Should the military always be loyal to the government?

[Eki]

There's a TV documentary that claims that during the Cold War, Finnish military had secret connections to the West without the Finnish politicians knowing about them. Sounds quite fishy considering the The Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, which said that Finland would resist armed attacks against the Soviet Union through Finland. Do you think the Soviets could have trusted the Finnish military if push had come to shove? I doubt it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Soviet_Treaty_of_1948


Under the treaty, which was signed on April 6, 1948, the Soviets sought to deter Western or Allied Powers from attacking the Soviet Union through Finnish territory, and the Finns sought to increase Finland's political independence from the Soviet Union. It thus ensured Finland's survival as a liberal democracy in close proximity to strategic Soviet regions, such as the Kola Peninsula and the old capital Leningrad.
Under the pact, Finland was obliged to resist armed attacks by "Germany or its allies" (in reality interpreted as the United States and allies) against Finland, or against the Soviet Union through Finland. If necessary, Finland was to ask for Soviet military aid to do so. The agreement also recognized Finland's desire to remain outside great-power conflicts, allowing the country to adopt a policy of neutrality in the Cold War.

Although the Finnish officers are not allowed to take part in the politics, they have traditionally come from upper or middle class families with anti-communist and anti-Soviet attitudes, so it's not hard to imagine where their loyalty would have been.

[AAReagles]

Well, aside from WWII, you guys remained pretty much neutral, so I don't see any reason to screw it up.

You guys still are not part of NATO, right? That's a good start there.

[anthonyvop]

US military oath.


I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

As you see for the US military you swear an oath to the Constitution 1st then the chain of command 2nd.

[Eki]

The Finnish military oath doesn't say anything about the Constitution, but says about "defending the inviolability of the fatherland, her legal system of government and the legal authority of the realm." So, based on that the Finnish military should have resisted any forces invading the Finnish territory, be they NATO/American or Soviet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#Military_oath_2



"I, N. N. promise and affirm before the allmighty and all-knowing God (in affirmation: by my honour and by my conscience) that I am a trustworthy and faithful citizen of the realm of Finland. I want to serve my country honestly and, to my best ability, seek and pursue her edification and advantage. I want everywhere and in every situation, during the peace and during the war, defend the inviolability of my fatherland, her legal system of government and the legal authority of the realm. If I perceive or gain knowledge of activity to overthrow the legal authority or to subvert the system of government of the country, I want to report it to the authorities without delay. The troop to which I belong and my place in it I will not desert in any situation, but so long as I have strength in me, I will completely fulfill the task I have received. I promise to act properly and uprightly, obey my superiors, comply with the laws and decrees and keep the service secrets trusted in me. I want to be fortright and helpful to my fellow servicemen. Never will I due to kinship, friendship, envy, hatred or fear nor because of gifts or any other reason act contrary to my duty in service. If I be given a position of superiority, I want to be rightful to my subordinates, to take care of their wellbeing, acquire information on their wishes, to be their councillor and guide and, for my own self, set them a good and encouraging example. All this I want to fulfil according to my honour and my conscience.

[Tazio]

Eki the only way that Catch 22 could be reconciled is:
For every antagonist a Finn kills in that scenario.
He would simply have to blow away an equal number of Finns! :s :p :

[Roamy]

No they shouldn't - Ours should blow the sh!t out of the white house

[Tazio]

No they shouldn't - Ours should blow the sh!t out of the white house
...................... :grenade: :grenade:
I was thinking the exact same thing :grenade: :grenade:
when dubaya was prez.......................................Except he was never there :beer:

[Jag_Warrior]

Should the military always be loyal to the government?

One would hope, especially if it's a democratically elected government. Unlike my pal Roamy, I'm generally not in favor of military dictatorships. Just like cockroaches, once they get in, it's hard as hell to ever get them out again. :dozey:

[donKey jote]

Should the military always be loyal to the government?
err yes, except when the democratically elected government is too religious :p
(ask the turks ;) )

[Bob Riebe]

No they shouldn't - Ours should blow the sh!t out of the white house
Wrong area, snuffing the Congress and Seanate would be more effective.

[Bob Riebe]

As you see for the US military you swear an oath to the Constitution 1st then the chain of command 2nd.
On the serious note absolutely correct, and as far as that goes, each States National Guard has first loyalty to the State.

With Obama as president, we could never have a military dictatorship based around him, as he would have the military so busy in committees, organizing things, the Salvation Army could whip there butts.

[Jag_Warrior]

On the serious note absolutely correct, and as far as that goes, each States National Guard has first loyalty to the State.

Really?

U.S. Military oath:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


National Guard (Army or Air) oath:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

[Bob Riebe]

Really?

U.S. Military oath:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


National Guard (Army or Air) oath:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

Really, words mean things.

The state National Guard is divided up into units stationed in each of the 50 states and U.S. territories and operates under their respective state governor or territorial adjutant general.

If-- the powers that be decide the President is operating outside of the constitutional limits, and push truly comes to shove, the governor of the state controls how it should operate, and it is under no oath to a government that is not operating within the constitutional limits.

There is your well regulated militia, which along with the right of the people to keep and bear arms is what legally is designed to stop Washington from doing anything it wants to do.

[Jag_Warrior]

On the serious note absolutely correct, and as far as that goes, each States National Guard has first loyalty to the State.


Really?

U.S. Military oath:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


National Guard (Army or Air) oath:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

Isn't it funny how when some people say something which is clearly and factually incorrect, they'll just keep digging and making the hole deeper? :rolleyes:

The first loyalty of the National Guard (no different than the U.S. military) is not to the states or any individual state, but to the Constitution of the United States of America.

[Bob Riebe]

Isn't it funny how when some people say something which is clearly and factually incorrect, they'll just keep digging and making the hole deeper? :rolleyes:

The first loyalty of the National Guard (no different than the U.S. military) is not to the states or any individual state, but to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Constitution of the UNITED STATES each of which has a Governor and a State Constitution which determines how he should act.

Now you are me that if the National Guard should have to defend its State against the Fed. Goverment, they are going to go to a secret vault, or the Cone of Silence, and open special Constitutional papers to tell them what to do-- AMAZING.
Do all the Governors know this?

You are digging yourself a hole son, keep on digging.

[Jag_Warrior]

On the serious note absolutely correct, and as far as that goes, each States National Guard has first loyalty to the State.

Incorrect. Why keep making it worse?

In other news (or at least news to Bob), the world is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth and 2+2 does not equal 5. But I'm sure you'll want to take issue with at least two of those three FACTS too.

[Bob Riebe]

Incorrect. Why keep making it worse?

In other news (or at least news to Bob), the world is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth and 2+2 does not equal 5. But I'm sure you'll want to take issue with at least two of those three FACTS too.
Keep on digging, but it may be a surprise to you when you reach the other side of the earth, it won't be in China.

[Jag_Warrior]

The only thing that would surprise me is you being man enough to admit that you're wrong... when you are indeed wrong - and here you are. Thank you for not surprising me.

You can act the dog chasing its tail for as long as you care to. But the fact remains: the first loyalty of the National Guard is to the Constitution of the United States of America. Why is something so incredibly simple so incredibly difficult for you to comprehend??? Is there some dark, sad secret that you want to share with us? In the real world, where the sky is blue and the sun rises in the east, that is an undeniable fact. You trying to back peddle and create pretzel logic scenarios does not negate that fact.

And your continued wiggling is exactly what I expected when I corrected you, and was actually the reason why I did it. I thought there was a chance (slim though it might have been) that even you would accept and acknowledge an obvious error in your statement (or just ignore the correction). But no, not our boy Bob. He would argue with a cat that he's really a dog. :rolleyes: If nothing else, you are consistent, Bob. I will give you that much.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am thinking the loyalty of the National Guard would be to the Federal gov't. For those not paying attention, this is precisely the turn of events and thinking that led the Conferderate States to think what they were doing was legal. 4 years of fighting kind of put the end to that mentality.

Not sure how the lawyers want to read it, but I am with you on this one Jag from what I have read.

Now, to the idea the military is subject to the whims of government, provided the legitmacy to the gov't is respected through elections and the will of the people, the miltary has no right or reason to interfere. The second they do, you break out the Banana's.....because a Banana republic is all you have at that point.

[Eki]

In other news (or at least news to Bob), the world is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth and 2+2 does not equal 5.
THAT'S what wiki says, but as you know, wiki is a tool for fools and if Bob doesn't like it, it's not true.

[Garry Walker]

Although the Finnish officers are not allowed to take part in the politics, they have traditionally come from upper or middle class families with anti-communist and anti-Soviet attitudes, so it's not hard to imagine where their loyalty would have been.

You say it like being anti-soviet and anti-communist is a bad thing.

[Eki]

You say it like being anti-soviet and anti-communist is a bad thing.
If your job is to prevent attacks against the Soviet Union through Finland, it might be a bad thing and prevent you from doing your job properly.

[Garry Walker]

If your job is to prevent attacks against the Soviet Union through Finland, it might be a bad thing and prevent you from doing your job properly.

What if your job is to shoot jews and you refuse. Is that a bad thing? (actually, I probably shouldnt ask something like that from you).
Exchange jews for just people.

[Bob Riebe]

The only thing that would surprise me is you being man enough to admit that you're wrong... when you are indeed wrong - and here you are. Thank you for not surprising me.

You can act the dog chasing its tail for as long as you care to. But the fact remains: the first loyalty of the National Guard is to the Constitution of the United States of America. Why is something so incredibly simple so incredibly difficult for you to comprehend??? Is there some dark, sad secret that you want to share with us? In the real world, where the sky is blue and the sun rises in the east, that is an undeniable fact. You trying to back peddle and create pretzel logic scenarios does not negate that fact.

And your continued wiggling is exactly what I expected when I corrected you, and was actually the reason why I did it. I thought there was a chance (slim though it might have been) that even you would accept and acknowledge an obvious error in your statement (or just ignore the correction). But no, not our boy Bob. He would argue with a cat that he's really a dog. :rolleyes: If nothing else, you are consistent, Bob. I will give you that much.

Damn you can rattle on; now look at the title of this thread.

There, now the Natonal Guard, and the regular Army, are supposed to ABOVE ALL ELSE, obey the first lne of their pledge, PERIOD.

NOW, who would control the regular Army, if the **** hit the fan, I really do not know.
I imagine it would split between those loyal to their pledge and those simply following the controlling President.
As this would be a National Emergency, under national emergencies the Governors of the States LEGALLY have control over their National Guardss, period.
Now Eki asked a good question who do the soldiers obey, or rather who will their commanders obey, and or, will they follow.

By U.S. law the Constitution SUPERCEDES,(that is why that Amendment dealing with militias and peoples right to bear arms exists) any and all other powers, which especially as we are speaking of who commands what when the government abandons the Constitution, any and all other laws or persons; therefore when the powers in Washington are the domestic enemy, the Governors assume full control of the National Guards.

Here is where Eki has a good question, the National Guard is under the control of the States, until mobilized for fighting foreign wars by Washington; when the fighting is against Washington, who do they follow?

Washington has the right to mobilize the Guard for combat, but it doe not have the right to mobilize it for combat against its own citizens, the States can do so though, who should they follow?

In the fairly recent past some, governors have tried to prevent their Guards from going off to fight a "police action", but the courts have sided there, that the States cannot prevent the Fed. from mobilizing the Guard for that.

Now in any actual internal conflict the Supreme Court would be near useless, but it would be interesting to hear how they would rule, or if they wold simply follow the Constitution.

[Eki]

What if your job is to shoot jews and you refuse. Is that a bad thing? (actually, I probably shouldnt ask something like that from you).
Exchange jews for just people.
In a war, a soldier's job often is to shoot people, at least enemy soldiers. If you don't do it, you're not doing your job properly. It's not necessarily easy if you don't see those you're supposed to shoot as enemies. The Finnish soldiers found that out the hard way when in autumn 1944 they were told to turn their guns at Germans, who had been their brothers of arms:

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


During the first few weeks the withdrawal of Germans and advance of Finnish troops was organised jointly by the headquarters of both armies, a fact that was kept secret from the Soviets. The Germans fell back according to a common timetable, and the Finns attacked and fired at the empty trenches. After two weeks the Soviets realised the deception, and demanded the Finns conduct immediate heavy action against the Germans.

Invasion of Tornio
Fighting intensified when the Finns made a risky invasion from the sea on 1 October 1944 near Tornio on the border with Sweden. Heavy combat lasted for a week, and the Germans were forced to withdraw.
At the onset of the Tornio invasion, Finnish troops took about one hundred Germans as prisoners of war. In an effort to free them, Rendulic ordered Finnish civilians to be captured as hostage. Starting on the 1st of October 1944, Germans imprisoned 132 persons in the town of Kemi and 130 in Rovaniemi, 24 of them women. General Rendulic sent Major General Mathias Kräutler to the headquarters of the Finnish attack troops in Tornio, to deliver a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Wolf Halsti. He demanded that the Germans POWs must be freed, or the Finnish hostages would be shot and the Kemi pulp mill burned down.
Halsti conveyed this message to Lieutenant General Hjalmar Siilasvuo, commander of the Finnish III Army, who refused all bargains or deals with the Germans. Halsti delivered this reply, adding that should anything happen to the civilian hostages or to the mill, he would personally order all the German POWs held by his troops to be shot, together with all German staff and patients of the German military hospital in Tornio.
With this firm Finnish reply, the Germans dropped their threats, and released the Finnish hostages unharmed on 11 October, near Rovaniemi. During the intervening ten days, the situation was carefully followed in the Finnish press, helping to turn the general attitude of the Finns against their former German allies. A popular anti-German attitude intensified when Rendulic ordered scorched-earth tactics, including burning most of the villages and destroying Lapland's infrastructure, .

[Jag_Warrior]

now look at the title of this thread.

I already addressed the title of the thread with my first post. I've been spending the balance of my time with this supposed American, who I'd say couldn't pass the citizenship test... even if you gave him the answers. :rolleyes:



There, now the Natonal Guard, and the regular Army, are supposed to ABOVE ALL ELSE, obey the first lne of their pledge, PERIOD.

Very good, Bob. We'll raise your F to a D-. How's that? :D Knowing how hard-headed you are, I understand that's probably as close as you can come to admitting that you screwed the pooch with your previous foolish claim.

You'd be a great case study for some 3rd or 4th year Psych. student. In my 20+ years online, from Compuserve to now, I can't say that I've ever seen anyone who has become so constipated over admitting that he made an error. You'd rather climb a (tall) tree to further the mistake than just stand on the ground and admit the mistake. It's kind of entertaining to watch. But good grief man... GET SOME HELP!

Shall we drop this now, or do you want to make up some more fun fantasy-facts? :s pinhead:

[Bob Riebe]

I already addressed the title of the thread with my first post. I've been spending the balance of my time with this supposed American, who I'd say couldn't pass the citizenship test... even if you gave him the answers. :rolleyes:




Very good, Bob. We'll raise your F to a D-. How's that? :D Knowing how hard-headed you are, I understand that's probably as close as you can come to admitting that you screwed the pooch with your previous foolish claim.

You'd be a great case study for some 3rd or 4th year Psych. student. In my 20+ years online, from Compuserve to now, I can't say that I've ever seen anyone who has become so constipated over admitting that he made an error. You'd rather climb a (tall) tree to further the mistake than just stand on the ground and admit the mistake. It's kind of entertaining to watch. But good grief man... GET SOME HELP!

Shall we drop this now, or do you want to make up some more fun fantasy-facts? :s pinhead:


Get off the pixie dust and take your meds professor, and the nice young men in their clean white suits come and put you to bed.
If you ever come up with points to back your rhetoric, join the real world, those nice young men will wait for you.

[Roamy]

Well I can't say it much better so you decide if the military should now act

http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/?p=8408

[gadjo_dilo]

Should the military always be loyal to the government?


No. They should always be loyal to the country and nation.

[Jag_Warrior]

Get off the pixie dust and take your meds professor, and the nice young men in their clean white suits come and put you to bed.
If you ever come up with points to back your rhetoric, join the real world, those nice young men will wait for you.

Would that be the same pixie dust that causes you to fervently cling to things that are obviously (to most literate, sane people) untrue... like the thing about the National Guard's loyalties? :dozey:

You should have just manned up and admitted your error, instead of dragging this out like a blind dog hanging onto a dry bone.

[Mark in Oshawa]

No. They should always be loyal to the country and nation.

It is a double edged sword tho. The President of the US is the commander in Chief. If you are in the miltary, and you carve up your boss in public, you should resign. That is a way of being loyal to the country while still submitting to the chain of command. The whole point of Military discipline and authority in the US is based on answering to your superior officers. IN this case, you if you are not willing to submit to that authority, you don't ignore him, you tender your resignation. If enough people believe you, then you will resign and he will look the bad guy, not you. In this case...I think there is a lot of belief in that...

[dunes]

But if everyone who believes him resigns then there would be a mass awol as inlisted personel can't resign from the milatary.
I agree he should tendeer resignation however to let everyone who believes as he does then I feel the milatary would become depleted as far as personel goes.

[markabilly]

George Washington was the greatest president this country has ever had, and none, NONE come close to him by carparison.

Indeed, he was the greatest leader of a democratically elected government that the world has ever seen and his presence puts Winston Churchill in the shade.

Not only a great president, but a great leader who constantly exposed himself to grave danger during the war...


But one fundamental precept he held most dear that makes him stand out above all others and completely separates him from all other revolutionary leaders throughout the history of mankind.........demonstrated by actions such as in the Ides of March.....

Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country.



Words that were greater in impact upon this country than anything you will find in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution or the Gettysburg Address


:up:



That should end this feeble discussion and this thread should close.

[Mark in Oshawa]

George Washington was the greatest president this country has ever had, and none, NONE come close to him by carparison.

Indeed, he was the greatest leader of a democratically elected government that the world has ever seen and his presence puts Winston Churchill in the shade.

Not only a great president, but a great leader who constantly exposed himself to grave danger during the war...


But one fundamental precept he held most dear that makes him stand out above all others and completely separates him from all other revolutionary leaders throughout the history of mankind.........demonstrated by actions such as in the Ides of March.....

Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country.



Words that were greater in impact upon this country than anything you will find in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution or the Gettysburg Address


:up:



That should end this feeble discussion and this thread should close.

I don' t think I could make a case to say you were wrong from an impartial seat up here...

Washington's only real flaw is a reliance on Alexander Hamilton, who seemed to love raising taxes and wielding the power of the central gov't a little too much. Maybe he was a Pelosi in training...lol

[markabilly]

I don' t think I could make a case to say you were wrong from an impartial seat up here...

Washington's only real flaw is a reliance on Alexander Hamilton, who seemed to love raising taxes and wielding the power of the central gov't a little too much. Maybe he was a Pelosi in training...lol
Hardly call that a flaw, and to compare hamilton to pelosi is a huge insult to hamilton and comparsions to that the old .......from San Fagisco who is unworthy of being even mentioned in the same breath as hamilton.

Hamilton was an illegitmate from the West Indies, who as a self made man, became a colonel for Washington at the age of 20 due to his battlefield heroics, and whose assistance greatly contributed to winning the revolution. He was very loyal to Washington and beleived in an almost monarchy type of government...indeed, quietly urged Washington to be that "king" but washington did not heed that advice..........

He did establish the necessary mechanisms for a central government that have lasted to this day, he was a founding member of the first anti slavery society of any importance, and on and on....

[gadjo_dilo]

It is a double edged sword tho. The President of the US is the commander in Chief. If you are in the miltary, and you carve up your boss in public, you should resign. That is a way of being loyal to the country while still submitting to the chain of command. The whole point of Military discipline and authority in the US is based on answering to your superior officers. IN this case, you if you are not willing to submit to that authority, you don't ignore him, you tender your resignation. If enough people believe you, then you will resign and he will look the bad guy, not you. In this case...I think there is a lot of belief in that...
Ceausescu was also the supreme commander of military forces. In 1989 he ordered the army to shot the people who demonstrated in the streets against him. Do you think that betraying the dictator and being on our side was wrong?

[Eki]

Words that were greater in impact upon this country than anything you will find in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution or the Gettysburg Address


:up:



That should end this feeble discussion and this thread should close.
You may not have noticed that this thread was not about THAT country, but in general and Finland in particular.

[Eki]

Ceausescu was also the supreme commander of military forces. In 1989 he ordered the army to shot the people who demonstrated in the streets against him. Do you think that betraying the dictator and being on our side was wrong?
In the Romanian situation it certainly was the right thing to do. But in a polarized country, where about 50% support one thing and the other 50% support the opposite, it could be more tricky and mean a bloody civil war.

[Eki]

I just read that 55% of the Finnish professional officers would like Finland to join the NATO and 75% of the Generals think so. Majority of the Finns don't want to join the NATO, so in this case the highest military personnel aren't on the side of the majority of the people.

Funny thing, but the result of that poll looks like 55% of the officers and 75% of the Generals are crap and think they can't do their job without outside help.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I just read that 55% of the Finnish professional officers would like Finland to join the NATO and 75% of the Generals think so. Majority of the Finns don't want to join the NATO, so in this case the highest military personnel aren't on the side of the majority of the people.

Funny thing, but the result of that poll looks like 55% of the officers and 75% of the Generals are crap and think they can't do their job without outside help.

No...what is says the Finn's fear the Russians more than any other possible invader.

Doesn't matter what they think. The Elected government makes that call now doesn't it Eki? That is the whole point of this thread. The Military leaders can have their opinion, but as long as they don't put their names to it or try to advocate policy in a public forum, they are entitled to have it, but they have to follow their "Boss"...in the US's case, the C in C. McChrystal, even if he was right, was wrong to say what he said in an article with is name attached to it in this manner and he had to go, either by resignation or firing. He knew that too....and he did it because I think he is fed up with the dithering in Washington. Obama has the opposite idea of what Harry S. Truman said. President Truman had the sign on his desk saying "the Buck STOPS here". Obama has one saying "the buck starts passing here"....

[markabilly]

You may not have noticed that this thread was not about THAT country, but in general and Finland in particular.
Oh I thought it was about the jews screwing over palestine
finland is like such a nothing country, hardly worth noticing

[Eki]

Oh I thought it was about the jews screwing over palestine
finland is like such a nothing country, hardly worth noticing
Well, I happen to live in THIS country, so it's hard to avoid noticing.