Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
(Political) Problems in Sweden. In all fairness to MaryAnne.
Victorious
Grim Veteran
@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
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
0
Comments
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.
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
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.
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?
Plus, our issues here at home probably offer a bigger threat to national security than radicalized Muslim states in Africa do.
Motives were discussed on CPR over the weekend - Kenyan interference and military presence in Somalia were cited.
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.
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.
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. 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
Where are you living in Sweden?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
/Victor
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