Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

(Political) Problems in Sweden. In all fairness to MaryAnne.

VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
edited September 2013 in General Banter
@MaryAnne. Was a bit upset about USA bashing and wondered if we europeans did not have our own problems.

Yes we do. Some of them the same as yours. Edward Snowden disclosed that Sweden was a close collaborator in the internetspying network with UK and USA. For instance.

Another problem is that swedish companies import south asian (more or less slave)labour to pluck berries in Swedish woods and sometimes send them back without paying them. One of them just committed suicide yesterday since he had put himself in debt to come here at all and just could not face going back empty handed.

And then we have nationalistic forces on the rise here and the Swedish Democrats (a nazi party) are growing in parliment. So this article is also upsetting. Reminds me too much of Hitler.

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/over-one-thousand-children-illegally-registered/

In all fairness. Just to let you know. But please dont bash eachother over this one. It is too sad really.
/Victor

Comments

  • Human problems are common problems. Your sorrow is mine. There is no need to fight each other over this.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    edited September 2013

    @MaryAnne. Was a bit upset about USA bashing and wondered if we europeans did not have our own problems.

    Yes we do. Some of them the same as yours. Edward Snowden disclosed that Sweden was a close collaborator in the internetspying network with UK and USA. For instance.

    Another problem is that swedish companies import south asian (more or less slave)labour to pluck berries in Swedish woods and sometimes send them back without paying them. One of them just committed suicide yesterday since he had put himself in debt to come here at all and just could not face going back empty handed.

    And then we have nationalistic forces on the rise here and the Swedish Democrats (a nazi party) are growing in parliment. So this article is also upsetting. Reminds me too much of Hitler.

    http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/over-one-thousand-children-illegally-registered/

    In all fairness. Just to let you know. But please dont bash eachother over this one. It is too sad really.
    /Victor

    Thank you, Victorious. Mary Anne and I were upset because we tire of the constant US bashing, as if we were the worst and only "bad guys" on the planet. I think all Mary Anne and I want to see is a little balance. We fully realize our country's shortcomings. And often express them.

    I shouldn't admit this, but do you remember a few years ago the Muslim riots in France. Not that I wanted anyone hurt, but I sort of enjoyed wagging my finger back at the French while that was happening.

    Invincible_summer
  • vinlyn said:

    @MaryAnne. Was a bit upset about USA bashing and wondered if we europeans did not have our own problems.

    Yes we do. Some of them the same as yours. Edward Snowden disclosed that Sweden was a close collaborator in the internetspying network with UK and USA. For instance.

    Another problem is that swedish companies import south asian (more or less slave)labour to pluck berries in Swedish woods and sometimes send them back without paying them. One of them just committed suicide yesterday since he had put himself in debt to come here at all and just could not face going back empty handed.

    And then we have nationalistic forces on the rise here and the Swedish Democrats (a nazi party) are growing in parliment. So this article is also upsetting. Reminds me too much of Hitler.

    http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/over-one-thousand-children-illegally-registered/

    In all fairness. Just to let you know. But please dont bash eachother over this one. It is too sad really.
    /Victor

    Thank you, Victorious. Mary Anne and I were upset because we tire of the constant US bashing, as if we were the worst and only "bad guys" on the planet. I think all Mary Anne and I want to see is a little balance. We fully realize our country's shortcomings. And often express them.

    I shouldn't admit this, but do you remember a few years ago the Muslim riots in France. Not that I wanted anyone hurt, but I sort of enjoyed wagging my finger back at the French while that was happening.

    Sweden's problem affects Sweden. US problems affect the world (war on terror, support of dictatorial regimes, etc.).
    riverflow
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    betaboy said:



    Sweden's problem affects Sweden. US problems affect the world (war on terror, support of dictatorial regimes, etc.).

    Of course. Betcha Kenya wished we had done something about Al-Shabaab.

  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    vinlyn said:


    Thank you, Victorious. Mary Anne and I were upset because we tire of the constant US bashing, as if we were the worst and only "bad guys" on the planet. I think all Mary Anne and I want to see is a little balance. We fully realize our country's shortcomings. And often express them.

    I shouldn't admit this, but do you remember a few years ago the Muslim riots in France. Not that I wanted anyone hurt, but I sort of enjoyed wagging my finger back at the French while that was happening.

    No prob. Often It is easeir to point to the USA and say look at them ruining things and playing cowboys. But we forget that sh*t happens here too and our governments behave just as cowboyee as the USA.

    We actually had roits and Carbecues in Sweden too. Just this year. It spread from Stockholm to small towns like Umeå. Nothing to do with Muslims as far as I know.

    Cheers
    Victor

  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    vinlyn said:

    betaboy said:



    Sweden's problem affects Sweden. US problems affect the world (war on terror, support of dictatorial regimes, etc.).

    Of course. Betcha Kenya wished we had done something about Al-Shabaab.

    Actually, Kenya made some statements to that effect over the weekend.

    I'm enough of an isolationist/fiscal conservative, to think that as long as children go to bed hungry in the country, and people can't get decent healthcare, if any at all, Kenya's problem with Somalia is not our problem, becaue we can't afford involvement.



  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Chaz said:

    vinlyn said:

    betaboy said:



    Sweden's problem affects Sweden. US problems affect the world (war on terror, support of dictatorial regimes, etc.).

    Of course. Betcha Kenya wished we had done something about Al-Shabaab.

    Actually, Kenya made some statements to that effect over the weekend.

    I'm enough of an isolationist/fiscal conservative, to think that as long as children go to bed hungry in the country, and people can't get decent healthcare, if any at all, Kenya's problem with Somalia is not our problem, becaue we can't afford involvement.



    Well, a couple of thoughts...just for the discussion.

    1. Damned if we do. Damned if we don't.

    2. We should never become involved...and we should never shun involvement because of the price tag. The merit of involvement should stand on its own.

    3. What would more radicalized Muslim states in Africa mean to world and our security?

  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    vinlyn said:



    Well, a couple of thoughts...just for the discussion.

    1. Damned if we do. Damned if we don't.

    No doubt.
    2. We should never become involved...and we should never shun involvement because of the price tag.
    Well, if we insist on defunding programs to provide affordable healthcare for citizens because of cost, we have no business getting involved in Africa for any reason.
    The merit of involvement should stand on its own.
    Better, I think, for us to mind our own business. This is especially true in light of all the problems facing us right here at home.
    3. What would more radicalized Muslim states in Africa mean to world and our security?
    It depends entirely on how we treat them.

    Plus, our issues here at home probably offer a bigger threat to national security than radicalized Muslim states in Africa do.

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Chaz said:

    vinlyn said:



    3. What would more radicalized Muslim states in Africa mean to world and our security?

    It depends entirely on how we treat them.

    ...

    So, let's see, the families inside the Kenyan shopping mall had mistreated Muslims?

  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    vinlyn said:

    Chaz said:

    vinlyn said:



    3. What would more radicalized Muslim states in Africa mean to world and our security?

    It depends entirely on how we treat them.

    ...

    So, let's see, the families inside the Kenyan shopping mall had mistreated Muslims?

    I don't think so .....

    Motives were discussed on CPR over the weekend - Kenyan interference and military presence in Somalia were cited.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    edited September 2013
    My point being that they murdered people who had apparently done them no harm...men, women, and children.

    And do you believe we should not have opposed Hitler and the Japanese in WWII? After all. we couldn't afford that war...we were still coming off the Great Depression.
    dhammachick
  • 1. Damned if we do. Damned if we don't.
    If you go through the united nations, you will not be damned, because it will never be an individual decision in that case.
    2. We should never become involved...and we should never shun involvement because of the price tag. The merit of involvement should stand on its own.
    I think the price matters. If you would have to spend a trillion dollars for intervening in a country, and that trillion would create lots more merit if it were spent otherwise...
    3. What would more radicalized Muslim states in Africa mean to world and our security?
    I think that at the moment, it would have a marginal impact on our security. However, technology is advancing. In 30 years, you can probably buy a lot more destruction for a dollar than you can today. It will be impossible to suppress radical muslim groups by force (for example, Israel is 100 times superior over Palestine in military power, they readily use military force, and it leads nowhere), so it's time to try alternative strategies. How about setting up a fund that finances medical care and education in poor countries that respect human rights? That would buy us goodwill in those countries. If people in unstable countries see us as friends, that help protect their human rights, and in addition help them with health care and education, the willingness to come to our countries to blow up innocent people might decrease quite a lot.

    Jeffrey
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    maarten said:

    1. Damned if we do. Damned if we don't.
    If you go through the united nations, you will not be damned, because it will never be an individual decision in that case.
    2. We should never become involved...and we should never shun involvement because of the price tag. The merit of involvement should stand on its own.
    I think the price matters. If you would have to spend a trillion dollars for intervening in a country, and that trillion would create lots more merit if it were spent otherwise...
    3. What would more radicalized Muslim states in Africa mean to world and our security?
    I think that at the moment, it would have a marginal impact on our security. However, technology is advancing. In 30 years, you can probably buy a lot more destruction for a dollar than you can today. It will be impossible to suppress radical muslim groups by force (for example, Israel is 100 times superior over Palestine in military power, they readily use military force, and it leads nowhere), so it's time to try alternative strategies. How about setting up a fund that finances medical care and education in poor countries that respect human rights? That would buy us goodwill in those countries. If people in unstable countries see us as friends, that help protect their human rights, and in addition help them with health care and education, the willingness to come to our countries to blow up innocent people might decrease quite a lot.



    1. I don't want Syria or Venezuela or North Korea or Ida Amin or Putin or Stalin to be making decisions for my country. And I doubt if those countries or past or present leaders would want their adversaries making decisions for their countries.

    2. In that case we would never be able to decide to do almost anything. And, you are twisting my point to make yours.

    3. Well, now I'll turn number 2 against you. Why should we fund another country's citizens' health care and education systems instead of our own.

    But I get your point: let's all sit around in the UN and sing Kumbaya. After all, that approach has worked so well in the past.

    dhammachick
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    vinlyn said:

    Why should we fund another country's citizens' health care and education systems instead of our own.

    Because it's a nice thing to do?

    If you get hurt in France, Cuba or Canada. for example, you get the benefit of their socialized healthcare system and in those cases that's not a bad thing. The WHO says their health care is better than ours.
    But I get your point: let's all sit around in the UN and sing Kumbaya. After all, that approach has worked so well in the past.
    Well, I'd rather we sit around singing Kumbaya than what this country normally does which is drop several hundred thousand tome of high explosives, etc, on something. And in case you haven't noticed, our penchant for using weapons of mass destruction doesn't really deter anyone



    riverflowJeffrey
  • Thanks for this, OP! I've just been wondering about Sweden, politically. Especially after that Norwegian woman was raped in the Near East, who was employed by a company owned by a Swede. Do you happen to have any more info on that case?

    Where are you living in Sweden?
  • 1. I don't want Syria or Venezuela or North Korea or Ida Amin or Putin or Stalin to be making decisions for my country. And I doubt if those countries or past or present leaders would want their adversaries making decisions for their countries.
    No country in the UN can take a decision on their own. Also, the UN does not intrude in internal affairs, unless a country is violating international laws. If you don't want majorities of countries to make decisions that affect your country, then you have a valid point, but in that case, how would international law be possible at all? (You agree that international law is necessary and important, right?)
    2. In that case we would never be able to decide to do almost anything. And, you are twisting my point to make yours.
    I'm not following why you wouldn't be able to decide almost anything if you also consider the price. But anyway, this is probably digressing.
    3. Well, now I'll turn number 2 against you. Why should we fund another country's citizens' health care and education systems instead of our own.
    We don't have to, of course, but I think it would make sense. Instead of investing in weapons and military operations, we could invest in human rights and better living conditions. We would be much more courageous (and intelligent, imo) if we tried to be safe by helping others, rather than by being stronger than others. And it doesn't even take that much money (compared to our military budgets).
    ChazriverflowJeffrey
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    maarten said:



    No country in the UN can take a decision on their own. Also, the UN does not intrude in internal affairs, unless a country is violating international laws. If you don't want majorities of countries to make decisions that affect your country, then you have a valid point, but in that case, how would international law be possible at all? (You agree that international law is necessary and important, right?)

    ...

    I'm not following why you wouldn't be able to decide almost anything if you also consider the price. But anyway, this is probably digressing.

    ...

    We don't have to, of course, but I think it would make sense. Instead of investing in weapons and military operations, we could invest in human rights and better living conditions. We would be much more courageous (and intelligent, imo) if we tried to be safe by helping others, rather than by being stronger than others. And it doesn't even take that much money (compared to our military budgets).

    1. When I was young and naive, I was enthralled with Wilson's League Of Nations and the United Nations concepts. But as I got older I began seeing some issues that negated -- in my view -- the basic concepts. Let me give you just one example. Post-WWII there was somewhat of a balance of power between the Western democracies and communist countries. But let's say that WWII had ended differently. Let's say that Germany and Japan had won. They would have controlled Austria, Poland, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Romania, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Greece,
    Serbia, Crete, Estonia, and the United States. Meanwhile, Japan had invaded Korea, Taiwan, South Karafuto, Kwantung, Shandong, Manchuria, the Russian Far East, Baikal area and Kamchatka, parts of mainland China, Timor, Hong Kong, Indochina, Thailand, Burma, New Guinea, Philippines, Malaya, Andaman and Nicobar Islands of India, Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei, North Borneo, Nauru, the East Indies, Guam, Imphal, Wake Island, Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Christmas Island, islands off Alaska, and they were attacks or subversive activities of varying degrees on British Columbia, California, Mongolia, Hawaii, Midway Atoll, Oregon, Australia. And, had Germany and Japan won, there is no reason to think they would not have retaken North Africa, and then moved on to the rest of Africa, South America, and their ultimate goal -- controlling the world. So, what kind of rule would a United Nations have then put down on the world when there was no balance of power. Now I know you will probably say that "But that didn't happen." Some people forget that for much of WWII Germany and Japan were winning, and it wasn't until later in the war that the Allies turned the tide. Or let's say that the advancements of the Soviet Union and Communist China during the 1950s through the 1960s and slightly beyond had continued to take control over various countries? They had pretty much annexed eastern Europe and were working on expanding control around China, including southeast Asia. More and more control would have been taken by countries that disdained any concept of democracy. And would say that international law, as it exists, exists only because the Western democracies won in each widespread conflict. I don't recall any international law that we honor today that came out of communist or German or Japanese victories in the world.

    2. Funds and resources, even for the richest country in the world, are limited. American democracy (and it is a matter of politics) cannot even agree to cover all of its own people with health insurance. But now you want Americans to suddenly agree to cover the world's health bills. And why should we? In terms of resources, Africa is the richest continent in the world, with South American not far behind. But because Africa can't get its own act together, we should step in and say, "Oh never mind that you should be able to take of yourself, we'll take care of you." So I guess I'll ask you this question...you have a certain wealth. What percentage of it do you use to pay other individuals' health care, food care, housing care?




    dhammachick
  • Hi @vinlyn,

    sorry, I cannot follow what you are saying under point 1. Are you saying that the world is better of without the UN?

    Regarding your point 2, I think you have misunderstood me. I'm proposing to spend the _tax_ money differently: less on the military, and more on improving living conditions of the poorest people. "My" tax money is partly spent on weapons, and partly on other individuals health care, food care, housing care. I'd prefer if more is spent on the latter, and less on the former.
    The western world spends an absolute fortune on weapons, but their home lands are never attacked. It does use weapons to intervene in far away places. If we do this to protect our own interests, then that's immoral in my opinion, we should not be killing people for that reason. If we do it to help other people, it seems much better to help more often with health care, food care, and housing care, and less often with military interventions.
    Jeffrey
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Hi Maarten,

    In regards #1, I am saying that much of international law was developed when there was at least a balance between allies or when the Allied Nations were dominant. If the world power system had been controlled by the Third Reich (which was supposed to last 1,000 years) and imperial Japan, I doubt that international law would look anywhere near the same today...since Hitler and Hirohito wanted to pretty much divide up the world between themselves. And, I am saying that while I support the United Nations in some of its endeavors (specifically its specialized agencies such as WHO) and as a forum to come to agreements when possible, I would never support the United Nations controlling what my country does, or for that matter, even controlling what an enemy nation does. Each country is sovereign, and I see the UN only as a place to have possibly fruitful discussions on various topics.

    In regards #2, you said, "The western world spends an absolute fortune on weapons, but their home lands are never attacked." Well, first, that's an inaccurate statement. England and France (as just 2 examples) are Western democracies, and were repeatedly and violently attacked during WWII, and France was pretty much completely taken over by the Nazis. The US military based in Hawaii was attacked on December 7, 1941. I would call 9/11 an attack on America.

    But let's take your statement as you made it. Perhaps the reason we have not been attacked (by whatever your definition is) is because of our military dominance and the amount we spend on weaponry.

    I'm sorry, but it is not my nation's responsibility to feed the world, provide health care to the world, or house the world. Most continental areas of the world are rich in varying natural resources. Before we take care of Africa, I'd like Africa to get its act together and try taking care of itself. Same for South America. Etc. Naturally I support efforts like the Peace Corp and the UN programs that support similar efforts. I donate to some charities that support children around the world. But that's not the same as spending the tax dollars of Americans.
  • Okay. By the way, I was not directly referring to the tax dollars of americans, but of all rich countries. I think we are being incredibly selfish to put almost all our desires (for safety, entertainment, etc) above the needs of the poorest people. It seems so obvious to me that it's an injustice when as a country we spend more on ice cream than on feeding hungry people, and I cannot understand that in general people are apparently not bothered by a guilty conscience.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    So, we differ, because I can't understand why people don't feel that Africans or Central Americans or _______________ shouldn't get their own acts together and take care of themselves. If they'd like to become an American state, fine, everything changes.
  • Which countries are you referring to specifically? Because often you'd have to look at a country's history to explain why it is in its present state. If you'd name those countries you have in mind, then I could look into it.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Maarten, it doesn't matter which country I'm talking about. For me it's the principle of it. African history, to some extent, is based on the alignment of tribes, rather than any uniting to solve common problems. Africa is the richest continent in the world in terms of resources. What's the old saying -- "If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten." Let Africa honestly attempt to take care of itself...first. Then I'll be more sympathetic.

    Additionally, American -- with 313 million people -- should be expected (morally or practically) to be able to feed the 7.1 billion people of the world.

    I contribute to a number of overseas charities (e.g., Save The Children and a Thai orphanage), but that's me as a private individual. It shouldn't be the American government doing it.
    Jeffrey
  • Internal police and security measures are always in the hands of the local government, but things such as humanitarian aid is something which everybody can and should contribute to. For all the rage against UN and League of Nations, they have been/are HUGELY successful at promoting healthcare and helping the less fortunate. Say what you will about their ways of handling the falling out of eagles, but everything from the WHO to the WLO offer vast improvements. This must be the way forward, and I find it interesting how Europeans/ Americans don't take (especially) Africa "seriously" while countries like China pour in billions of dollars of investments and create a wide infrastructural basis in many African countries, and naturally those countries become more inclined to agree with their "patron's" political stands. I feel like the "west" is missing a ridiculously grand train of opportunity to give the poorest nations in the world a nudge toward democracy and human rights. Drop food instead of bombs, it wins the battle sooner.
    Victoriousriverflow
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    Dakini said:

    Thanks for this, OP! I've just been wondering about Sweden, politically. Especially after that Norwegian woman was raped in the Near East, who was employed by a company owned by a Swede. Do you happen to have any more info on that case?

    Where are you living in Sweden?

    Well the swedish company has had to close down their facebook site but as I understand the one who fired her was Janet Jacksons husband. I do not know the inner workings of the company.

    All in all she was found guilty under Sharia Law for drinking and sex outside of marriage as many raped women have been in that country.

    Later on she was pardoned by the king and now I think she is home in Norway.

    /Victor
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited September 2013


    Well the swedish company has had to close down their facebook site but as I understand the one who fired her was Janet Jacksons husband. I do not know the inner workings of the company.

    All in all she was found guilty under Sharia Law for drinking and sex outside of marriage as many raped women have been in that country.

    Later on she was pardoned by the king and now I think she is home in Norway.

    /Victor

    That much I know. But there's been some sort of fallout for the company; the main newspaper in Sweden has refused to carry the company's ads now, and there's other stuff going on. I don't know the details, though. It's shocking that the company owner (who employs J Jackson's husband) wouldn't step in and tell him to un-fire her, or transfer her to another store/location, or something.

    The king only pardoned her for adultery. He didn't say she didn't commit adultery and that rape should not be considered adulterous for the victim. Pretty lame pardon, if you ask me. Pretty lame of Norway to consider that a "victory for human rights", as they called it.

  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    I too think it is pretty insulting to get pardoned for being raped. The oilcountries have some sort of untouchable status obviously. There is a construction company here with a pretty large claim in money for reparations on the Kuwait embassy that probably will not be paid and the foreign department refuses to do anything about it.


    /Victor
    Dakini
  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran


    And then we have nationalistic forces on the rise here and the Swedish Democrats (a nazi party) are growing in parliment. So this article is also upsetting. Reminds me too much of Hitler.

    Is this an exaggeration or are they actually aligned with the Nazi party? If so... that's incredibly shocking.


  • Is this an exaggeration or are they actually aligned with the Nazi party? If so... that's incredibly shocking.

    Well, yes and no. It is a nationalist party, and in nordic/ germanic countries, there is a very fine line between nationalist and nazi. They are openly against immigration, but so are alot of parties across the world without being nazis. They are a wing-party, and several of their members have made and performed gross statements and actions. Even so, I would not necessarily call them nazis, but that is a popular slogan used against them, but as you probably can guess from what I've written so far, it's not without grounds, and the older members of the party are likely to have had affiliations with the old (Swedish) nazi party, while it existed. PLEASE note I'm not sympathising with them, I REALLY don't agree with much anything they say, I merely wish there to be as few "politically incorrect" statements of fact as is possible. Right wing or Xenophobic I think are more terms that describe them with less risk of misunderstandings. Good evening!:)
    zombiegirl
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    I would say yes and no too. That depends on what you mean by Nazi.

    They do not have any official assocciation to Nazis (any more). SD does not have it in for the jews but rather the Muslims. They do not (openly) support racial theology but it still is apperent in the way they portray Muslims in their ads that that is what its all about. Their members have time and again on different occassions expressed racially demeaning slogans, swearing and actions.

    Even though those actions has lead to being kicked out of the party it is still apperent that a large body of SD favours such ideas.

    Strong men in the SD leadership have been shown to have connections to racist sites.

    And to finish off their budget proposal is based on cutting down the number of (dark skinned) immigrants to sweden.

    And since they do not have any other major issues on their agenda other than the (covert) racial card. I would say they are not nationalistic but racists.

    Then again I would say they are entitled to a say and that their issues should be discussed rather than ignored.

    /Victor
  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran
    Thanks for the in-depth answer! I suppose I also just find it interesting because of image of Sweden we have over here in America. But I guess the original intent of your post has succeeded because it does look like we're not the only ones with serious issues in our government, heh.
Sign In or Register to comment.