US intervention

YoungCalifornian

You used your perception of the relative safety of a foreign tourist visiting the former Soviet Union to contrast your perception of the relative safetly of a foreign tourist visiting the present-day United States.  You specifically stated, "For a tourist, the USA is more dangerous than the Soviet Union used to be."  That's a direct comparison.  The issue you decided to highlight was human rights in the United States, and (in dramatic fashion) you chose the Soviet Union to highlight perceived differences.  Therefore, my usage of the term "compare" is utterly correct in reference to your points.

You then went on to say, "I find it utterly amusing and ludicrous that George W. Bush should discuss human rights in China with Chinese leaders, something he did a week ago in China."  The implication here was clearly that you feel that human rights in the United States are lacking to the point where George Bush sounds hypocritical when chastising the Chinese for not respecting them.  While the comparison here was not direct, it was clearly implied.

YC, I misunderstood you when you wrote about comparing human rights in the USA with those in the Soviet Union or China. Perhaps it was this mention of China, of which country I said nothing, that led me to misunderstand your comment. I did not mean the human rights of US citizens in the USA at all, what I had in mind was the treatment George Bush's regime has caused to innocent people in Guantanamo and Iraq. According to estimates, tens of thousands  -  if not hundreds of thousands of people have died in Iraq alone as a result of George Bush's war there. In other words, no human rights for innocent people who lose their lives as a result of GWB's policies. That is the reason I find the US president amusing when he talks about human rights.

I stand by what I wrote about the Soviet Union being safer for a tourist than the present-day USA. There was no Guantanamo for foreigners in the USSR and it was perfectly safe to walk the streets of a city even at night. That was because the punishments for criminals were extremely severe and a mugger was often taken to a Spartan jail thousands of kilometers from his home and loved ones. One example of Soviet-style problem-solving: a conscientious objector was taken to a mental hospital to be "cured" of his "illness".

There has been far more crime and corruption in Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed and as a result the country is nowadays much more dangerous for a tourist. Finnish tourists taking a trip to where they used to live in the 1930s, the city of Vyborg in Carelia, used to be robbed in broad daylight in view of everybody right after they got off their bus. No one did anything about it, not even the corrupt local police. Consequently, the organizers of these one-day excursions stopped taking tourists there. This dramatically affected the income of the local shopkeepers and the thieves and muggers were finally put under control.

Episodes like this could never have happened in the 1980s when the government of the country was completely controlled from Moscow and any Vyborg police officer violating Moscow's orders would have lost his job immediately. It was very safe for a tourist who didn't get involved in illegal activities himself.

The only country that has ever attacked Finland is the Soviet Union/Russia, so I have absolutely no reason to downplay their crimes and political role. If they hadn't annexed Carelia and Vyborg, I would probably live in that city right now. My parents had to flee from Carelia (= the area immediately east of southeastern Finland) when the Soviet Union attacked Finland.

Perhaps our different ways to see things stem from our living in different countries, one is very big and influential, the other very small and politically insignificant. Things sometimes look different when seen from different angles. Some things are more newsworthy in small countries than in big ones. 

I have to conclude with what a citizen of a former colonial power, England, once asked me in Spain: "Do you get foreign news in Finland?" My reply: "Yes, we do. Do you in England?"

CB

CB,

We can go on forever trying to prove our points and counter the opposing ones. As I said in earlier post, what we believe we see reinforces our belief which in turn affirms what we see is true. I agree with you G.B. has made some bad choices as a president, including court marshalling our brave soldiers for killing the insurgent factions. A war is not a fist fight and as a president who is also the Commander in Chief must stand behind his forces in combat time, not to give them a book telling them how to engage in combat and when to shoot and approaching enemy. I have nothing good to say bout G/B. whom I had supported for 4 years. My vision was distorted, now I am coming to term with my mistake, trusting him. Make no mistakes, the next presidents may and can bring the US into uncharted territory if he succeeds. The future of the United States is in the hands of our politicians and pour future presidents who don’t appear to be acting on behalf of the people of the Untied States. The current administration has caused so much economic and financial damages that the people will be buried in huge national debts for a long time.  It’s very convenient for people tend to point out the failures and screw-ups of others. I would dare say some of the “innocent people” as you called it, dying by the thousands were not so innocent and those in Quantanamo Bay were not exactly all civilians. Don’t forget the Soviets had the KGB which could make what reported happened in Quantanamo Bay a child’s play. Let’s not forget, Saddam killed a lot of his own Iraqi people. So was Bush saving the people from Saddam’s brutality, or killing thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis as you painted it? Well I guess it depends on the angle at which we stand looking the same thing.

Cool Breeze

Why did the US have a democratically elected Chilean president assassinated and substituted him with a ruthless dictator,