parents minds were shaped by imagining America as a ‘force for good’ in the world–a land of wholesome cowboys saving the day, so to speak–the young people now see that it’s also capable of acting in pure self-interest and greed.

We can all try to convince each other about the wonderful deeds that the US is doing. But no one believes it. It’s not just in Europe; the sentiment is in every single country of the world. In fact, the only people on this planet who believe that the US is doing good things are a small group of neo-cons in the US.

I just wonder how this will play-out for America in the future. These kids who’ll be tomorrow’s leaders now have an imprint in their minds about the US. And judging by the older generation, these imprints seem to last a pretty long time.

Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 4:18 am
But now, since the US attacked Iraq,

I disagree with your timeline, Kristian. Anti-Americanism in its present form began about ten years earlier, when the Soviet Union collapsed. All of a sudden it seemed to people that capitalism won (even American capitalists were stunned). More importantly, it was the welfare states of Europe who now felt it necessary to justify their socialist, statist stances in their national economies and policies. To do that, they had to measure themselves against the main model for capitalism: America. And they began very coherent, well-planned campaigns based on promulgating anti-American bigotry within their state bureaucracies, their academia, and their media.

To blame Iraq is a rather flimsy excuse. I can clearly remember in 2002 Finns telling me how terrible it was for Americans to impose themselves on Afghanistan and get rid of the Taliban. They would not have made such statements if not for years-long prior conditioning in anti-American bigotry, courtesy of the Finnish state.

As to America’s present unpopularity in the world, I would refer to your own comments on how America was viewed in Finland in the eighties. Things change. What really matters is if foreign governments adopt bigotry as the basis of their policies, as that tends to slow down change.

Comment by Finnpundit — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 4:48 am
@44

Maksalaatikko, in the universe that you co-habitate with the dear leader, Junior, hate and fear are the prime ingredients that make their/your sort of ideology marketable. After gazillions spent on your security, you are running around your collective hair on fire and feeling ever increasingly vulnerable to some far away tribe men’s real or precieved threaths to your well being. With the dough you spend in a week in Iraq alone, you could establish air thight controls on all your borders to make sure that nothing that could harm your security could be sneaked in. Oh well, I have to admit that to move the whole bloody U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and what else you might have is a lot more visually gripping and sexy. Too bad that it is also just about the dumbest option to use.

The war in Iraq was ofcourse a brilliant success, a kind of nice and easy video game. Nobody ever doubted that, by the U.S. spending more than 50% of the world’s total military expenditure, it would have been any different. Unfortunately for you, this war has been over more than three years and the occupation phase has been nothing but the textbook case how not to. Your infidel Army never did win the hearts and minds (which everybody except Bush&Co could predict), and the most importantly they never were and propably never will establish a control in order to protect the civilian population of Iraq. This is after all the most important task that occupyer has and, by any measure, your regime has failed monumentally.

Finally, to call a person like myself as a hateful is so far out there that I am having a bit of a hard time responding. Does it mean now, in this neo-con “new-speech”, that those who settle disputes by violence are men of peace/democracy and those who want to settle things by civilized manner, including diplomacy, are hatefull terrorists/communists themselves? My dad used to tell me when I felt frustrated for a reason or another: “Don’t worry, Petteri, the truth is like a big nut in a mix, it will always work itself up on top”. Although in Finnpundit’s case all the bets are off and even Maksalaatikko might have a few too many fermented raisins in him to obscure clearer thinking.

Comment by Petteri — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 6:43 am
“I disagree with your timeline, Kristian. Anti-Americanism in its present form began about ten years earlier…”

I see a big change. At least before the attacks on Afhanistan and Iraq, there were many who saw the US in a good light. Obviously not everybody, and leftists are much less inclined anyway. But there was definitely a large number of people who more-or-less supported US policies, even if only to bolster support of their own likeminded policies.

But, then, suddenly there was a very marked change—Afghanistan was the catalyst, but Iraq solidified the sentiment. Now, not even the conservatives are especially enthusiastic about the US. It’s just not a popular stance at all.

And on a completely superficial note, but perhaps a valid indicator nonetheless… Among young people, who perhaps don’t have well-thoughout ideas about politics and economics, the change was obvious. Before the attack on Afghanistan, everyone had US flags on their shirts and handbags, etc. Then, suddenly, after Afghanistan, they all disappeared. In fact, it was very obvious.

I know it was just MTV-fed pop culture trendiness, but there was definitely a clear sign that they had a change of thinking. I didn’t find the change completely bad, because maybe people should forge their own identities, rather than following everything the US does. After all, not *everything* from the US is all that great. Now people question those negative things a bit more openly.

But many things from the US ARE great. And I find it a shame that people are now closed-off to discussing them. I’m not just talking about Finland, nor just the rest of Europe (btw, I was in c. Europe during the start of both Afghanistan and Iraq). Instead, these sentiments are shared by the majority populations of every country in the world.

And as I stated before, bad sentiments last a long time. Even if a new, ‘better behaving’ adminstration takes office, it’ll have plenty of negative opinions to counter against.

Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 7:03 pm
50: Kristian, it may be true that Afghanistan and Iraq were catalysts in one way, but you might have missed the strange anti-American fervor during the Yugoslavian crisis: the US was criticized for not doing anything, then it was critized for taking action.

In 1999, the anti-American political stances were already very clear. Clinton was denounced as a cowboy for his “strongarm” tactics with the Serbs (never mind that the slaughters essentially stopped after Clinton’s bombing campaign, and we’ve had peace in that part of the world since then).

The catalysts took place over a background of consistent anti-American campaigning engaged by the welfare states of Europe. There was always an agenda, and it’s an agenda that continues today.

You seem to bemoan the “negative opinions” against America today. It seems to me that you would like to see some kind of return to the kinds of allegiances that used to exist between Europe and America.

I don’t. That relationship was based on European freeriding. It doesn’t disturb me in the least that Europeans and Americans may see each other as enemies. In fact, I would welcome such a refreshing change, because that would be a closer approximation to the truth.

Comment by Finnpundit — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 8:46 pm
“In 1999, the anti-American political stances were already very clear. Clinton was denounced as a cowboy for his Ã¢â‚¬Å“strongarmÃ¢â‚¬Â tactics with the Serbs”

I think it was the mass killing of civilians that got people a bit upset. Of course, since it was a NATO action, European countries also took part in the bombing if I recall correctly. In any case, there was lots of self-criticism about those actions too.

Underneath it all, there was a common goal of getting gas pipelines through that region. But I think it’s safe to assume that the US benefited far more than Europe in that deal.

By the way, Yugoslavia or not, Clinton was immensely popular in Europe.

“The catalysts took place over a background of consistent anti-American campaigning engaged by the welfare states of Europe. There was always an agenda, and itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s an agenda that continues today.”

There was also a free market agenda that countered it. But, like I mentioned previously, perhaps it’s not so loud these days.

“You seem to bemoan the Ã¢â‚¬Å“negative opinionsÃ¢â‚¬Â against America today.

If anything, it seems like you should bemoan them. Maybe not with Europe specifically, but with the rest of the world.

“It seems to me that you would like to see some kind of return to the kinds of allegiances that used to exist between Europe and America.”

Hard to say. Like I stated, there’s good and bad. And they probably come in equal amounts. Under the right circumstances it might be ok, but I’m in no hurry to see anything happen.

“I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. That relationship was based on European freeriding.”

Then the solution is to stop buying European products. It’s that simple, right?

Of course not. Whereas there’s an American trade deficit with the EU, American companies do have European subsidiaries from which they benefit—presumable rather handsomely. So, we might fantasize all day about how the US is going to ‘pull the plug’ on freeriding Europe, but unless it makes business sense to do so, it’s not going to happen.

“It doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t disturb me in the least that Europeans and Americans may see each other as enemies.”

I didn’t realize we see each other as enemies. But, I think that no matter how much people have these real or imagined ‘hatreds’, it makes very little sense for western countries to fight among themselves. The real competition is just over the eastern horizon. Industry seems to realize it—but if industry didn’t realize it, then we’d be free to hate as much as we like

Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 4:13 am