My tongue was so far in my cheek there I think I hurt myself!!
Printable View
My tongue was so far in my cheek there I think I hurt myself!!
It has never been proved. Even if he hypothetically speaking was, he started probably only after the US turned against him. What would you do if your friend turns into your enemy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
BTW, have you ever considered what causes those "anti-US sentiments" that seem to be so common these days and if there were something the US leaders could try to do about it?
By whom? Sorry if we are a bit sceptic. Here's some personal experiences from someone who as a little kid had to leave his home in Karelia after we were promised help the last time:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
http://peacecountry0.tripod.com/aitiperh.htm#oz
"Post-war Finland was under a huge burden of repaying the Soviet Union the immoral indemnity imposed by the Allies. As if the loss of 10% of Finland was not enough. Trying to rebuild lives, and paying Russia - meant hungry children and a long period of suffering before things would get much better. We have asked ourselves many times why Stalin's allies, America and Britain, allowed this to happen to the Karelian people. What had we done wrong? Why was Churchill and Roosevelt angry at us, we were only defending ourselves? Why didn't they threaten Russia when they attacked this neutral and free country in 1939? Hitler and Stalin were both at war with all of Europe. Choosing sides was not a matter of being fascist, it was a necessity to avoid being overrun by Stalin. The British said they were coming, but the war was short and they never made it. Finland had to make peace on Stalin's terms: give up Karelia. That didn't seem to bother these two allies, at least not enough to declare war on Russia. Oh well, tough luck for those Finns. The British even turned their backs on Poland which was relying on them, and they promised to help. Uncle Stalin could do as he wished in the last months of the war. It's no use, nobody will listen anyway, nor do they care. Their boys are back home, that's all that matters. But we could not go back home, and that didn't seem to matter to them. Britain is whole, France is whole, but many countries are left in pieces."
It would help if the CIA didn't back the same dictators and terrorists that you claim to rile against.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Saddam was recruited by the CIA to kill the King of Iraq in the 1950s.
and besides, no one in the world wants the USA to be the world's policeman. we do a good job of it by ourselves.
SOD, the CIA has made a lot of errors in its years. Most of what the CIA does is to back ugly regimes to stop uglier threats to the world. At least, that is how they see it. The problem is, if the US isn't the policeman of the world, and I can buy that no one really wants that, including Americans, then what happens when someone is doing B and E's in the neighbourhood? How about those being held hostage in Home invasions? THEN who is the policeman? See the beauty of your attitude SOD is that as a citizen of the world who thinks the US is a lousy policeman is not going to be able to give me a good answer. The UN? They don't have the guts nor the political will to do anything 90% of the time. Pol Pot killed a million, no one did anything, while the US was singled out for all sorts of atrocities that often were incidents of war in Vietnam. No one on this board opposing the US has ever explained to me what the world does when diplomacy fails.
What happens when diplomacy dies is often people die, in the thousands. Now thousands did die in Iraq, but at least the future has a shot of changing. Is the US a good policeman? Nope, not really, and they will admit it. They suck at the job at times, but the thing is, no one else in the world on a consistant basis will say something is wrong and then be prepared to actually do something about it. Most nations with the werewithal to fight a large war have either no interest, are actively creating trouble (China and Russia) or couldn't do it more than once a century. Those who stand with the US are accused of being lackeys and fools. You guys who think the world is being policed by yourselfs better get your head into the idea that the world is a dangerous place, and if you don't want the US to be the cops, then damn it, have your nation stand up for democratic rights and freedoms.
I don't see it, and when the member nations of NATO were asked by Canada last month for more help rebuilding Afghanistan in the Kandahar region, the Germans were admant about wanting nothing to do with it. The US, the UK and the Netherlands have all been there, Canada is there, but when it is time for some nations to actually get their hands dirty, they are NOT interested. You want to police the world SOD, better be prepared to put your money where your mouth is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Yes, that is probably what I would like too see happening. Do we need one nation to look after all the others? Nope.
There are no terrorists in Finland. We haven't created ones.
Eki, nice story but it is the story told from the point of view of a victim of a terrible diservice. Not that I doubt he should have been upset, I would have seen things the same way, but the bigger political picture of the time probably is a mitigating factor. Finland I think though was friendly with the Nazis. Playing both sides of the fence perhaps? I don't doubt Finland was not a fascist nation, and I do not think that anyone in Finland would seriously have wanted their nation to throw in with the Germans, but like a lot of the redrawing of maps in 1945, Finnish interests were tossed aside. Lets face it, the US and the UK needed the help of the USSR to take down Germany. The second the war was over, the USSR was not a helpful ally, they almost immediately became an adversary. The Yalta conference in 44 was where a lot of the decisions of the post war were decided. The problem with what happened to Finland was to get compensation and justice, they would have to get it from the USSR. The USSR was not willing to compromise on their "sphere of influence" and I think Roosevelt and Churchill had to respect that. To enforce justice for Finland was virtually going to a cause of war with the USSR. Diplomacy failing Eki, you know, that topic you feel is the solution to everything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
When a nation state wont give up on a stance, you are forced with a choice, war, or to drop the subject. The UK and US of A just spent billions of dollars and hundred's of thousands of lives to go to war to defeat the Axis powers. You really think they wanted to fight the USSR at that point?
No Eki, there are not always nice endings to sad stories. Finland got screwed by the war. I get that, but considering they didn't have the country become FSSR they got off luckier than all the nations trapped behind the Iron Curtain. You just have to get it into your head that the world is a nasty place at times. Nation states do not always do the right thing. Decisions are made that leave no one happy but are often made on the pretense that it is for the greater good. It sucks, but I put a lot more stock in a democracy led free world making decisions than some regime led by an apparchartik of the Communist party, or a dictator who would gas his own people in the names of keeping control.
I guess Eki, while I have great sympathy to what happened to Finland in WW2, I still don't believe the decision was made with the idea that it was to screw the Finn's. You might, and it would explain your anti-American diatribes, but it I wont excuse them. Finland is a free nation, with a strong social conscience and free expression. It exists for the most part in 90% of its former territory does it not? I guess that is a world run by diplomatic negotiations, you don't always get what you want.
Do you mean that Finland was taken over by Russians in WW2? If you mean that, then you're wrong. Finland won a defensive battle against the mighty USSR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
If you mean that Finland was under attack, that is true. But we still didn't lose that fight.
Woodeye, The US didn't create terrorists. Before 9/11 the US was not in Iraq. They were not in Afghanistan. They helped the Mujahideen against the Soviets with weapons, and yet when 9/11 happened, what did the Taliban do? Hide Bin Laden, and refused when the world body of the UN backed the US in their desire to have Bin Laden removed. Terrorism against the US is a radical desire to cause pain, suffering and death against innocent civilians. You want to say that is the fault of the victim for the rape? Come off it Woodeye, I thought you were smarter than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodeye
There are no terrorists in Finland? Are you sure? Likely there isn't, just like there was none in Canada apparently according to my previous Prime Minister. He thought because we were nice and friendly and didn't agree with the US in Iraq, we wouldn't have any terrorists. Slight problem there, a cell was operating last summer in Toronto. The RCMP made the arrests when they started to make a buy of 3 tons of fertilzer. They had a camp north of the city where automatic weapons were heard for days. The police monitored these fellows. They were TERRORISTS. They may stand trial but there is so much circumstancial evidence, not to mention witnesses to their camp, not to mention other evidence, that I doubt any lawyer will get them out. Now, us Friendly Canadians who openly criticized the US for their role in Iraq were next on the target list. Terrorists don't use logic, and they don't care who they attack. What is more they have little time for self aggrandizing fools who think if you negotiate with them, they will find true happiness. Any time you have people willing to die and take 3000 plus people with them, you have to deal with it. The US didn't create them, they chose to violate the laws of civilized society. You want to condone that? IF Finland ever stated anything that agreed with anything against the Islamic terrorists and their goals, you think they will give you a pass?
Islamic facists are a corruption of Islam. Anyone that doens't believe in their narrow view of Islam is a non-believer of their cause and are ripe for killing. You think the US created them? No evil created them, the same sort of evil that creates people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Saddam, the Shah and so on. Sometimes it would be wise of intelligent people to look at terrorism for what it is. Just because they target the US now, doens't mean it is justified. Terror is never justified. You dont' believe that it is, but by saying the US is the problem, you are ignoring the fact that the US may have their faults, but they don't go around creating terrorists bound on their destruction. Backing Israel shouldn't be the reason 3000 plus people died on 9/11. Helping the Saudi's protect their country by pushing Saddam out of Kuwait shouldn't be a reason to attack the US either, yet both are the two reasons terrorists have attacked the US. Whether they stayed out of Iraq or not, wouldn't have made a difference. People hate the US for reasons I have yet to figure out.
Woodeye, you have to think a little bit here. You are not going to defend Terrorists, and you may not like the US as the world's policeman, but don't give me this crap there are no terrorists that will attack you if you mind your own business. Nice theory, but it wont hold water with me.....the evidence is in the headlines. Terrorists strike for their own motives and reasons, and they don't attempt diplomacy for anything. So why give them any credit for logical thought?
You won a great victory just by surviving. The one reason you didn't get beat is because the USSR didn't figure it was worth the fight you were giving them to continue. I can't explain their motives but I do know if they wanted Finland bad enough, they would have taken it. The Red Army rolled up the German army in 4 years right through the gates of Berlin. It was a matter of polictical will and I have always thought Stalin thought Finland too nasty a fight when he suspected the Germans were about to invade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodeye
Make no mistake, Finland is the only nation to take on the USSR and not lose their freedom, but I suspect that has a lot to do with the will and whim's of Stalin, one of the worlds most heinous and conivving leaders. Finland did what they could, and managed to have world events work in their favour. If Germany really was friendly with the USSR as their pact dictated, then Finns would be very well knowledgable about Russia from the inside....