Why Bush has never visited Finland
Bush is currently a few short kilometers away in Estonia, but has never visited Finland. Here’s Director of the Estonian Foreign Policy Institute, Andres Kasekamp’s reasoning…
Bush visits some 15 foreign countries each year. So far he has not paid a visit to Finland. Kasekamp is of the opinion that Estonia’s success story fits well with the Bush’s philosophy of a liberal market economy and new democracy.
First and foremost, however, the visit reflects Bush’s gratitude towards Estonia, whose soldiers have been present in Iraq since 2003. In Afghanistan the number of Estonian troops was increased to 120 this autumn. In relation to the size of the Estonian population, this is a significant investment.
In Estonia, less and less people support the participation in the war in Iraq.
Why should he?
And why is this whole subject brught up?
I mean, doesn’t these presidential an other official visits need a reason.
I understand pretty well why he hasn’t paid a visit just to say hello to Halonen.
Is somebody waiting him to come here for a reason. I’m not.
Comment by issi — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
Could it also be that the logistics in arranging a presidential visit is too big for such a visit? I mean Bushy has taken over the ENTIRE shimmering, 280-room SAS Radisson hotel in Tallinn for himself. This is likely the least of the costs involved. Every time the US president moves (especially one as despised as he is around the globe) around the world, a literal army of secret service and other personnel are deployed for weeks (months?) before such a visit to make preparations.
I heard that when Bill Clinton came to Finland when he was still president, the NMT cell-phone system within a certain range of his motorcade/presence just stopped working. Whether that was due to the secret service purposely jamming the signals or due to the barrage of communications equipment that they had with them is just a guess.
The traffic was a nightmare during ASEM last August, I wonder what it would be like if DUI Bush came to town?
Thank the Gods he isn’t coming.
Comment by DAVE THE RAVE — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
I think most people are happy he doesn’t come to Finland
Anyways, it’s a well known fact about everybody hates the man.
Comment by David — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 4:41 pm
“And why is this whole subject brught up?”
You may notice the article is from Helsingin Sanomat. This is another one of HS:s strange obsessions, ie the idea that Bush is rightly punishing Finland for not being sufficiently sensitive to American interests. The last week they have had at least two articles about this non-issue.
Comment by N. Siinistö — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
“”"the idea that Bush is rightly punishing Finland for not being sufficiently sensitive to American interests.
This is called poor self-image.
Comment by DAVE THE RAVE — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 4:54 pm
Well, I just try to live with this grievous loss as heartbreaking as it is not to see this epitome of statesmanship and sage wisdom in Finland…
Comment by mjr — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
“This is called poor self-image”
Or an attempt from Finland’s biggest media corporation to influence Finnish foreign policy. HS *wants* Finland to be an American poodle.
Comment by N. Siinistö — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
I find myself in agreement with everyone here who doesn’t want close relations with the US. Helsingin Sanomat’s campaign is one to be opposed, as it only serves their desire of making Finland’s point-of-vew more heard in the world.
The more distance between Finland and the US, the better. Hopefully, it’ll eventually be reflected in other facets, such as trade and defense, as well.
Comment by Finnpundit — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
I wouldn’t want to pay half a cent on Bush’s security arragements.
Comment by Plasma — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
Do we really want our reputation tarnished by a visit from Bush?
This kind of news spreads around the world. I don’t think we should be seen involving ourselves with anything he represents. In two-years, when there is a new US administration, we should re-evaluate our position.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
I completely agree with most other opinions on here. I don’t understand why we have some kind of problem in some quarters that he has come to Finland or that Halonen has not been invited to White House of late.
I for one am also glad. We already have one questionable President (Putin) visiting all too often recently, the least we need is for another war criminal to show up in our country.
Comment by JG — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
Look, Finland sends its troops to defend Hezbollah, to act as human shields’ for Iran, who kidnap, and kill Israel troops.
So just why would Bush come to Finland? You would just stab him in the back some more. But then again, I smell food-for-oil with Finnish troops working for Iran here.
Comment by winter — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 5:41 pm
Well however loudly Helsingin Sanomat wants some head of state to visit us, I don’t think anyone outside Finland will care. In case of Bush, most Finns don’t want him here, and what would he do here anyway? And to adress that troll comment, it isn’t as if Finland’s point-of-view would be more heard even if that crook of a president decided to visit us. Or does anyone think Estonia will now become a country for everyone to look up to, just because GWB graced it with his presence.
Also, it seems this “Boo-hoo, Bush don’t visit Finland”, isn’t as much of a campaign from the whole HS, but more of a few its writers like Unto Hämäläinen, whose column last Sunday was titled “Halonen ei kelpaa Bushille” (”H. isn’t good enough for B.”…). Hämäläinen, of course, is a former Kokoomus activist and used to be journalist for that party’s paper. During last winter’s presidential campaigns there was some pointed mudslinging coming from Kok’s candidate Niinistö’s supporters with pretty much these same words, as they wanted Bush to come here, and accused our president of not being a close friend with that war criminal.
Comment by s. tanger — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
winter wrote: Blah blah hezblah blah… You would just stab him in the back some more.
Objection! UNIFIL troop contributions are public, so aren’t we stabbing him in the front?
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
The time that has elapsed from the previous US presidential visit has been strikingly long. I don’t see any problem with it, though, and I certainly hope that Finland doesn’t start modifying its policies or otherwise jumping through hoops held aloft by the USA in hopes to be graced by a visit from the Moron in Chief.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
Maybe it’s simply The God told the Chimp to visit
Estonia and keep out of Finland.
After all, this is the way the foreign policy is made by the beloved decider in the USA.
Comment by B. Udweiser — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
I hope he stays away from Finland too
Comment by Nik — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 8:00 pm
#12 If UNIFIL is such a problem for the USA, why don’t we hear any objections about it from the US government. Why don’t the Americans use their Security Council veto against it? French white flag of surrender, perhaps?
Comment by Kimmo W. — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
“…beloved decider…”
I have a theory that Bush must have picked up “the decider” from Tarja Halonen at some of their tie straightening sessions. Afterall the corresponding Finnish term “päättäjä” is an everyday description here for people with power.
He can stay in Tallinn. I don’t want to be complimented for great advances in new democracy.
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
“He can stay in Tallinn. I don’t want to be complimented for great advances in new democracy.”
Thanks to Bush, Estonia is actually ahead of the USA in human rights - and it’s not because of Estonian advances.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 8:55 pm
Incidentally, could the man be any more condecending, “Proud of you”, as if Estonia is some kind of American colony. If I was an Estonian I think I would be not very amused.
Whatever one thinks of Vanhanen, I don’t think we require Bush to come and tell us that he is proud of him.
From the White House’s website:
Stenbock House
Tallinn, Estonia
10:31 A.M. (Local)
PRESIDENT BUSH: It’s an amazing country you have here. They’ve got an e-government system that should be the envy of a lot of nations. They’ve got a tax system that is transparent, open and simple; people file their taxes over the Internet.
You’re doing a fine job, Mr. Prime Minister. Proud of you.
Comment by JG — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 9:18 pm
UNIFIL is not a problem for the USA. Its just the fact that the UN wanted someone for DARFUR and nobody went there to save a million from getting killed.
But then its Ok, to go and support Iran, and its Hezbollah killers with the new Finnish Human Shield for hire.
Cough, cough… Oil Shield for hire.
Comment by winter — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 9:26 pm
“Estonia is actually ahead of the USA in human rightsâ€Â
Now wait a sec. We are darn proud of the new USA Club Gitmo for retired Terrorists. Don’t forget your sunscreen and bug repellant in sunny Cuba. If you escape, then the liberal welfare state paradise next door has rafting trips every Sunday to the Florida keys.
Comment by winter — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
In what way is Cuba liberal? Odd. I thought it was largely a controlled economy with only a limited free market.
Comment by JG — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 10:21 pm
JG
“In what way is Cuba liberal? Odd. I thought it was largely a controlled economy with only a limited free market.”
American liberalism refers to socially liberal Democrats who support welfare programs. This is more or less the way it has been since New Deal. It has got little to do with European liberalism or classical liberalism.
Comment by Mikko Sandt — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
winter wrote: But then its Ok, to go and support Iran, and its Hezbollah killers with the new Finnish Human Shield for hire.
It’s gotten to the point where you can arrange the phrases “Finnish”, “UN”, “Iran”, “Hezbollah”, “oil”, “Libanon”, “human shield”, and “Club Gitmo” in any random order and you’ll get an authentic-sounding winterian sentence. Observe:
“Liberal Iran for Libanon oil from UN Hezbollah human shield in Finnish Club Gitmo. Oil for Hezbollah in UN’s liberal Club Gitmo as Finnish human shield to Iran! Human shields! Oil! Club Gitmo! Ira-a-a-a-a-an!”
It’s indistinguishable from the genuine article, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
USA and Israel wanna rule the world their way, the UN, Unifil and other international organizations are just obstacles for the zionists, Jews have forgot that the UN created their little country, Jews have forgot French arms won their 6 day war, Jews always side with the most powerful… and share their opinions… its the jewish way! Over here, its called hypocrisy!
//Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed
Comment by The Swede — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
I wonder what Bush would have said of the “transparency” of Finnish public tax records
But yes, I also hate when the foreign dignitaries come and mess up the city. Putin wasn’t that bad though, so if they’d had once again a “Helsinki Summit” we’d gotten another PR point. But yeah, I don’t envy tallinn residents at all, first the Queen, now this…
Comment by Hank W. — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
American liberalism refers to socially liberal Democrats who support welfare programs. This is more or less the way it has been since New Deal. It has got little to do with European liberalism or classical liberalism
Odd. There is a certain irony about that American change of the meaning of the word that you describe. If you think that liberals clasically stood for less regulation, and now you see an American government that I would imagine would not in any case describe its ways as “liberal” (in the American sense) imposing a large number of regulations on civil liberties and freedoms.
In any case, this site is about Finland. Therefore I think we should try to use liberal in the European and Finnish sense of the word. When some members of Sfp/Rkp for example refers to themselves as liberal, it does not mean socialist, even less communist.
Comment by JG — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 10:50 pm
Why should we get a stamp of approval from a clown puppet who has driven USA down to the path of destruction (not that it wasn’t on it’s way for it already, neo-cons just fastened the process)
The truth is that US society is beneath any decent standards today so it’s kind a funny that the general public in dumb-o-land still thinks that their country is the greatest while they are constantly being screwed in the ass big time.
So in a way I agree with Finnpundit, Europe should distance itself from USA as it won’t be long now when the “mighty” and “free” will fall (unless they will radically change course of course).
Let the rats sink with the ship.
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 10:55 pm
JG:
“In any case, this site is about Finland. Therefore I think we should try to use liberal in the European and Finnish sense of the word. When some members of Sfp/Rkp for example refers to themselves as liberal, it does not mean socialist, even less communist. :)”
Americans usually don’t know that liberalism doesn’t mean the same thing here as it does there. This is why many American classical liberals call themselves libertarians, liberal-conservatives, market liberals etc. to distance themselves from the agenda that’s being driven by American liberals.
Comment by Mikko Sandt — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 11:13 pm
In what way is Cuba liberal?
Cuba libre:
2 ounces Rum
1 ounce Lime Juice
5 ounces Cola
For sailors: add Rum.
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 11:19 pm
When some members of Sfp/Rkp for example refers to themselves as liberal, it does not mean socialist, even less communist.
it means flower-hatted-auntie-ist
Comment by Hank W. — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
“But yes, I also hate when the foreign dignitaries come and mess up the city…”
Yeah, I smashed one poor guys car with a tram, when they fucked with the traffic lights to allow smooth passing for some bloody motorcade. He was not hurt, it was not my fault but I’m still pissed off about that to couple of presidents and myself.
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Tue, Nov 28th, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
Add rum, super good for me.
The truth is that Finnish society is beneath any decent standards today with its support for Hezbollah, an organization that kidnapped and kills Israel troops.
You all have sunk to a new low, comparable with your watching 9,000 Muslims march off to a machine gun.
Sure glad, your not, on our side.
Comment by winter — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 12:38 am
The current President of Estonia is a former U.S.citizen, with elite education in U.S.A…..straaaange
Comment by inFINNdel — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 12:41 am
@12: “Look, Finland sends its troops to defend Hezbollah, to act as human shields’ for Iran, who kidnap, and kill Israel troops.
So just why would Bush come to Finland? You would just stab him in the back some more.”
The US approved the cease fire resolution. So I guess he stabbed his own back. The resolution was also approved by the Isreali government. What do you think about that?
Comment by hero boy — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 12:50 am
infinndel POLITICAL DISCLAIMER NOTICE…WARNING!!
1.infinndel did not vote for President Bush in last 2 elections..
2.infinndel does not support Bush current policy in Iraq…
WHEEEWHHH!…glad I got that off my chest…..
Hopefully I can now have rational dialogue with F.F.T. bloggers about Finn- Russkkie politics….
WHAT THE F— is up with currently evolving relations with
RRUUUSHIA.
IT IS- CREEPING- ME- OUT THAT FINLAND SEEMS TO BE BLINDLY FALLING
INTO A DANGEROUS TANGO DANCE WITH RRUUUSHIA.THAT DRUNKEN
STOLICHNIYA,VOMITING DANCE,WILL END UP WITH ACCORDIAN SMASHED ON
MOTHER FINNLANDS CRANIUM,RESULTING IN DESCENT TO DEVIL’S DOMAIN
Comment by inFINNdel — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 1:05 am
Hero boy:
“The resolution was also approved by the Isreali government. What do you think about that?”
Maybe they had a bit of (false) hope that the UN would act according to the resolution. That didn’t happen since both the UN and the Lebanese government are allowing Hezbollah to re-arm itself while UN troops (including our “peacekeepers”) pose as human shields.
Comment by Mikko Sandt — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 1:06 am
Look… including our “peacekeepers†is not why they are there. We all know you are pleasing the Iranians for OIL.
Comment by winter — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 1:17 am
It is notable that the current president of Estonia is a former U.S.citizen,educated in elite U.S. universities..;)
Comment by inFINNdel — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 1:18 am
JG, hmmm, certain enlightment thinkers believed that liberty is: “keep your hands off me and my property”. A government was allowed to exist only if it guarteened those rights. It’s in fact a pretty common-sense idea in a society where all good comes from the land (if you happen to own land, naturally).
Then came the industrialization, proletarization and what not.
The more clever liberals understood then that “liberty” is a pretty hollow word for those kids in coal mines who on average died before they reached thirty.
“Should we define ‘liberty’ in a different way”, they started asking themselves: “Perhaps liberty is not just ‘keeping hands off’ but helping anyone to become a truly free person.” “Perhaps we should forbid child labor? Perhaps we should instead give them a chance to educate themselves?”
But who would be strong enough to forbid the child labor?
They turned to the government, that Big Government all liberals want, you know.
Nowadays the “libertarians” - perhaps the third biggest ideology in the USA - are trying to restore the meaning of liberty by going back to the original enlightment idea of “keep your hands of me and my property”. Soon they’ll be demanding the restoration of the child labor, I guess. But that’s another story …
Comment by Tomi — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 1:19 am
MR.BUSH seems to recognize that Finnland,acting as russkie poodle, is being catapulted into satellite orbit around RRUUUSHIA,emulating LAIKKA the space dog…
Comment by inFINNdel — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 1:24 am
winter oh boy you are dumb
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 1:26 am
“Look… including our “peacekeepers†is not why they are there. We all know you are pleasing the Iranians for OIL.”
You have multiple personalities?
Comment by hero boy — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 1:32 am
EVIL becomes good,GOOD becomes evil…Finland displays moral bankruptcy
in RUUSKIE-FINN-USA relations….sad
Comment by inFINNdel — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 1:39 am
No, Finland displays moral bankruptcy, by backing Hezbollah
You could have gone to Darfur, but no, you back Hezbollah.
Hezbollah, and Iran are your friends.
Comment by winter — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 1:46 am
“winter oh boy you are dumb”
right
And when we went to Iraq, we all figured Finnish objections were genuine.
But, then Oil-for-food showed you were bought.
right, I am dumb
Comment by winter — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 1:52 am
Tomi—It depends on how you look at Libertarianism. For example, I’m Libertarian because I believe in the principle of personal freedom. And I have no problem directing government to ensure it. However, there are those who’d like to extend the concept of personal freedom to businesses and corporations. In my view, it’s a false premise because businesses and corporations aren’t ‘persons’, so they can’t possibly benefit from any notion of personal freedom. In fact, under many circumstances, they can actually take-away our freedom.
So, to say that no regulations should exist, is only a statement that an extremist Libertarian would make. And he’d probably change his mind rather quickly when his child gets selected by some large corp to work in a coal mine
A more sensible view, in my opinion, is that regulations should be kept to a minimum, yet still provide an effective framework for the business environment and protect our personal freedom. Anything more is superfluous.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 1:56 am
Just because Bush doesn’t visit us here in Finland, doesn’t mean he’s not thinking about us
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061126/pl_afp/natosummitusbush
http://virtual.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=14367&group=Politics
Again, we should stay our course. No involvement in America’s mess!
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 3:43 am
“Again, we should stay our course. ” and continue to be human shields for Hezbollah.
Comment by winter — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 4:56 am
Lets recap:
Finland tells the world: Hay if you are in trouble from a little kidnapping, a little murder, and Israel’s is ready to kick your but, call in your super hero Finland, the “human shields for hire”.
Did I get your message to the world correct?
Comment by winter — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 5:12 am
Kristian:
“In my view, it’s a false premise because businesses and corporations aren’t ‘persons’, so they can’t possibly benefit from any notion of personal freedom. In fact, under many circumstances, they can actually take-away our freedom.”
Someone owns these businesses and corporations. The only way you can take them away from the owners is through the use of force which violates personal freedoms. I think it’s ludicrous to state that there can be personal freedom without property rights.
If someone comes to your home, steals your computer and takes the sweets away from your children would you not say that your personal freedoms have been violated?
Comment by Mikko Sandt — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 5:17 am
Mikko Sandt:
Someone owns these businesses and corporations. The only way you can take them away from the owners is through the use of force which violates personal freedoms. I think it’s ludicrous to state that there can be personal freedom without property rights.
I agree. But, my point is that businesses should not be allowed to e.g. operate in such ways that reduce the personal freedom of those people whom they employ.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 6:14 am
Tomi: “…soon they’ll be demanding restoration of the child labour…”. Did you mean child labour by their own kids? Today them li’l hands are already making fooballs, shoes, clothes and stuff, but just a little further away.
Comment by issi — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 8:52 am
@winter,
try to read this slowly. Real slow, so maybe even you’ll get the point. If the US and Israel did not want the UNIFIL in Lebanon, the UNIFIL would not be there. At all. The Israelis screwed up, they invaded Lebanon and lost. The best thing they could get was return to status quo. Which includes the Hezbollah. Getting rid of the Hezbollah would have required winning the war. They did not win. Calling the other side (and the referee and the audience) names is the mark of a bad loser. A loser. Get it?
Comment by prince of dorkness — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 9:02 am
56. Well, I wonder it you get it? I bet you don’t bother reading about the extenuating reasons for Israel’s attack, and for their reasons for seeking a truce.
Israel is not concerned with Hezbollah as much as it’s concerned with Iran. Both have vowed to exterminate Israel, but Iran is the one with the real power - potential nuclear power - to do so.
If you’ve been reading the pertinent, neocon-oriented journals, you’ll find that Israel is about to go to war against Iran, sometimes soon (the US knows that, and Europe should, if they’d bother to listen, instead of engaging in platitudinous sermons). Iran’s various nuclear sites will be destroyed, by Israel. Most likely the US will grant overflight through its presently controlled Iraqi-airspace, but Israel will also use its missile subs in the Persian Gulf as launch sites.
In any case, war is afoot. As Israel is committed to protecting its population, the August war in southern Lebanon, - though certainly seeking to diminish Hezbollah as much as that was possible - was also a probe as to what Hezbollah could do in case of war with Iran. The answer was pretty much self-evident for Israel’s leaders. Whether or not Hezbollah was successfully dealt with, Israel now knows that the strike from Hezbollah in case of war with Iran will be of minimal effect.
The truce was not important in terms of losing face (what does Israel care about maintaining “face” with a world that seeks its destruction?) The truce was worthwhile as a temporary means to cease hostilities, as all the data gathered was in. The war showed that Israel has some weaknesses, and those weaknesses have to be dealt with. But more importantly, the war showed how much strength Hezbollah really has for the next war.
When that war comes, of course, it won’t be because Israel attacks southern Lebanon, but because Israel attacks Iran and Hezbollah attacks Israel. Sandwiched between Israel and Hezbollah are the UNIFIL goons, who will be marooned like the morons that they are. Suffice it to say that they will deserve everything that they get, given their governments’ inattentiveness to the realities of geopolitics.
And what of after that? Perhaps Iran will vow more war, but they’re already saying that anyway, so is that any kind of a new threat? As time goes on, Israel will adapt to any kind of new threat, and time will go on….
Comment by Finnpundit — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 9:50 am
@57,
what extenuating reasons does Israel need when all they do is Right, Good and apparently even Perfect.
Comment by prince of dorkness — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 11:04 am
So, to say that no regulations should exist, is only a statement that an extremist Libertarian would make.
Right. But even if children working in coal mines were allowed by law, what parent would send their child their? What child would agree to go? What corporation would accept child workers? Would you buy coal from a company who employed children? Of course not. This isn’t 1806, it’s 2006 and comparing the two isn’t very accurate. In today’s U.S. or Finland, it would never happen.
But hey, what about child actors? They work long crazy hours, should we forbid them from working?
Comment by Phil — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 11:12 am
Finnpundit wrote: Suffice it to say that they will deserve everything that they get, given their governments’ inattentiveness to the realities of geopolitics.
I’m amazed that it took 56 posts before al-Pundy got around to expressing his desire to see UN peacekeepers get killed. He must have been really busy with waxing his John Bolton-inspired ’stache or something.
The argumentation from al-Pundy, winter, and company on the topic of Lebanon is fairly insane. They think UNIFIL troops act as human shields, which presupposes that if the peacekeepers weren’t present, Israel would attack Hezbollah. This is, as should be obvious to all who followed the earlier dust-up, not true. The very reason the UNIFIL troops are present is that Israel didn’t want to keep warring.
“But Hezbollah is reaaarmiiing!” they whine in unison. “If only you removed UNIFIL, then Hezbollah couldn’t do anything! Because Israel would occupy Lebanon and stop them!” Yeah, the UN should never have driven Israel out of Lebanon. Nutters.
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 11:23 am
issi - I’m not sure I know what you’re trying to say. Nevertheless, nobody in his or her right minds would want to be a classical liberal/libertarian if his or her kids were in danger of ending up in a coal mine.
And sure, there is child labor in the world, so what? I hope you’re not suggesting that it would go away if we just gave the markets more power. In Finland in the 1800s it were the liberals who thought it was ok for a child to work for twelve-fourteen hours a day in a factory - and mothers who agreed because there was no other possibility if they wanted to keep the child alive. And it was the “non-liberals” who banned it. All of a sudden it turned out that there was, after all, enough tax money to put the poor bastards in schools instead.
Kristian - Perhaps you’re a true libertarian in the sense that there is nobody else like you, a true free thinker! But if there is, I’d be interested to read more about it. Any web pages?
Comment by Tomi — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 11:34 am
Totally OT here, but this should be interesting:
Tonight at 19:00 on YLE1:
Fire and Ice: The Winter War of Finland and Russia.
Amerikkalaisdokumentti valottaa Suomen talvisodan erikoista luonnetta ja sen vaikutusta toisen maailmansodan kulkuun. Tuotanto: MastersWork Media, Yhdysvallat.
Comment by Passer-by — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 11:43 am
But even if children working in coal mines were allowed by law, what parent would send their child their? What child would agree to go? What corporation would accept child workers? Would you buy coal from a company who employed children?
1) Those parents who have no other choice in order to keep their children alive “give them over to coal mines”. Even today, as you must know.
2) Suggesting that a child would have a say in that kind of an agreement is … well, you know what.
3) You Phil, as about each and everyone of us, have bought things that have been produced by or with help of child labor. It’s not like these problems went away hundred years ago.
But the problem went away in countries like Finland or the USA because the state got involved. Internationally, the UN, WTO and other “state-run” organizations are now serving the same purpose.
Not that I wouldn’t believe that customers had an important role to play, too. But it’s obviously not enough.
Comment by Tomi — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
FYI:
To all Hypcrites, 3 british soldiers were kidnapped and murdered by jewish extremists in Israel… did England bomb the shit out of Israel? what happened? it was Menachem Begin (later prime minister) who was behind it!
//Vral
Comment by The Swede — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
The very reason the UNIFIL troops are present is that Israel didn’t want to keep warring.
Can they afford the negative publicity?
http://lebanonheartblogs.blogspot.com/2006/07/warning-strong-pictures.html
By the way, Israel’s massacre of Lebanese civilians is performed with American weaponry and funding.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
Tomi - I just ment that many of us “non-liberals” turns classic liberal/libertarian when it comes to someone else’s kids in coal mines.
…Heck, like I could afford to speak - I don’t even know the origin of every piece of cloth I wear. Isn’t that just flower-hat attitude.
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
Eh, that #66 was me.
Comment by issi — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
But the problem went away in countries like Finland or the USA because the state got involved. Internationally, the UN, WTO and other “state-run†organizations are now serving the same purpose
I don’t disagree with you there, but in today’s U.S. and Finland societies I just don’t see that happening. But where do you define what is proper child labor is and what isn’t. Coal mining, not okay. Acting, okay. What else?
Comment by Phil — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
…because we’re too anti-war..?
STT - 29.11.2006
U.S. asked Finland to supply 100,000 assault rifles to Afghanistan
Finland has rejected a request by the United States to donate 100,000 assault rifles decommissioned by the Finnish military to Afghanistan’s security forces, Finnish commercial broadcaster MTV3 reported on Tuesday.
Oulu-based daily Kaleva reported last week that the Finnish government had considered the request in a meeting of the cabinet committee on foreign and security policy in August.
According to MTV3, President Tarja Halonen and Erkki Tuomioja (soc dem), the foreign minister, were against the idea while Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (centre); Seppo Kääriäinen (centre), the defence minister, and Admiral Juhani Kaskeala, the defence chief, were in favour of donating the Soviet-made weapons.
Jaakko Laakso (left), the vice chairman of the parliamentary Defence Committee, told MTV3 that Parliament had been kept out of the loop.
Both Kaleva and MTV3 reported that the US request had been repeated by Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, as well as the country’s prime and foreign ministers.
Comment by FinnFreak — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
#69….vieeerrrryy eeennterrresting…..
Comment by inFINNdel — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
But where do you define what is proper child labor is and what isn’t.
I once read an interview in which a mother talked, in passing, about how she had to “give her child to the factory”. She knew that, although she’d may never see the child again, at least the child would now have a roof over her head and perhaps even enough to eat. Still, after decades, all she really wanted to say was how she and her child both cried when they had to depart.
Yeah, crying could be a good indicator.
Comment by Tomi — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
To my suprise I agree partly with Winter and Al-pundit. Finland and every other country should have friendly relations with it’s own neighbors and defend only itself. No Finnish troops to Afghanistan, Irak or Lebanon. EU and UN embargo against Israeli government as long as they keep on killing women and chidren.
Comment by Bu Jinrui — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
“Acting, okay…” -Well, ok if you don’t put a 12 year old kid to Turkka’s acting lessons for 12 h/day, 7 days at week and making commercials at spare time for couple of euros to bring home…
Comment by issi — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
Phil—Insofar as child labor today, I don’t think it’s possible due to the more complex nature of work.
However, I’m pretty sure that, without intervention from labor groups and government, child labor would have continued much longer into the 20th century—at least here in the western world. The 1800’s and early 1900’s was truly a time wherein factories exploited workers of all ages. There was most definitely a free-will contract between employer and worker; however, the worker had no choice except to sign……..or maybe he could have chosen to live as a hunter-gatherer in the forest or something…….and I’m sure many did……I probably would have chosen that route.
And, yes, there are labor regulations regarding child actors. I guess it depends on the location though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_actor
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
Insofar as child labor today, I don’t think it’s possible due to the more complex nature of work.
Why, I’d like to have a little Jamaican kid do the dishes. And if she happened to be cute too …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficking_in_human_beings
Comment by Tomi — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
#75 Haha! Let me know if she has a sister
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
Wrong reaction, sorry.
But contact him if you have to:
http://www.satyamag.com/dec02/cadet.html
Perhaps he’s got a daughter to spare.
Comment by Tomi — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
#74 Just to expound…. If government had intervened, in the 1800’s and early 1900’s, then maybe we could have avoided the extreme reaction of Communism. Of course, exploitation of workers is only one reason for that reaction, but it is probably the main reason.
Karl Marx wrote about it in the mid-1800’s. Whereas I don’t agree with his extreme solutions, I must admit that many of his observations were right on target.
As Libertarians, none of this means that we are irrelevant. It should always be our goal to weed-out—or modify—regulations that are unnecessary, counterproductive or only serve selected interests. But, perhaps we should keep those regulations that make sense.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
But, perhaps we should keep those regulations that make sense.
This comes as a surprise to surprinsgly many people, but there’s no objective way to decide which regulations make sense and which don’t. That’s why we have this thing called democracy. “The best of bad alternatives”, or how should I translate this old saying into English?
Comment by Tomi — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
#79 Of course, these things are ultimately decided in the public context. But, first, someone needs to bring these issues to light and make an argument. That’s the whole point about Libertarianism.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
Incidentally, could the man be any more condecending, “Proud of youâ€Â, as if Estonia is some kind of American colony. If I was an Estonian I think I would be not very amused.
I think that comes from his stock “Eastern Europe” speech. Something like, “Slovenia has made great strides in selling hot horse and bad-mouthing Croats all over the world. I’m proud of you.”
Look, it took American policy makers until this month to start saying, “Hmm, the Iraq policy isn’t working.” Something tells me that it will take them longer before they update their stock East Europe speech.
Comment by giustino — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
It is notable that the current president of Estonia is a former U.S.citizen,educated in elite U.S. universities..;)
The “North Americans” win in the Baltics because they have no Soviet past and people are sketched out by having a former Soviet leader as president - the kind of guy that goes to Moscow and makes secret deals and doesn’t tell anything about them.
But Ilves was also the foreign minister that guided the country into the EU and NATO. When the election happened this year, he announced early (March) to take on the sitting president, 78-year-old former communist leader Arnold Rüütel. There were no serious other candidates announced. Some people had been hoping that Jaak Jõerüüt, who used to serve as ambassador to Finland, would run .. but he didn’t. Others were drafted, but dropped out, one by one. Ilves was the one to beat, and Rüütel was a hesitant candidate. In the end, Ilves won by 12 votes in the electoral college.
Comment by giustino — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
If GWB’s visit to Finland has anything to do with business and politic relationship between Finland and the U.S. government, there’s enough reason to report about this and question why President Halonen hasn’t been invited to visit GWB for a long time (and only for once, I believe) either.
Comment by Tero Lehto — Thu, Nov 30th, 2006 @ 2:21 am
try to read this slowly. Real slow, the USA could have deployed to Lebanon and become human shields for Hezbollah.
The Finns could have deployed to Darfur and saved 400,000 thousand folks. They did not.
But the Finnish Army is now protecting folks who kidnap and murder.
Lets all figure out who is the best country in the world. The one that protects killers in Lebanon? Or the one that gets rid of a killer with mass graves (Over 600,000 killed) in Iraq.
Comment by winter — Thu, Nov 30th, 2006 @ 4:18 am
Real slow, the USA could have deployed to Lebanon and become human shields for Hezbollah.
But instead, the USA supplied weapons to Israel so that it can murder Lebanese civilians en masse.
http://www.downtownbeirut.com/Genocide/israel-genocide-in-lebanon.htm
.
.
But the Finnish Army is now protecting folks who kidnap and murder.
Against folks who kidnap and murder.
.
.
Lets all figure out who is the best country in the world. The one that protects killers in Lebanon? Or the one that gets rid of a killer with mass graves (Over 600,000 killed) in Iraq.
And those 600,000 killed are from the US military alone. Saddam probably killed nearly 100,000 himself, shortly after the US began supporting his regime in the 1980’s.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Thu, Nov 30th, 2006 @ 5:35 am
winter wrote: the USA could have deployed to Lebanon
Instead they voted to send someone else in. What’s your point?
and become human shields for Hezbollah.
Again, who the hell would be shooting at Hezbollah if UNIFIL wasn’t present? Why aren’t they, whoever they are, shooting at Hezbollah now in areas in which there are no UNIFIL troops? You should know that outside of your feverish fantasy world, all of southern Lebanon is not paved with UN buildings.
The Finns could have deployed to Darfur and saved 400,000 thousand folks.
“400,000 thousand”? Would that be 400 million people? Considering that there are about 200 Finns in UNIFIL, that would mean about two million people saved per Finn. Groovy.
It has become obvious that winter believes Finnish UN peacekeepers to be the most powerful fighting force ever conceived. It’s just sad that this company of real life supermen has chosen to use its powers to build infrastructure instead of stopping every conflict in the world.
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Thu, Nov 30th, 2006 @ 10:48 am
#84 “…the USA could have deployed to Lebanon…”
Actually the Americans did go there once, and when it turned out not to be the smooth sailing they thought it would be, they scurried away with their tails between their legs French white flags, anyone?
Comment by Kimmo W. — Thu, Nov 30th, 2006 @ 11:14 am
I didn’t have time enough to read trough all these comments, so someone might have said this already, but I think it could have reflected on this also that Estonia’s new president Ilves has so strong contacts and “roots” in the USA. He has lived for years in the USA and is clearly really USA-friendly, which may affect Estonia’s USA-relationships in future.
And Estonia also has participated in the war in Iraq.
I can’t see need for Bush’s visit to Finland either (like someone else here).
There are obviously many mistakes in this text but I hope you got the main idea.
Comment by Elean — Thu, Nov 30th, 2006 @ 11:35 am
@84,
you could only have deployed in Lebanon as auxiliaries of Israel. You have zero credibility as peacekeepers in that conflict.
Comment by prince of dorkness — Thu, Nov 30th, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
The Baghdad Sniper was apprehended, and information gained from
him led to the arrest of 30 others in his organization.
I sure hope we used the water board on this one.
Wait, maby we need some finns to come and be his human shield? Take the water board for him? Are you all going?
There could be food-for-oil in it.
Comment by winter — Fri, Dec 1st, 2006 @ 12:51 am
#90
winter we know that you think 200 finns will kick anybodys ass but you have to be patient more troops are being trained. You’ll get your ass-kicking in no time
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Dec 1st, 2006 @ 1:46 am
a. The Baghdad Sniper was apprehended, and information gained from
him led to the arrest of 30 others in his organization.
b. Two unauthorized “courts” that had issued death fatwas were
broken up.
c. A kidnapping cell, including one that raped a young girl, was
arrested.
You finns could save the courts issuing death fatwas, or you could save the kidnapping cell, that raped a girl.
The USA will continue to be the good guy.
Comment by winter — Fri, Dec 1st, 2006 @ 2:26 am
winter wrote: The Baghdad Sniper
Not to intrude on your torture fantasies, but for the sake of accuracy, shouldn’t the dude really be called “a Baghdad sniper”? We don’t want to offend the feelings of all the other Baghdad snipers who, I’m sure, work very hard at their sniping.
By the way, what’s your reaction on this: Yhdysvaltain varapuolustusministeri Eric Edelman arvioi torstaina Yleisradion haastattelussa, että Suomi voisi johtaa yhtä Afganistanin alueellisista jälleenrakennusyksiköistä.
Pääministeri Matti Vanhanen (kesk) on aikaisemmin sanonut Suomen olevan kiinnostunut alueellisesta johtovastuusta rauhanturvaoperaatiossa.
My rough translation: “United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman evaluated on Thursday in an Yleisradio interview that Finland could lead one of Afghanistan’s regional reconstruction units.
“Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (Centre) has earlier said that Finland is interested in regional leadership responsibility in the peacekeeping operation.”
I ask because I like seeing you sputter.
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Fri, Dec 1st, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
” Finland is interested in regional leadership responsibility ”
is that not an oxymoron?
I mean Finland actually doing something? Other than raising the white Flag of surrender. Sure, and I have a bridge in New York City I can sell you.
Comment by winter — Fri, Dec 1st, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
#94
and I have a monkeys brain for sale, you interested
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Dec 1st, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
winter wrote: I mean Finland actually doing something?
Maybe we’ll eventually see the light, recall our troops from Afghanistan and Lebanon, and follow your lead by contributing meaningfully in the most effective way known to man: by posting masturbatory torture fantasies online. I imagine the average Finnish peace-keeper will have difficulty matching your level of perverted glee, but with time and effort, hopefully he can at least equal you in quantity of xenophobic rants produced, if not in quality. Then the terrorists will be on the run for sure!
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Fri, Dec 1st, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
Thank goodness he’s not visiting Finland! If he did, I’d have to press charges against him and his cohort for disturbance of public peace. Heck, the mess that was the ACEH Conference weekend was bad enough already!
Comment by Martin-Éric — Sat, Dec 2nd, 2006 @ 1:59 am
Phil:
“Right. But even if children working in coal mines were allowed by law, what parent would send their child their?”
Sometimes I simply cannot understand what Nokia saw in you.
Maybe a parent that would starve unless they “would send their child their”? Don’t you have any imagination at all?
“What child would agree to go?”
Maybe a child who would starve unless? Don’t you have any imagination at all?
“What corporation would accept child workers?”
Maybe a corporation that follows the “laws of economics”, on which you libertarians basically base your view of the effectiveness of “economic freedom”? Don’t you have any imagination at all?
“Would you buy coal from a company who employed children?”
Maybe a consumer that follows the “laws of economics”, on which you libertarians basically base your view of the effectiveness of “economic freedom”? Don’t you have any imagination at all?
“Of course not. This isn’t 1806, it’s 2006 and comparing the two isn’t very accurate. In today’s U.S. or Finland, it would never happen.”
In today’s U.S. or Finland, it HAPPENS. All due to the - by libertarians so loved, and “economic freedom”-driven - globalisation efforts. The U.S. is - naturally - the driving force behind this.
“But hey, what about child actors? They work long crazy hours, should we forbid them from working?”
I think you have a point here. Start whining, and whining, and whining about this in you blog, instead of whining, and whining, and whining about ALKO, Tarja Halonen, SDP, Racists in Finland, and all the other dead horses you keep flogging daily.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Dec 2nd, 2006 @ 2:33 am
And just to make it clear: THANK YOU GEORGE “THE DUMBER” BUSH for NOT visiting Finland.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Dec 2nd, 2006 @ 2:46 am
Winter:
“Sure, and I have a bridge in New York City I can sell you.”
No, I will not buy it, I’ll raise the white flag of surrender instead.
Idiot.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Dec 2nd, 2006 @ 2:51 am
[ur]http://www.finlandforthought.net/2006/11/28/why-bush-has-never-visited-finland/#comments[/url][i]test[/i]
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Dec 8th, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
[url]http://www.finlandforthought.net/2006/11/28/why-bush-has-never-visited-finland/#comments[/url]
[i]test[/i]
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Dec 8th, 2006 @ 5:08 pm