Tuomioja “a zero, and incompetent?â€Â
@ 6:27 am Just as I was scanning news items for information at the latest (non)development in Finland’s presidential handling of the crisis in southern Lebanon, none other than oily Jacques Chirac comes out with an alleged broadside against Erkki Tuomioja. Though Chirac’s handlers are now busy trying to spin the story, Chirac is well known to blurt things out at the most inopportune moments (remember the “opportunity to shut up� That term has now been coined into common usage).
As HS reports:
According to the story, Chirac had asked Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy during a government meeting last week, if Blazy had told Tuomioja that he is “a zero, and incompetent”.
Douste-Blazy reportedly responded “I did, but not in so many words”.
“Are you sure that he understood?” Chirac asked.
“Yes, at least the Prime Minister did”, was the Foreign Minister’s response. To that, Chirac is said to have commented that the Finns have one thing going for them: “they are far away.”
And far be it for me to defend Chirac, - perhaps the worst European leader we have seen in decades - but the man is right. Tuomioja’s performance in a time of crisis has been nothing but lackluster. In fact, Finland has simply not succeeded at all in terms of leadership, ultimately putting the whole wisdom of rotating EU presidencies into question.
But would we assume that such a bumbling foreign minister might be fired soon? There seems to be little debate about that in Finland, perhaps because such an act would be seen as an indictment of Tarja Halonen herself. And far be it for Finns to upset their dear old mother.
OK, so what exactly is your beef with the guy? How has he gotten Finland into trouble? What crises has he sparked or exacerbated? How has he hurt Finnish or European interests? Or is it just that the fact that he is a Social Democrat mean that he is unable, by definition, to do anything right?
Comment by Kimmo W. — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 8:56 am
It’s because Erkki is a socialist. Phil doesn’t like socialists they are evil and incompetent in his opinion. Like in my opinion liberterians are incompetent and delusional just like communists are.
We’re all entitled to our subjective opinions even when our opinions are based on political dogma.
But of course it would be nice to think with our brains once in a while
Comment by Blah — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 11:35 am
And speaking of Chirac, that man is a clown just like berlusconi and blair.
One down, two to go
Comment by Blah — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 11:38 am
I think most of the readers of this blog know someone who is rightly considered “a zero, an incompetent”. It’s not Tuomioja.
Comment by finnsense — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
I think Tuomioja is easily the best performer in the Finnish government vis a vis the EU presidency. He has certainly been the most visable in the media, more so than Vanhanen. He has taken a strong line against Israel since the beginning, it is not his fault that other EU member states (ex. UK and Germany) would not support this type of position for the union as a whole.
Comment by JG — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
OK, so what exactly is your beef with the guy? How has he gotten Finland into trouble?
If he’d gotten Finland into serious trouble, he’d be Finnpundit’s hero.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
He has taken a strong line against Israel since the beginning
And why we might wonder about the morality of an anti-Israel stance, it is all very simple: Finnish foreign policy is mainly dictated by the number of potential cell phone buyers around the world - and there are quite a few more who speak Arabic than Hebrew. It’s all driven by the hallowed Free Market, but apparently Finnpundit still has a problem with it. Go figure.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
#6
Freeridin’—
To be honest, I never thought of it that way…..and I’m usually pretty quick at ‘following the money trail’ to understand motives. You might have an excellent point there: Kudos!
Personally, I love the fact that Tuomioja doesn’t pander to Israel—doesn’t matter to me whether it’s for financial or ideological reasons. It’s all good
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
Tuomioja’s pro-Palestine stance predates cell phones with 20 yars or so.
Comment by tomia — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
And why we might wonder about the morality of an anti-Israel stance
I don’t believe that Tuomioja adopted an anti-Israel stance. But yes, rightly he was critical of Israel’s disproportionate actions in Lebanon. This is not the same as being anti-Israel. It’s an interesting common occurance that critisisms of any Israeli action are viewed as anti-Israel on so many occasions, where one can more easily critisise other nations’ policies without being branded anti-Somewhereland.
Comment by JG — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
Given the ultra slow deployment by EU forces, can someone say snail pace, the lebanon, why are you giving any EU leader a pass.
I now how critical you all were of a USA response to a Hurricane last year, yet when it comes to your own failures, you give yourselves a pass.
I guess unless its the evil USA doing the screw up, then its ok.
then there is this pathetic “fact that Tuomioja doesn’t pander to Israelâ€â€doesn’t matter to me whether it’s for financial or ideological reasons. It’s all good”
Taking the fact, that Israel was attacked, defended itself, seems to be totally over looked by the welfare state EU lets not pander to Israel bunch.
Comment by winter — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
winter—
There’s a big difference between hurricanes and war actions. Europe usually does a great job resolving natural disasters—even America’s Katrina disaster.
War actions are different in that terms must be negotiated first. If one side doesn’t agree (in this case Israel), then nothing can or should be done.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
Winter, Israel was never going to listen or take notice of the EU’s peace efforts whilst the USA’s government was giving them the green light to continue and even supplying them with weapons to do so.
It is the USA’s government that far more actively got involved in prolonging the conflict than anything that the EU did or did not do.
The USA could use its extensive political, economic and military influence over Israel as a very strong lever to get Israel to act in a more responsbile mannor. I think if it did so, USA would receive a lot of support and perhaps even admiration in other parts of the world.
Comment by JG — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
You might even say that we’ve got a rather balanced approach on Israel. We don’t support it, but we don’t necessarily work against it either. But naturally, any country that doesn’t actively support Israel, is against it by default.
And, of course, a significant number of Americans have bought-into that notion. Luckily, we haven’t. But then again, we don’t have such a big ‘Jewish factor’ in our politics.
In contrast to Europe, the US government takes a more unbalanced approach by spending 3-billion per year or more to fund Israel. But remember, it’s not the government’s money per se. No winter, it’s YOUR money. Good thing you like sending it overseas.
winter, my advice to you: Take back your country.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
No winter, it’s YOUR money. Good thing you like sending it overseas.
Anything else would be waeeving the French white flag of surrender.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
Remember two things:
In France political rhetorics is rather dirty compared to Finland. Whatever Chirac has said may sound strong to you, but in France it’s just everyday chat. They offend anyone who’s not French-speaking, seriously.
Secondly: Lebanon used to be a French colony, if I recall..
Comment by Perttu — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
“get Israel to act in a more responsbile mannor.”
just what response should Israel have when it is attacked and with troops killed and taken hostage? Should they be offering Dental care?
Come on guys lets set the Response bar now, so you can’t raise it later.
Comment by winter — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
“USA would receive a lot of support and perhaps even admiration in other parts of the world.”
you have to be kidden me. After your pathetic support after 9/11? You really think we now expect your support? Get real, we know when we have been stabbed in the back.
By the way Darfur is falling apart again. Soon to have anothe million killed. But good news. The USA does not care. Its a good case of letting the Chinese secure some more oil. Ah.. the sign of things to come.
Comment by winter — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
“Just what response should Israel have when it is attacked and with troops killed and taken hostage? Should they be offering Dental care?”
winter—that reminds me. Israel is a ‘welfare state’ just like Europe. Glad you feel good about sending your money there to support it
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 5:09 pm
#18
Ahh yes, Israel with free healthcare, free education….. Everything that America doesn’t have, yet you send your money there.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
Chirac is a fucking idiot. Someone apparently needs to point out to him the family-fun bonfire festival they had in France just a few months back. Maybe he should be taking care of his country instead of running off at the lip.
And talk about foreign policy incompetency, France only offers to send a few hundred troops to Lebanon as some sort of symbolic gesture. But when the Italians anounce they are sending a few thousand, France attempts to save face.
As for Tuomioja, it’s not his fault. The problem is this “rotating” EU presidency bullshit and the fact that there’s just way too many cooks in the kitchen. Everyone has been their own boss for so long now that they all have their own agenda. Name one successful EU presidency with the people behind it to a make a difference on the world stage. Don’t strain yourself.
Comment by gopha — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
That it, how brilliant. “Israel with free healthcare, free education…” when attacked should offer free healthcare and free education.
You guys have the answer every time. We the USA really need to listen to you. The world is now safer because of the EU.
Comment by winter — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
After your pathetic support after 9/11?
What? I don’t understand, what was pathetic about it? But I guess nobody has understood what you mean for a long time, you yourself included.
And the EU has taken care of the current Near East crisis in a pretty usual manner. First you guys break things and then cry out for us to come and clean up the mess. As obdient schoolboys we always come.
Comment by Anonymous — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 5:28 pm
Honestly, what kind of support did the United States need from Europe after 9/11 that it didn’t get?
In the immediate aftermath of the event, hearts and minds were very much on the side of the USA, but Bush managed to piss all of that away with his ostentatious right-wing machismo. In fact, his reaction was exactly what the terrorists were hoping for.
Why haven’t there been any more attacks on the USA? Bush has been doing the terrorists’ job for them by alienating world opinion, and by undermining civil liberties at home.
This week eXile magazine reprints a story by Matt Taibbi it ran soon after the attacks.
http://www.exile.ru/2001-September-20/feature_story.html
Here’s an excerpt:
“Do you think the people who committed these attacks were counting on anything but the most extreme possible response from the United States? Of course not. They knew what was going to happen.”
Comment by Kimmo W. — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
“That it, how brilliant. “Israel with free healthcare, free education…†when attacked should offer free healthcare and free education.”
winter—
my point was that you are paying 3-billion per year for Israel’s ‘welfare state’, so Israel can have luxuries that you don’t even have.
But I think you understood my point
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
“And talk about foreign policy incompetency, France only offers to send a few hundred troops to Lebanon as some sort of symbolic gesture. But when the Italians anounce they are sending a few thousand, France attempts to save face.
The problem is this “rotating†EU presidency bullshit [...] Everyone has been their own boss for so long now that they all have their own agenda.”
Exactly. Everyone has their own interests. That’s why making peace for the sake of making peace isn’t a priority for anyone—especially not for the US. Because who actually has more of their ‘own interests’ to consider than the US?
France doesn’t even come close, although it had some oil interest in Iraq; hence its non-support for the US war action. I beleive it also has interests in Lebanon; which would account for its non-support for a military action dictated solely by Israel’s terms.
Conversely, Italy’s business interests are closely tied to the US and Britain. Therefore it only makes sense that it offers to send lots of troops.
It’s not about who’s most ritious in saving the world and who’s a coward. That’s John Wayne -type logic. Every country’s actions are directly tied to its own business interests. Few exceptions.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
“France doesn’t even come close, although it had some oil interest in Iraq; hence its non-support for the US war action.”
Contrary to what was the case with the United States, I don’t think that the oil issue was the main motivation for the right decision that France made.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
#17
“By the way Darfur is falling apart again. [...] Its a good case of letting the Chinese secure some more oil. Ah.. the sign of things to come.”
winter—
Finally, you make a excellent argument without getting muddled in nonsense talk of who’s displaying ‘leadership’ and who’s showing ‘cowardice.’ Because, let’s face it, anyone who actively pursues his own interests is always the ‘leader.’ And his competitor who might show disinterest is always the ‘coward.’
Your point, if I may elaborate on your behalf—America is in a race to secure the world’s resources. It’s a post-Cold War reality. China is competing for those resources and so is Russia.
I think you’d have a much easier time constructing an honest argument that it’s in everyone’s best interests to let the US control the world’s energy supplies instead of China or Russia—and that any ends justify the means.
Of course, not everyone will agree; so obviously you’d need to defend your argument.
#26
Kimmo—
In France’s case, I believe it was a coinciding of business interests and its own domestic political reality. I believe there are some 5-million Muslims living in France. Perhaps France’s ties with Morocco must also be considered. Do you see other reasons?
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
“In France’s case, I believe it was a coinciding of business interests and its own domestic political reality.”
No doubt. I just don’t think that securing the nation’s oil supply had anything to do with it.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
America is in a race to secure the world’s resources. It’s a post-Cold War reality. China is competing for those resources and so is Russia.
That doesn’t make much sense. Whatever deals China makes or countries the USA occupies, oil will have a world market price which all parties have to pay. Well, of course we can imagine a world divided so that there would be no trade between the different parts. Then it would important to have as much oil as possible on “our” side. But that wouldn’t be “a post-Cold War reality” but a new cold war. Or hot. But fortunately no party can afford it nowadays, not even the USA, perhaps, not to mention Russia or China.
Comment by tomia — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
Come on guys lets set the Response bar now, so you can’t raise it later.
Hey winter, how about arranging the $3bn support for Israel through voluntary donations instead of those eevil steenkin’ taxes? After all, according to wise men in Blogistan, it works a lot better that way. Put your money where your mouth is for once.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 7:51 pm
After your pathetic support after 9/11?
What? I don’t understand, what was pathetic about it? But I guess nobody has understood what you mean for a long time, you yourself included.
I know what winter’s getting at. I was in Finland on Sept. 11, 2001 and while there was a lot of public sympathy, in the months that followed politicians like Tuomioja seemed more worried about Guantamo than the fact that the US was attacked. Kind of like how some people seem to conveniently forget that Hezbollah attacked Isreal first, not the other way around.
And then there were editorials in Helsingin Sanomat like this one:
http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20020102IE2
where the author talks about how his initial reaction to 9/11 was joy.
I’ve never forgotten these two things.
But the rightwingers in the US seem to also conveniently forget that this is not true about Europe in general. Many European countries that refused to help with Iraq, like Germany and France, have soldiers in Afghanistan.
Comment by dhen — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 8:26 pm
dhen, first prisoners arrived in Guantanamo about a half year later. Criticizing it was a pretty slow response to the 9/11, don’t you think?
Chister Kihlman is a 70 year old author who doesn’t write editorials in HS.
Reading some history regarding the Palestine wouldn’t hurt before knowing with absolute certainty who attacked first.
Anyway, even now when we know where the black-and-white cowboy attitude of the Bush administration lead to, is it a wise view to think that nothing it did should not have been criticized. Was it wrong to point out the problems in Guantanamo, for example? If so, has the Supreme Court now turned into a “Tuomioja”.
But yeah, I think that winter still thinks that the war in Iraq somehow was connected to the 9/11. Let’s see how long it will take before all Americans know that the link between Saddam an Al Qaida didn’t exist. Well, that won’t probably happen ever.
Comment by tomia — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 9:07 pm
#32
I’m no fan of Bush in any shape or form and I’m actually not defending Guantanamo. It just seemed to me living in Finland at the time that Tuomioja made a lot more noise about Guantanamo than 9/11. Which is the worse crime of the two?
Chister Kihlman is a 70 year old author who doesn’t write editorials in HS.
That may be true, but it is an opinion piece and it was printed in HS.
This essay continues a tradition started in Helsingin Sanomat a few years ago, in which a Finnish writer is invited to comment on the events of the past year. Christer Kihlman, 71, is a novelist and playwright writing in Swedish.
(From the page I linked.)
Reading some history regarding the Palestine wouldn’t hurt before knowing with absolute certainty who attacked first.
Please try not to be condescending and I promise to do the same. I’m actually quite familiar with the history of the region. Whatever debate there may be about whether the Balfour Declaration was a good idea doesn’t change the fact that in the recent conflict Hezbollah attacked first. Israel exists, whether or not it’s neighbors want it to.
Comment by dhen — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
Whatever debate there may be about whether the Balfour Declaration was a good idea doesn’t change the fact that in the recent conflict Hezbollah attacked first.
Balfour Declaration is not the only reason behind the problem as you must know. It all started much earlier and perhaps the worst things happened after 67. I personally find it very frustrating when people “know” that it’s the Hezbollah who are the bad guys. As if they had not been treated like shit, their homes destroyed, children killed, for decades. Yeah, they are terrorists, but what would you be when faced with a superior army. The bottom line is that it’s very, very difficult to find any good guys in the area. And it’s very, very far from clear that “in the recent conflict Hezbollah attacked first”. When did the “recent conflict” start exactly? And who were the parties?
Comment by tomia — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 9:43 pm
It’s a tit for tat conflict, that’s for sure. And I won’t argue with you about the fact that both sides have blood on their hands. Israel has acted disgustingly on many occasions, but I also believe they would like to live in peace with their neighbors and it’s the only democracy in the region. I’m not an expert on Hezbollah, but as far as I can see they want nothing less than an Islamic theocracy and the destruction of Israel. But feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on that score.
It’s ironic to think that there was a time when Islam tolerated Jews and Christians as “people of the book” while Christians were going around burning heretics.
Comment by dhen — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 10:02 pm
33. Israel remains a European creation. Its conceptualization began in Europe, due to European anti-Semitism. It received major impetus from Europe’s Holocaust, of course, but in other ways, too: after the war, when Jewish survivors were trying to return to their previous homes, most found that their homes were occupied by people who had no desire to give up the property they now had title to. And Jews certainly did not feel that eager to live amongst the neighbors who so readily cooperated with the authorities - local and German - who rounded up the Jews.
So the creation of Israel was very much supported in Europe. It was not done because Europe felt sorry for the Jews; on the contrary, it was actually a variation, and a continuation, of the Final Solution of the “Jewish Problem”, albeit without the murder, mayhem and, - worst of all - feelings of guilt.
In the first few decades, Israel actually enjoyed a lot of support in Europe. Britain and France even joined Israel in invading Egypt, only to be thwarted by a United States that, in essence, sided with Egypt. And Israel became increasingly a magnet for the world’s Jews, something Europeans could only support, as the presence of Jews in their own countries only brought back the memories of their own failures.
As time went on, however, there was a major transformation. The early alignment of a number of Arab states with the Soviet Union meant that European left-wingers followed suit, and began to take their cues from Moscow (which historically has always been anti-Semitic) as to how to think about Israel. Israel became more demonized as an aggressor, with the result that dormant anti-Semitic thinking in Europe found new life. And when the relationship between the US and Israel became solidified in 1973, - when the US began the emergency resupply of Israel during the Yom Kippur War - left-wing anti-American Europeans found new reasons to demonize Israel.
Arabs, of course, saw the transformation, and sought to take advantage of Europe’s anti-Semitic heritage; they’ve become quite expert in the manipulation of European media, to an astounding degree. In fact, it’s not uncommon nowadays for Europeans to openly talk of the extermination of Israel (though mostly in conversation; rarely in the media).
In the end, the Palestinians represent something else. As the extermination of the Jews has always been a long-term unconscious European social fantasy, - and as the Europeans themselves recoil from the awful realities of such a thing as it manifests itself in real life - the Palestinians become the surrogate genocidists on Europeans’ behalf. The fact that Palestinians have been living in (self-inflicted) poverty makes it all the more tenable, as the social inequality angle has always been used to justify violence in Europe.
Tuomioja, of course, belongs to that generation of European left-wingers who followed the orientation of Moscow when it came to thinking about Israel. He blithely ignores the anti-Semitic implications of this orientation, though he’s erudite enough to be aware of it.
Comment by Finnpundit — Sun, Sep 10th, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
” US control the world’s energy supplies” is such Bull.
The USA can just buy what it wants. What we want is a free market, and we will roll up the world.
“First you guys break things and then cry out for us to come and clean up the mess.” Huh, and just who is asking the EU for anything. After the zero support after 9/11 we know better.
Look guys, lets lay this out. The world changed on 9/11, the USA woke up and went to war. You all need to read the memo. These guys will go after all weak spots, including yours. Hiding way up north will only last to the next Cartoon. Your complete lack of help on this war helps the other side, and will make to war last longer.
Comment by winter — Mon, Sep 11th, 2006 @ 2:42 am
” ‘ US control the world’s energy supplies’ is such Bull.
The USA can just buy what it wants. What we want is a free market, and we will roll up the world.”
winter—
Perfect. Now you’re making a good argument. Maybe the US does indeed want a free market. Of course, the desire is fueled by corporate interests that will either extract, refine or transport the oil/gas, along with providing a host of other services over the long term. Maybe that’s fine too. Maybe not.
Naturally, there’s the strategic interest of having a hand on the valve. It might appear less significant these days, due to the many routes; but it probably still counts for something—especially if there’s a cost advantage of receiving oil via a pipeline vs. having it shipped by ocean. Perhaps that’s why Israel sees importance in ultimately supplying Lebanon with a large chunk of its energy and water needs, via the Turkey pipeline.
I think the disagreement lies in the way America aims to achieve this ‘free market.’ The brute force method isn’t popular here, nor anywhere else. So, when you talk about “zero support after 9-11″, it’s because you are expecting countries to do something they wouldn’t even do for themselves—at least, I don’t think they would.
Of course, you haven’t had any recent wars on your home soil, so it’s all too easy just to fly overhead and drop bombs on some peasant country. The problem for us is that, even when it only happens ‘next door’, we have to deal with the ensuing refugee crisis. That’s why we don’t choose or support the sledgehammer approach to problem solving.
And it should also lead to an understanding of why nobody in the world supports Israel for its attacks: Hizbollah kidnaps 3-Israeli soldiers, so Israel destroys Lebanon??? It’s not seen as measured retaliation. One can only assume that other interests are at stake, besides justice.
Finnpundit—
I enjoyed your explanation. Most people probably see Israel as being a manipulative force in the world, especially towards the US, so it’s hard for people not to experience some disdain for it. And it also annoys people to hear those constant accusations of anti-Semitism, when Israel doesn’t get it’s way—it especially annoys Germans.
However, I do think it’s in Europe’s interest to see Israel survive. And I don’t think most Europeans would want to see it destroyed; obviously, it would be another refugee crisis, so there’re practical and humanitarian reasons behind it, I’m sure.
Also, people are capable of making a distinction between the political entity of Israel and the Jewish person as an individual. I don’t think most Europeans wish harm on Jewish people. However, most people don’t seem to support Israel’s disproportionate use of violence. Obviously, Tuomioja & Co. doesn’t either.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Mon, Sep 11th, 2006 @ 4:04 am
The USA can just buy what it wants.
You can’t buy what doesn’t exist, and the world is running out of oil.
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Sep 11th, 2006 @ 9:35 am
Why should Europe cry more for the 9/11 attacks? Why should Tuomioja not have worried for Guantanamo more than 9/11 ?
As if 9/11 makes any more different to Europe as all the civilians killed ever before /after anywhere in ME, Pakistan, Africa, Central America. It just doesn’t.
Comment by Boyle — Mon, Sep 11th, 2006 @ 10:29 am
I think there was a great deal of sympathy for Americans. I was in Germany during the time, and there was nothing but sympathy and all kinds of ‘candlelight ceremonies’, etc. And there were plenty of offers to help. But, it all changed when America started attacking Afghanistan and Iraq.
Suddenly it was seen as an opportunistic oil-grab. And to make matters worse, you’ve got the worst spokesman in the world. I don’t think he could have correctly named all the world’s continents duing the early stages of his presidency.
Europe knew this, and there was great concern that gross human rights violations, war crimes and massive bombing campaigns by America would ensue. These days, people feel vindicated about those beliefs.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Mon, Sep 11th, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
“worried for Guantanamo more than 9/11 ?”
That it in a nut shell. You guys worry more about the club Gitmo, retirement place for terrorists, than the dead folks they killed.
We had indication of this attitude when you let 9,000 muslems frog march off to a machine gun. We were just shocked that you guys are so uncarring, and unwilling to do anything, thats takes effort with a little risk, for mankind.
And your pathetic “great concern that gross human rights”. Right. But none for the 3,000 killed on 9/11, or to the Israel soldgers killed on the boarder. No gross human rights violation there, thus no concern. We in the EU hold our nose’s up high for the USA and Israel.
Comment by winter — Mon, Sep 11th, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
#43
“You guys worry more about the club Gitmo, retirement place for terrorists, than the dead folks they killed”
How many of them were terrorists again?
The problem with the Americans is that you STILL think that 9/11 was the beginning of terrorism. It was a response for all the things your governments have been doing for decades, killing people for oil and for growing your supremacy as a world police. Yes, it is sad that 3000 Americans died that day, but it’s even sadder that you aren’t able to see WHY it happened.
We in the US hold our nose’s up high, because we are victims of terrorism.
Bull shit I say.
Comment by Boyle — Mon, Sep 11th, 2006 @ 4:45 pm
“Dhen: “I was in Finland on Sept. 11, 2001 and while there was a lot of public sympathy, in the months that followed politicians like Tuomioja seemed more worried about Guantamo than the fact that the US was attacked.”
This is Tuomioja in October 8th 2001 (Uutispäivä Demari, my quick translation), writing about 9/11: “Among other EU nations, Finland has professed her solidarity towards the United States. When dealing with this kind of a crime against humanity, no nation should act like this does not concern it too. It has also been important that the US should not be forgotten, because support is a concrete way to underline the fact that global security threats…can only be tackled with international co-operation.
No nation should be given a “blank cheque” to act in behalf of the international community. The US does, nevertheless, have the same right to defend itself as any other of the UN member states. The US is acting wisely when it commits itself to the international community, and tries to build a consensus with a world that has already condemned these attacks.”
I agree with Kristian in #42. There was a great amount of sympathy towards the US after the attacks, but as Tuomioja’s comment shows, the support was undermined by the gnawing doubt that the US might take the unilateral road instead of building a large, international front against terrorism.
Maybe the problem was that the Europeans expected the US to act like an European nation, to work the problem throught the UN, focus on civilian co-operation, update plans with the Nato partners etc. But then Afghanistan and especially Iraq came along and the “time window” to commit the European nations into a mutual anti-terrorist coalition and assume a positive leadership role was unfortunately gone.
Comment by Drakon — Mon, Sep 11th, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
#44
Boyle, Winter, Finnpundit—
I think there’s one big difference between how we Europeans and Americans react to these types of events:
We Europeans first ask what our own governments are doing to cause other people to seek revenge against us, and then we react accordingly. For example, Spain reacted to the bombing of a commuter train by ousting President Aznar—an otherwise great leader, but one who made a stupid decision by putting his own business interests in front of his country’s wishes and safety. The people spoke, and now his opposition is in power.
Conversely, the foreign dealings of America’s political elite and its sponsoring corporations are so far removed from anything the average American can- or even wants- to comprehend. So, Americans tend to see things in simpler terms, like ‘Muslim terrorists want to conquer the world, therefore they attacked us’ so now it’s ‘us against them.’ And ‘why doesn’t anyone help us retaliate?’
Well, the answer to that question is rather simple: By helping America attack Afghanistan and Iraq, we would have been supporting the very same oil-driven policies that caused 9-11 in the first place. And America didn’t give us a reason for why this is such a good idea. Instead, we heard about “Forces of Good vs. Evil” and other mythical nonsense. That type of rhetoric works great in the US; where the average American’s frame-of-reference is a compilation of all the like-themed movies he’s seen. But that same rhetoric doesn’t fly well over here.
And it all comes from a president who’s commonly regarded as having a child’s intellect. We’re not supposed to be afraid of who’s pulling his strings? We might not have great economic systems in Europe, but we’re quite capable of making decisions based on honest and intelligent information. Winter—your assertion that ‘if America doesn’t control resources (in Darfur), then China will’ is honest, IMO. It might actually give Europeans something to think about. Why not use it as an argument?
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Mon, Sep 11th, 2006 @ 7:14 pm
“We Europeans first ask what our own governments are doing to cause other people to seek revenge against us, and then we react accordingly”
Yes you do. You offer free Dental car to all terrorists. Its a great policy. Loved the Mohamid Cartoons, can you publish some more?.
And yes we did it for OIL. We kill for OIL. We think every day about grabbing someone’s OIL. I even drive around looking to steal OIL. Its all about OIL.
Less we forget the 3000 killed on 9/11. We now know the 9/11 dead were not, in any way, the reason we went to war. Some EU type just told me so, so it MUST be true. My goodness you guys have it all figured out.
Comment by winter — Mon, Sep 11th, 2006 @ 8:06 pm
Less we forget the 3000 killed on 9/11.
Yeah, two weeks worth of fatal road accidents in the US. Hell, that’s a lot worse than 100,000 ragheads wasted in Iraq.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Mon, Sep 11th, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
And your pathetic “great concern that gross human rightsâ€Â. Right. But none for the 3,000 killed on 9/11, or to the Israel soldgers killed on the boarder.
Well, “soldgers” killed in combat (on the “boarder” or anywhere else) doesn’t technically constitute a human rights violation, although pacifists might disagree. So, are you a peace-lovin’ hippie, winter? Pass the pipe…
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Mon, Sep 11th, 2006 @ 9:58 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/
Comment by someguy — Mon, Sep 11th, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
Besides, winter, you shouldn’t be flapping your gums here. You have $314bn to collect in voluntary donations for Operation Iraqi Freedom. You wouldn’t want to steal them from the economy through taxes, would you? Oh, you probably do. Just give your money to George and Tony, they know what to do with it…
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Mon, Sep 11th, 2006 @ 10:19 pm
“Operation Iraqi Freedom” is money well spent.
Retaking Europe in WW2 was money well spent
got the idea!
Comment by winter — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 4:03 am
Well, I should have known better than to contribute to this thread as it’s descended into the inevitable stereotyping.
Appearently all Americans can’t comprehend anything more complicated than comic-book caricatures fed them by their Dear Leader and all Europeans are a bunch of self-centered snobs with no spine.
Sigh.
Well, at least I can thank Drakon (#45) for his comments, though I don’t agree with everything he said.
I’ll go back to reading Spiderman now.
Comment by dhen — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 4:16 am
“Operation Iraqi Freedom†is money well spent.
Especially as it’s done with taxes stolen from the economy. I’d rather see that the people who want to bomb Iraq paid it themselves. You, being a communist who likes to steal other people’s money, wouldn’t suppport this, of course.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 7:29 am
Communists don’t steal, they share. We have social democracy ruling, not communism.
Comment by Boyle — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 7:53 am
““Operation Iraqi Freedom†is money well spent.”
Keep it up! The possibility to gloat while watching the likes of you desperately trying to defend the indefensible while the Iraq quagmire becomes more insurmountable by the day is one of the few sources of pelasure that this ungodly tragedy has to offer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qGAqA-muYU&eurl
Comment by Kimmo W. — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 8:45 am
“all Europeans are a bunch of self-centered snobs with no spine.”
Please
Show some examples where that is not true. We have plenty (Yugosolovia, French Riots last summer, long slow snail paced deployment to Lebanon, etc) of examples to show it is.
Comment by winter — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 9:18 am
Score card
Five years after 9/11, three governments that sponsored terrorism are now off the board. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq were taken down in military campaigns. In December, 2003, Libya proceeded to abandon its support for terrorism and its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
Not a bad card.
Can anyone ask the EU if they would have achieved the same results, waiving their little white flag of surrender?
Comment by winter — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 9:33 am
French Riots Last Summer? It’s like LA-summers every fifth summer.
Yugoslavia? So, you see Europe as a whole, united federation as the USA? Far from being true.
Lebanon? Are you saying that because Lebanon is close to Europe, we’re in charge of sending troops down there?
If USA would stop funding Israel, the whole crisis would have been ended far before it even started in Lebanon.
Less messing with ME, less 9/11’s happen.
Comment by Boyle — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 9:35 am
Winter: You don’t know why EU works, it doesn’t even have a foreign minister. It’s an economic union, not military as yours.
Comment by Boyle — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 9:39 am
how eu works, not why..
Comment by Boyle — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 9:39 am
“Five years after 9/11, three governments that sponsored terrorism are now off the board. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan…”
The “regime” is gone in that they don’t have a seat of government in Kabul, but they’re still pretty strong throughout the country, and the poppy crop is so good that there’s practically a heroin glut on the market.
“Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq were taken down in military campaigns…”
And things are going so smoothly right now in Iraq - a country which had nothing to do with 9/11, and whose secularist regime was never any fan of Al Qaeda. The number of Americans killed there will soon exceed the number who died in the twin towers, but if it is any consolation, the number of Iraqi deaths is many times higher.
“In December, 2003, Libya proceeded to abandon its support for terrorism and its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.”
Qadaffi’s rehabilitation has to be one of the most bizarre U-turns of international politics since Rumsfeld’s buddy Saddam Hussein became a bad guy.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 9:44 am
governments that sponsored terrorism
Winter, did you know that your Senate disagrees with you? Those traitors!
“(AP) Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq.”
Where do get your news, anyway?
And how fast did the USA react to stop the violence in Lebanon? Oh, I forgot you didn’t want to stop it but make sure that even more Lebanese kids were killed.
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 11:09 am
“Hezbollah gotta stop that shit”
quote by - you know who.
Comment by Boyle — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 11:42 am
Boyle
“If USA would stop funding Israel, the whole crisis would have been ended far before it even started in Lebanon.
Less messing with ME, less 9/11’s happen. ”
Ah, So are you saying Jimmy Carter is to Blame? (Camp David accords?, giving billions to Israel and Egypt)
Comment by winter — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
Kimmo W.
What? Is your glass 1/2 empty. You actually give us credit for Libya. Did you slip up? The USA is not so bad after all?
By the way, do you have any example of the EU doing a simular event? Come on, just 1 example for god sake? Or can we conclude that waiving the little white flag of surrender has produced zero results.
Count: 3 down, 3 to go (Iran, N Korea, and Syria)
Comment by winter — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
Then there is the utter failure of the Clinton approach to terrorism.
Clinton’s policies failed, and the failure didn’t begin on 9/11. Over the course of the Clinton administration, there were dozens of successful attacks and near-misses, many of them directed against American interests both here and abroad. All the while, the terrorist movement grew stronger. This is certainly not a template to which we should want to return.
Bush, we the USA support you. Take them out. 50 years of appeasment has finally ended with a strong USA president.
Get the memo Kimmo?
Comment by winter — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
Winter:
Jimmy Carter didn’t fund the nuclear program as his successors.
And as you said it, he funded Egypt as well. He gave Egypt a role in the crisis, not saying that Bush isn’t giving, but isn’t really supporting it either.
Comment by Boyle — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
Any EU type
By the way, do you have any example of the EU doing a simular event? Did you guys actually do something?
Comment by winter — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
Boyle
“but isn’t really supporting it either.” So just what is the EU doing, what support where?
Come on I am just looking for 1 thing you did.
Comment by winter — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
Opportunity in Darfur.
It is genocide ongoing and uninterrupted. The al Bashir government is both Islamic fundamentalist and militant. al Bashir has on his hands the blood of two million in southern Sudan, and at least 200,000 more in Darfur.
Come on EU do something, or another million will die. The USA has turned this opportunity down in a reply to the UN asking for USA help. We don’t care. Do you?
Comment by winter — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
East-Timor I think. One of the first civil crisis management project that Eu has been able to take part. Give us little time to build the constitution first..
Comment by Boyle — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
I have this feeling that EU has tried to participate somewhere in Africa as well… don’t know any details for sure.. Congo?
Comment by Boyle — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
Tuomioja is perhaps the most incompetent politician in Finland. His comments on foreign policy are actually not that different from those of Soviet Union. Since USSR used to support Arabic governments in the Middle East it is just logical that Tuomioja supports Palestinians and gives anti-Israel comments. The best thing about him is of course his lack of taking any initiative. Acting in terms of idealistic daydreaming is very dangerous. Some people just do not know anything about pragmatic and realistic politics.
Comment by angry finnish male — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
East-Timor ??? Sorry but thw Aussies went in there and cleaned things up the best they could.
Any other examples?
Comment by winter — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
“You actually give us credit for Libya. Did you slip up? The USA is not so bad after all?”
No, I give Libya credit for pulling the wool over your eyes.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
Dear Winter:
I know it may be hard for American to realize but EU HAS NO MILITARY POWER. Sorry for capital letters but it seems that you don’t understand. EU is the lead donor for East-Timor, Japan is number two, Australia is not even nearly that statistics, USA we can forget.
Military crisis management is underway, just like the European constitution, and EFSP.
Check the statistics, http://www.oecd.org
Eu is a normative power and economic power, not military power.
Besides, EU was the lead negotiatior for peace in East-Timor and at the moment in Indonesia.
Comment by Boyle — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
winter—
You’re claiming to solve the very same problems which you created in the first place.
And you’re not actually solving any problems. Instead, you’re just attempting to put new governments in place to support the same oil-agenda that you’ve had all along. You just hope they’ll be strong enough to protect your investment by subjugating those in the region who object. Then you’ll call it peace.
Of course, it’s all done under the auspices of democracy. But, let’s face it, a true democracy would be in the hands as the same people you’ve bombed. So, obviously, a true democracy won’t work.
But truthfully speaking, that’s where the EU has a disadvantage: We don’t have any particular industry (at least none I know of) that has enough profit incentive to convince our governments to invade and restructure the political landscape of some nation to suit its profit agenda. It’s also more difficult by virtue of our fragmented coalition forms of government.
By saying it’s our ‘disadvantage’, I’m being facetious; I’m glad we don’t have such a factor in our politics. We did plenty of imperializing in past centuries. It’s a game that never changes. I guess that’s why America’s motives and actions are so transparent to Europeans…..and the world for that matter.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 4:45 pm
“Tuomioja is perhaps the most incompetent politician in Finland.”
If you make a sweeping generalisation like that, you really should be able to back it up with some real arguments.
“His comments on foreign policy are actually not that different from those of Soviet Union.”
Here again, the analogy escapes me; do please outline the neo-Soviet character of Eki’s policies for us.
“…it is just logical that Tuomioja supports Palestinians and gives anti-Israel comments.”
So we’re dealing with someone from the “Israel is inherently virtuous and can do no wrong” mindset.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
Kimmo and Boyle
So your real answer is, the EU is not a factor?
If you are not players, then why all the complaining?
Comment by winter — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
Not “playing” (by killing in Iraq and letting your own soldiers be killed - albeit in smaller numbers or bymaintaining secret dungeons of torture that violate all norms of civilised behavior) does not mean that one does not have the right to feel moral outrage.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
Kimmo
“right to feel moral outrage.” sure. The do nothing EU committee on moral right.
So where was your “right to feel moral outrage.” when you watched 9,000 Muslims frog march off to a machine gun? Missing in action? I never did hear one peep out of the EU on that one. Total silence.
Do you think you may have “violate all norms of civilized behavior”????? Your silence tells me all about your right to feel moral outrage.
Comment by winter — Tue, Sep 12th, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
The EU is like sheep.
“Then there are the wolves, and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.†Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep.
The USA has taken out 3 of the 6 most evil wolves. But I can bet you sheep will never know that fact.
Comment by winter — Wed, Sep 13th, 2006 @ 1:41 am
You made them evil, and you keep making evil wolves more and more, instigating weak states and societies.
For example Iran is not seen that Evil in the European eyes. They’re having this nuclear program because of the threat given by Bush.
Comment by Boyle — Wed, Sep 13th, 2006 @ 2:44 am
Evil
Yes, of course we did. By Inventing new technology, by having a positive GDP, we made them Evil.
Comment by winter — Wed, Sep 13th, 2006 @ 3:45 am
I didn’t mean your invention policies, I meant more like your fight for “democracy”, giving money to contras in Nicaragua, invading Granada/Vietnam, naming countries as axis of evil and pushing them to do whatever to be not invaded by your troops.
I meant the propaganda you’ve been using for decades, first you say you went to the moon (bull shit, pure cold war propaganda, Stanley Kubrick made the moon film, everybody knows that), next, you’re building star wars empire on the planet earth.
Comment by Boyle — Wed, Sep 13th, 2006 @ 11:44 am
“Evil
Yes, of course we did. By Inventing new technology, by having a positive GDP, we made them Evil.”
Heh Heh. Yeah, but you did it at *their* expense. And on 9-11 you got called on it.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Sep 13th, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
Ah, so being inventive, producing a good economy, having a free society…. which, causes poor Muslims (Who are rolling in petro dollars) to be exploited. They have a zero economy even with all those dollars.
Guess we will have to take those petro dollars away. Guess I need to think up more ways to make them unhappy. Maby we will just invent something new, like some Mohamid Cartoons? Do you have any?
Comment by winter — Wed, Sep 13th, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
Ah “fight for “democracy†is a bad thing? Damm, the EU hates democracy? I can see why, you all want the old Soviet Union back to take care of all the poor.
Comment by winter — Wed, Sep 13th, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
Ah “fight for “democracy†is a bad thing?
It was in 1939. Still is. That is, when “democracy” is redefined.
I can see why, you all want the old Soviet Union back to take care of all the poor.
What do you mean? All the SU ever did was “fight for democracy”.
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Sep 13th, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
In US foreign policy the idea of “promoting democracy” tends to be more of a convenient slogan than a guiding principle. Various US administrations have shown that they will willingly collude with tyrants and undermine democratic governments if doing so serves other interests.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2038.htm
Comment by Kimmo W — Wed, Sep 13th, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
“Ah, so being inventive, producing a good economy, having a free society…. which, causes poor Muslims (Who are rolling in petro dollars) to be exploited.”
Well, no. You’ve created a free society and good economy for yourself, but not for them.
By your own design, only a small, wealthy minority benefited from your “petro dollars.” And that small, wealthy minority oppressed everyone else. Your sponsoring of Saddam in the 80’s is the prime example. With your sponsoring, his Sunni minority kept the Shiite majority oppressed.
And it just so happens that this fit perfectly with your policy regarding post-Shah Iran—which happens to be Shiite. In essence, by supporting Saddam, you installed a counter-weight in the region. When the weight shifted against you, it had to be removed; hence, you attacked Iraq.
Have you given us a reason to support this?
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Sep 13th, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
Boyle: first you say you went to the moon (bull shit, pure cold war propaganda, Stanley Kubrick made the moon film, everybody knows that)
Is this how the term moonbat got coined to describe left-wing theories?
Comment by Finnpundit — Thu, Sep 14th, 2006 @ 3:23 am
Nothing to with left or right.
What happened to the astronauts after? What happened to Stanley Kubrick “he moved to the UK”, check the American flag in the moon film, why haven’t you been able to go there later? Soviets are far ahead of you in space race and all of a sudden you landed onto the moon. Nobody believes that anywhere, except in “the pledge of allegiance”-minded USA
Comment by Boyle — Thu, Sep 14th, 2006 @ 6:26 am
Ah I get it, we have Moonbat Boyle
Comment by winter — Thu, Sep 14th, 2006 @ 6:37 am
Why am I nor supprised they waived the white flag again?
“U.S. officials said they “can’t rule out†the possibility that Germany deported Hamadi, after he had served 19 years of a life sentence, in exchange for the release of Susanne Osthoff, a German archeologist taken hostage in Iraq and freed four days after Hamadi’s deportation. German authorities have denied any such deal was made.”
This guy murdered an American.
Comment by winter — Thu, Sep 14th, 2006 @ 6:48 am
If libertarian us-oriented extreme-righters want to say so, then I’m proudly a moonbat. Side by side to Noam Chomsky, the only American “intellectuel” who sees the light behind all the bigotry of allegiance.
The wind of the moon, alcoholic Armstrong and I.
Comment by Boyle — Thu, Sep 14th, 2006 @ 7:58 am
Moonbat Boyole
Do you also waive the French White Flag of surrender? Give free dental care at the drop of a hat? And when the going gets tough, like in Kosovo, have no problems calling in the evil USA to do the dirty work?
Comment by winter — Thu, Sep 14th, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
Its winter in Kosovo as long as USA keeps messing around with NATO-nuclear head bullets.
Comment by Boyle — Thu, Sep 14th, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
Moonbat Boyle
What instructions do you give your peacekeepers?
a) Take sunscreen
b) When observing 9,000 Muslims frog march off to a machinegun, do nothing
c) Claim it is all Bush’s fault
Comment by winter — Thu, Sep 14th, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
“World has tapped just 18 percent of global oil suppliesâ€Â
interesting data on running out of oil
“Abdallah S. Jum’ah, president and CEO of the state-owned Saudi Arabian Oil Co., known better as Aramco, said the world has the potential of 4.5 trillion barrels in reserves - enough to power the globe at current levels of consumption for another 140 years.”
Comment by winter — Thu, Sep 14th, 2006 @ 7:09 pm
winter you’re so gullible. You really believe in something coming from a saudi oil company CEO. Saudis aren’t even willing to give records of their own oil resources
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Sep 14th, 2006 @ 8:32 pm
it’s a big secret, the amount of oil that the saudis still have left to drill
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Sep 14th, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
guess why
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Sep 14th, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
saudi oil…Right, we walk into their desert, put a pipe in the ground, and oil comes up.
saudis can do crap without foreign help. They are simply not capable.
Comment by winter — Fri, Sep 15th, 2006 @ 6:41 pm
But the Americans can do even less without Saudi oil.
Comment by Kimmo W — Fri, Sep 15th, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
Finnpundit:
Is this how the term moonbat got coined to describe left-wing theories?
Oh yes, the Apollo program is certainly a fine example of the wonderful things that can be accomplished with public money. It takes a real moonbat to believe that such a venture would ever be undertaken by private investors. But, of course, neoconland is not short of moonbats.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sat, Sep 16th, 2006 @ 1:20 am
Public Money??
The moon walk was a public affairs/political venture. Why would private money ever fund a Political venture?
Comment by winter — Sat, Sep 16th, 2006 @ 2:46 am
political venture, indeed
Comment by Boyle — Sat, Sep 16th, 2006 @ 5:00 am
winter:
The moon walk was a public affairs/political venture. Why would private money ever fund a Political venture?
Exactly. And why would private money ever fund anything without an immediate ROI, i.e. any basic scientific research?
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sat, Sep 16th, 2006 @ 1:00 pm