how much do you Vikings know about USA?

>>Here in Sweden, we help a lot more then >>some people think.

The reason why a lot of people in the US think that is because they mix you up with Switzerland.

Of the people that know where Sweden and Switzerland are on a map that still share that viewpoint, it is usually due to Sweden not fighting the Nazis during WWII.

--Joey

we helped in the end of the war!! The white busses

Joey, I didn´t refer to USA, and I´m sorry if I made you think that.

Yeah, what you say about Sweden and WWII is correct, from a certain point of view. Sweden didn´t fight the Nazis with military actions, but we didn´t help them either, at least not in the long run. What we did, and what most people know about, was letting them use the swedish railroads to transport military equipment and stuff like that. The Swedish Army didn´t match the invading German forces. In fact, we were outnumbered. It´s really stupid to go down in "a moment of glory" without accomplishing anything important, and Sweden certainly did accomplish a couple of important things in WWII...

However, we didn´t let the Nazis "use" our country. Pretty soon, we rebuilt our railroads so that the tracks were wider apart, meaning that the Nazis couldn´t use them anymore. And we also established secret/hidden airbases for the british airforce to use to launch attacks against the Axis.

Besides, Sweden was the first country in the WORLD to help the Jewish people. In 1942 Raul Wallenberg went to the troubled areas and offered Swedish passports to as many Juwish captives as possible. (With the authorization of the Swedish Government) He also bought houses were they could be kept safe, and that became "Swedish Territory". They became "Swedes".

Wallenberg also managed to infiltrate the Nazis, and saved a lot of innocent Juwish people from being killed in a planned massacre in Budapest.

By doing all this (and probably more), Raul Wallenberg saved over 100.000 people from the Nazi deathcamps. He was declared "Citizen of Honor" in USA 1981. The same thing happened in Canada in 1985 and in Israel 1986. In Budapest they raised a statue of him to honor his memory and they named a street after him in New York. In many countries around the world he is considered the greatest hero in WWII.

We all know that England broke "Enigma", the German encryptioning code that were used by the Nazi Army. What is almost unknown is that Sweden cracked their other encryption-code, the one that they used to coordinate transports and stuff like that. By doing this the allied forces could forsee where transports and trains containing Juwish captives would turn up, giving them a chance to interrupt the steady flow to the deathcamps. They could also destroy trains containing military equipment.

I´m not trying to glorify anything here, I´m not a patriot. What I´m trying to do is to point out that Sweden didn´t "aid" the Nazis and that we certainly fought them. There are more than one way to deal with tyranny. Sometimes, comparing military muscles isn´t the best way to accomplish anything.

That´s all folks! Thanx for listening.

( and once again, I appologize for going off-topic )

White buses or no white buses, Sweden did some horrible things during WW2. There was a popular joke at that time: "Norway surrendered to Germany after a month, Denmark after a week and Sweden over a phone call." Some things that we did are inexcusable. The Swedish "neutrality" was no more than cowardice; "staying out of the war" meant more or less cooperating and aiding Germany to keep them from invading our country. Well, why waste money and lives invading a country if they help you for free? I don?t want to go into that debate right now, this isn?t the thread for it, but let?s just say that I find it to be a very dark period of our history that I am not the least bit proud of.

Jumping forward in time, I find the immigration politics today to be a joke. It might look good in the media, but in reality, the system is very unfair and illogical. It is actually very difficult to be granted asylum. You pretty much have to have an army waiting at the border to execute you and your family to be allowed to stay in Sweden. And if you somehow make it through the bureaucracy, what can you expect then? Even with a university degree, you?ll be lucky if you get a job as a cleaner or a waiter.

I really like living in Sweden and I have no problem with the high taxes or several other things that people usually complain about. However, like all countries there are also many things that need to be improved and the immigration politics is definitely one of them.

EDIT: I?d just like to add, before anyone starts yelling at me and calling my post misinformed communist propaganda (kidding... ), that I am perfectly aware of the fact that Sweden didn?t cooperate fully and that there was some resistance. I just happen to think that the negative outweighs the positive. There was so much more we could, and should, have done.

Swedish_Sith I´m not trying to glorify anything here, I´m not a patriot. What I´m trying to do is to point out that Sweden didn´t "aid" the Nazis and that we certainly fought them. There are more than one way to deal with tyranny. Sometimes, comparing military muscles isn´t the best way to accomplish anything.

I know that Sweden would have faced loses. Sometimes the best way to help is through espionage and sabotage. There is nothing wrong with being a "patriot". You should be proud of what Sweden has accomplished. I am proud of what America has even though we have made some major mistakes throughout our unlikely 226 years.

Jedi-Lynx I really like living in Sweden and I have no problem with the high taxes or several other things that people usually complain about. However, like all countries there are also many things that need to be improved and the immigration politics is definitely one of them.

High taxes stink, but if I am remembering right, there are only federal taxes in Sweden? For example, when you buy a car you don't pay taxes on it right? If so, then you aren't that much worse off than the US. We (depending on salary of course) pay almost 50% of our money in taxes, Federal/State/Local.

About immigration, Scandinavia needs to be real careful about opening to the doors to anyone that wants to live there. Every year Norway, Sweden and Denmark are always listed among the top 10 countries to live. Immigration, particularly immigration from outside of the Nordic countries, will probably be "taxing" on government resources, and the cultural uniformity that you all have.

--Joey

ah. well, now to probably one of the most critical people on the FFS board about the US.

I have only one thing to say.

A country that spends up to 10 times the money to buy Fighter-Air-Crafts (u know, big grey things that dropps bombs and KILL people) to one airbase.
Than on the funding for the cure of cancer is a bad country.
There is no way to justify the need of killing people rather than saving them.

ah. well, now to probably one of the most critical people on the FFS board about the US.

What is FFS? Fanforce Sweden? This is the Nordic General forum

I have only one thing to say. A country that spends up to 10 times the money to buy Fighter-Air-Crafts (u know, big grey things that dropps bombs and KILL people) to one airbase. Than on the funding for the cure of cancer is a bad country. There is no way to justify the need of killing people rather than saving them.

I am not sure that is true. In addition to the US government spending money on cancer research, money also comes from private industry.

Also, if you don't have a strong military, if you don't kill certain people, they will kill you. I believe we are justified in our actions. Incidentally, you can see what the Secretary of Defense presented as "new" evidence to the UN. I say "new" because it is the first time is has been made public and/or it is confirming our suspicions.

--Joey

I say FFS (Fan Force Sweden) because I dont realy know how ant-US the other nordice FF´rs are.

One fault dosnt justify another.

One day of bombing Afghanistan costs about 270 Million USD.

Now a week of bombing costs 1890 million USD.
Why not spend it on US-propaganda in Afghanistan and with food and things like that. Things that they REALY need.

Ah. and the new "evidence" a couple of photos and some lame theory about "mobile massdestruction-weapon factorys" or whatever it was.
Face it, George just wants the oil, he cant have it. So now he is going to take it.
Why didnt US-Forces go into Bagdad the last time and got rid of Saddam?

We will get nowhere with this discussion. You amreicans are all to brainwashed by the goverment to understand words like "peace" "humanity" and "own misstakes".

The funding of the cure for cancer from the US-Goverment is about 200 million/Year.
At the same time the funding for the army is... enormous.

If you guys stoped bombing other countrys and helped them in a way that they could use (that means not to aid their millitary with guns and more guns). ppl around the world wouldnt be that mad at you.
But the again, the Us-philosophy is "Bomb it".

It was you guys that gave those guys the weapons in the first place.

I say FFS (Fan Force Sweden) because I dont realy know how ant-US the other nordice FF´rs are.

I think most are not Anti-US

One fault dosnt justify another.

What fault doesn't justify what fault?

One day of bombing Afghanistan costs about 270 Million USD.

Now a week of bombing costs 1890 million USD.
Why not spend it on US-propaganda in Afghanistan and with food and things like that. Things that they REALY need.

We are. So are our allies (sweden too?)


Ah. and the new "evidence" a couple of photos and some lame theory about "mobile massdestruction-weapon factorys" or whatever it was.

I thought the evidence was pretty good. The Aerial photos, and communication intercepts were particularly incriminating...


Face it, George just wants the oil, he cant have it. So now he is going to take it.
Why didnt US-Forces go into Bagdad the last time and got rid of Saddam?

We have oil. The reason why we did not remove Saddam because

A.) We had just had a victory, and we though that Saddam would be toppled in a coup...

B.) We would be violating the United Nations resolution had we proceeded

In hindsight we were wrong. We should have forced the issue.

We will get nowhere with this discussion. You amreicans are all to brainwashed by the goverment to understand words like "peace" "humanity" and "own misstakes".

Brainwashed? Hardly. There is not a single person that I know that would not like a diplomatic solution. However when this is not possible, we must take military action


The funding of the cure for cancer from the US-Goverment is about 200 million/Year.
At the same time the funding for the army is... enormous.
Yes, but private industry does not fund the army. They are funding cancer research.

If you guys stoped bombing other countrys and helped them in a way that they could use (that means not to aid their millitary with guns and more guns). ppl around the world wouldnt be that mad at you.
But the again, the Us-philosophy is "Bomb it".

Ouch. Ask Estonia, Afghanis, and Kuwaitis what they think of the United States. We do provide REAL support. Look at Japan, and Germany. They were devasted after WWII and are now models of how nations can turn around.

It was you guys that gave those guys the weapons in the first place.

Yes, we did. But I don't recall arming Saddam. Yes, we did make a mistake by pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan too early

--Joey

As I said before, I find no intrest in discussing with someone from the US.

Okay, I thought you did when you responded.

--Joey

The Dark Overlord: I can see why you don´t like some "US actions", but you´ve got to realize that they´re doing some good things too. Besides, even if you don´t agree with George Bush all the time, (I certainly don´t) you shouldn´t hold it against our american friend here.

( Know this... I´m not "attacking" you, it´s just that I don´t want Joey to feel... unwelcome here )

Oh I feel far from unwelcome

Hell, I disagree with George Bush on somethings (and I would have voted for him but I was not old enough).

I like threads like this because it helps me get a sense of international opinion which in the US usually means Britain, Canada or France. Britain is always in lockstep, Canada is usually with us but feel it necessary to appear as independent as possible (consequently "dragging their feet"), and France is hardly ever with us.

Scandinavia on the other hand is usually questionable. Sometimes you all agree, and sometimes none of you do (along with every combination in between).

--Joey

Well, hello, I thought I'd drop by and share a few of my opinions. First of all I don't think anyone should go to war just to be able to drive cars (I'm talking about the oil). However I don't think that's the main reason for the US. I think of it this way: what had happened if we (our at least some of the nations in the world) had'nt waged war against Hitler? Sometimes it's necessery to go to war. Not that Saddam has come anyway near Hitler YET but he still poses a threat (or at least that's what I feel). I mean; the man has no problem killing relatives of his (I recall him shooting a cousin or a nephew or whatever it was), imagine then what he could do to people that he doesn't have a bond to.

And to say that it is up to the people of Iraq to oppose Saddam is just pure nonsense. I mean; they live in a dictatorship, any beliefs not concurring to Saddam's beliefs is instantly being fought down. The people of ANY dictatorship needs help to fight their leader.

However, if the US keep saying; "If you're not with us; you're against us", then we all have reason to be afraid. I mean what can we do if we disagree with the US? We have to agree with them if we don't want to get blown in pieces. With such a remark, the US is forcing their beliefs upon the rest of us and then it's starting to look like a dictatorship which normally the US is so eager to oppose.

gah, now I have to write some more stuff:


1. Geroge Bush has NO idea what he is doing.
It is amazing that he´s the president of the US. (No one that stupid would even have the chance to be a govenor in Sweden (Sorry for the spelling).
I Mean, "most of our imports come from abroad" . And he wrote the speah himselfe.
So, if 90% of US imports come from other ****ries. Where does the rest come from?. Mars?

2. I mean; the man has no problem killing relatives of his . There is a lot of conspiration theories about the CIA, NSA, FBI and so furth. Not everything is true.
But I have no doubt that the US goverment has tested some form of leathas bio-weapon on its own citicents.

3. In the gulf war, there was experiments of using Bio-Weapons on the Iraqies (again, sorry for the spelling).
If they aren´t allowed to use these mass-destruction weapons. Why are the US allowed.

4. Besides, even if you don´t agree with George Bush all the time, (I certainly don´t) you shouldn´t hold it against our american friend here. . Eh, he said he would have voted on him (even if it was after your post). If you vote for a maniac to lead the biggest international capitalist regime. You have some fault in it.
"The Man" has no problems with bombing Iraq and any other country. As long as he has some stupid exuse.
Hey, soon he´s going to bomb sweden?. Why? Cuz we are socialists. We believe in human rights. OH WE ARE SO DANGEROUS!

I think the biggest threat in the world is the US and them thinkin that they are the world police.
Well, some police eh?
Who gave Saddam his guns and tanks? you think it was some ailiens who just happend to stop by?

NO no no, it was US Companies who sold them to him. How did they get contact? With a little help of the US goverment.


Who sold Germany a couple of tanks and guns?
Sweden? eeh, no. It was US Weapon industries, with a little help of the US goverment.

The only reason the US ever fought on the Allied side was.

1. they got their asses whoped at Pearl Harbour.

2. France and the UK owed the US alot of money since they had borrowed if to build themselves up after WW1.

So, to conclude it all. If japan never had attacked Pearl Harbour, and UK and France never owed them money.
Europe would have been a Communist state. (yea, thats right. It wouldnt have been Facist. We would all be commies).


Im to tierd to write anything else.
But, please. Before adding another argument.
Look at the answer first.

And don´t think that I think that Sweden is the best country in the world.

Its the least sucky country in the world.

And I dont like Saddam, If I hade decided. The dude had been killed all those years ago.

And to say that it is up to the people of Iraq to oppose Saddam is just pure nonsense. I mean; they live in a dictatorship, any beliefs not concurring to Saddam's beliefs is instantly being fought down. The people of ANY dictatorship needs help to fight their leader.


Yes, well put!

However, if the US keep saying; "If you're not with us; you're against us", then we all have reason to be afraid. I mean what can we do if we disagree with the US? We have to agree with them if we don't want to get blown in pieces. With such a remark, the US is forcing their beliefs upon the rest of us and then it's starting to look like a dictatorship which normally the US is so eager to oppose.

The "You are either with us, or against us" is about harboring terrorists. If you stop the United States from catching terrorists by providing a sanctuary to them, you will face the same fate. I believe that is 100% fair.

That doesn't mean if you are against the Iraq war, that you are going to see bombs fall in Goteborg.

Overlord sorry to make you write more . Seriously, if you are tired of this discussion don't feel obligated to continue.

You wrote...

I Mean, "most of our imports come from abroad" . And he wrote the speah himselfe.
So, if 90% of US imports come from other ****ries. Where does the rest come from?. Mars?

Actually, depending on context, an import can be from another state. He might have been referring to non-NAFTA nations. Without the context, I would be hesitant to pass to much judgment.

In the gulf war, there was experiments of using Bio-Weapons on the Iraqies (again, sorry for the spelling).
If they aren´t allowed to use these mass-destruction weapons. Why are the US allowed.

There is little moral equivalency between the United States and Iraq. Seriously, who is a bigger threat with WoMD?

Eh, he said he would have voted on him (even if it was after your post). If you vote for a maniac to lead the biggest international capitalist regime. You have some fault in it.

I agree that I would have some fault in it, but I disagree that we voted for a maniac.

"The Man" has no problems with bombing Iraq and any other country. As long as he has some stupid exuse.

Weapons of Mass Destruction (which are EXPLICITLY illegal for Iraq to have even your own Hans Blix can tell you that!) are hardly stupid reasons to bomb Iraq.


Hey, soon he´s going to bomb sweden?. Why? Cuz we are socialists. We believe in human rights. OH WE ARE SO DANGEROUS!


We are staunch supporters of human rights in this country. Have you ever visited the United States? If not, you should take advantage of the great exchange rates (the dollar is down against the Euro(and kroner I believe)).

You are socialists, and we are too.

Socialism is not an on/off switch. We have social programs. Many of them are not as extensive as Sweden but we have them.

So, to conclude it all. If japan never had attacked Pearl Harbour, and UK and France never owed them money.
Europe would have been a Communist state. (yea, thats right. It wouldnt have been Facist. We would all be commies).

I think you are underestimating the United States' resolve to squash communism.

Time for bed so...

God Natt (<--norsk, sam som svensk?)

--Joey

1. Bush is a maniac. whatever you may say won´t change my mind about that.

2. Weapons of mass destruction? . Come on. Vietnam anyone? There was commies there and the US didn´t like it. So, what do we do? bomb the **** out of them.
It is the US philosophy, thruwout history. conflicts where US has been involved. they have either threatend to bomb. or bomb the other country.
Weapons of mass destruction isn´t the only reason.

3. I have never been in USA. why? can´t afford it. even though the exchange rates has gone down. I still lack the funding.
Im not rich, far from it. And its not the money im after.

4. About the speach. It was a speach to the.. gah, I have a memmo black out atm. but. World Bank or something like that.
And it was about the Steel import thing. (sorry for the bad choises of words).


5. We are staunch supporters of human rights in this country. Have you ever visited the United States? If not, you should take advantage of the great exchange rates (the dollar is down against the Euro(and kroner I believe)). . HA! do you raly believe that?

To qute your beloved pressident once again.

"To assure our security we have to set the funding for the millitare as our highest goal".

There you have your support for human rights.

6. I think you are underestimating the United States' resolve to squash communism. . what? send another nuke eh?


7. Socialism is not an on/off switch. We have social programs. Many of them are not as extensive as Sweden but we have them.

No, you don´t. They are almost none-existent, now that George wants a war.


...

Im realy to tierd to answer, but... hey.. Im doin it anyway .

You may not like Bush, but maniac is a very strong word.


2. Weapons of mass destruction? . Come on. Vietnam anyone? There was commies there and the US didn´t like it. So, what do we do? bomb the **** out of them.


No, we were stopping communism from spreading.

Weapons of mass destruction isn´t the only reason.

There are benefits to any war that we can win. Name a place where we could not benefit financially from a war? I can think of a couple, like, Afghanistan?

3. I have never been in USA. why? can´t afford it. even though the exchange rates has gone down. I still lack the funding.
Im not rich, far from it. And its not the money im after.


I think this could be why you think the United States is full of big fat rude slobs (plus we usually don't make a good impression in foreign countries)


5. We are staunch supporters of human rights in this country. Have you ever visited the United States? If not, you should take advantage of the great exchange rates (the dollar is down against the Euro(and kroner I believe)). . HA! do you raly believe that?

To qute your beloved pressident once again.

"To assure our security we have to set the funding for the millitare as our highest goal".

There you have your support for human rights.


What does military funding have to do with human rights? How about Saddam Hussein who has scared his scientists from cooperating with the UN inspectors, the children that were tortured, the kurds that were experimented on. That is some human rights record. I can say Bush is a pig, try saying the same thing to Saddam.


6. I think you are underestimating the United States' resolve to squash communism. . what? send another nuke eh?


We have used two nuclear weapons. It isn't exactly like we make a habit out of it.

7. Socialism is not an on/off switch. We have social programs. Many of them are not as extensive as Sweden but we have them.

No, you don´t. They are almost none-existent, now that George wants a war.


What do you think we don't have? Public Education, welfare (money for the poor), medicaid (medical care for the poor), social security (retirement pension) and food stamps (food for the poor). No one starves (if we can help it) in this nation. To your second point, we can fight a war and still run a partially effective government. Personally I would be in favor of reducing social programs because the high taxes hinder growth.

Please don't think we are bad people. We really and truly are not. We aren't perfect, but neither is Sweden (any other country for that matter). If we go to Iraq, (which it looks like we will) we will do everything possible to limit civilian deaths.

--Joey

We have used two nuclear weapons. It isn't exactly like we make a habit out of it.

You dropped two, what says that you aint gonna drop anotherone?



What does military funding have to do with human rights? How about Saddam Hussein who has scared his scientists from cooperating with the UN inspectors, the children that were tortured, the kurds that were experimented on. That is some human rights record. I can say Bush is a pig, try saying the same thing to Saddam. .

Just for the record, I dont support Saddam. if I would have decided all those years ago.
Saddam would be dead by now.

And what the military funding has to do with human rights? where do you think the money to the military is coming from?
The echonnomy in the US is going down.
So, a couple of cutbacks in less-important things in the soceity. such as social wellfare.


No, we were stopping communism from spreading.

What says that Capitalism is so mutch better?



I think this could be why you think the United States is full of big fat rude slobs (plus we usually don't make a good impression in foreign countries)

I don´t think that. 25-30% of the people in the US are poor. as I said, I dont think that you are big fat rude slobs.
Just un-edicated about the rest of the world and lack moral and ethics.


Sweden is the best country in the world.
It least sucky country in the world.

And what the military funding has to do with human rights? where do you think the money to the military is coming from?
The echonnomy in the US is going down.
So, a couple of cutbacks in less-important things in the soceity. such as social wellfare.

We have different definitions of human rights. Human rights to me relates to freedoms such as freedom of speech, fair trials, etc.


What says that Capitalism is so mutch better[than communism]?

Communism wreaks havoc on the psyche of the ruled. Why do so many Cubans flee to America, why did east Germans risk life and limb to get into west Berlin?


I don´t think that. 25-30% of the people in the US are poor. as I said, I dont think that you are big fat rude slobs.
Just un-edicated about the rest of the world and lack moral and ethics.


What do you call poor? A family here typically earns about 39000 euros (which I think is about 40000 USD) a year. You can get a house, a car or two, a vacation once in a while etc. An educated couple make about 60000 USD. I would hardly think 25% of us are poor. By world standards we are exceedingly wealthy (so is Sweden, actually I think you all make more than we do?)


Sweden is the best country in the world.
It least sucky country in the world.


Really? What makes Sweden better than the United States? Better than Norway? Better than the UK? etc.

--Joey

"Really? What makes Sweden better than the United States? Better than Norway? Better than the UK? etc.

--Joey"

Don´t you know Joey? It´s full of Swedes!

Nah, seriously though, I feel that I have something that I´ve got to get off my chest. Here goes:

First I´d like to add my opinions 'bout the Vietnam war. I think that you both (Joey and The Dark Overlord off course) are tapping the truth, at least a little bit. Joey, I agree with you when you say that the US stopped the commies from spreading. But I kind of agree with you Overlord when you propose that the real reason behind the US interference in the war was the "need" to "bomb" commies. (even though I would possibly have used other words) However, I don´t agree with you completely. (Think about it. If i did that I would debate against myself, and I asure you... I´m still far from hypocrisy. )

This is how I see it. The US has always been driven by a strong, and as far as I´m concerned, a fairly motivated desire to crush communism. Now that the southern part of Vietnam was severely troubled by the northern part (which was supported by China, the biggest commie-realm in the world) America had a good reason to interfere with the commies plans to expand. But off course they also did it with at least some intentions of helping the people of southern Vietnam. The US often does things with the best intentions, though I´d like to think that sometimes (certainly not always) there are hidden agendas behind that specific act. This doesn´t make the US a bad country, not at all. (at least not in my eyes) All it really proves is that the US, like many other "good" countries likes to display the best/most humane side of their actions. As long as they don´t brag about it, it´s fair enough to me.

However, there are still a couple of things I think that the US could have done in a better way in 'Nam. One thing (the only thing I´m gonna talk about here, due to lack of time... and perhaps hurting fingers ) is the use of Napalm. Sure, the Napalm certainly made their job easier, but I think it was a display of an unprovoked brutality. The Napalm was used to drive people out of the jungles. The Napalm attaches to the skin, hair and clothes of the victims, and it feels like... burning glue, and that´s pretty much what it is. The attacks caused the "victims" to run, madly like rabid nerfs, out of the jungle giving the US infantry a good chance to take the burning soldiers out. Some of the worst things ever done was done with the best intentions. I think this is a pretty good example, even though the "best intentions" part could be discussed. Perhaps you could say that sometimes brutality HAS to be used to achieve a greater goal. However, how much brutality this greater goal is worth will always cause serious discussions and heavy arguing between certain countries in the world, due to the fact that we´re all the same, but at the same time different. (Ha ha, am I making any kind of sense at all?)

I think it´s good that we don´t always share the same opinions. Otherwise this world would be kind of boring.

Well... perhaps I should try to apply my little post to todays conflict. I think that Saddam is a danger to the world. Not only to the US and the other nationalities of this planet, but also to mother Earh herself. Probably, Saddam is sitting firmly on big, fat pile of WoMD. A pile large enough to exterminate all life on this planet. I don´t know about the rest of you, but I would be pretty sad if that happened... cause then I wouldn´t get to see Episode III

I think that instead of us all fighting different kinds of threats throughout the world, we need to stand united against a common foe. Saddam must be stopped, I can agree about that, but I also think that (perhaps) the US is being a little to aggressive about it. Well, I´m not a politician, nor much of a writer, but I at least think that I´m makin SOME kind of weird sense here. Don´t hate me for my words and I´m sorry about my english. But after all..... I´m just a Swede

Obi . please. stop changing u´r icon . It makes me confused .


Well, I can say this. human rights for me is:

Freedom of speach, food at the table and a roof over their heads, and a jobb.


Really? What makes Sweden better than the United States? Better than Norway? Better than the UK? etc.

We have the best social system in the world, the freedom of speach is almost total.
In procentage sweden has less poor ppl than the US, UK or any other country.



What do you call poor? A family here typically earns about 39000 euros (which I think is about 40000 USD) a year. You can get a house, a car or two, a vacation once in a while etc. An educated couple make about 60000 USD. I would hardly think 25% of us are poor. By world standards we are exceedingly wealthy (so is Sweden, actually I think you all make more than we do?)

Those 25% are facts. Stated by your own goverment. Complain at them. not me.


Communism wreaks havoc on the psyche of the ruled. Why do so many Cubans flee to America, why did east Germans risk life and limb to get into west Berlin?

well, don´t make me put up a list of all the wrong things capitalism has done.
Cubans and East Germans fled to the US controled areas bacuse of the American Dream, and that is only what it is. A dream.



Swedish Sith . I agree on most of your points. exept those where u say the US aint bad .


Most of the things are done in the best intentions. Just look at WOTC . those talibans did it in the best intentions. To make the US pay for all the suffer they had caused on them. (Im not justefying the act, im just saying that "doin things in the best intention" dosn´t justify anything).

Swedish Sith wrote the following:

Don´t you know Joey? It´s full of Swedes!

Ahh yes I did forget that
Just as an interesting side note, it seems to me like the Swedes are, understandably, very proud of their country. However, it also seems like the word patriotic carries a negative connotation. Perhaps that is just my imagination?

This is how I see it. The US has always been driven by a strong, and as far as I´m concerned, a fairly motivated desire to crush communism. Now that the southern part of Vietnam was severely troubled by the northern part (which was supported by China, the biggest commie-realm in the world) America had a good reason to interfere with the commies plans to expand. But off course they also did it with at least some intentions of helping the people of southern Vietnam. The US often does things with the best intentions, though I´d like to think that sometimes (certainly not always) there are hidden agendas behind that specific act. This doesn´t make the US a bad country, not at all. (at least not in my eyes) All it really proves is that the US, like many other "good" countries likes to display the best/most humane side of their actions. As long as they don´t brag about it, it´s fair enough to me.

I am not sure what hidden agenda we might have had in vietnam. Yes we do display our best/most humane side of our actions but we also "air our dirty laundry" for all to see. When we make mistakes, we are very upfront about it.

However, there are still a couple of things I think that the US could have done in a better way in 'Nam. One thing (the only thing I´m gonna talk about here, due to lack of time... and perhaps hurting fingers ) is the use of Napalm. Sure, the Napalm certainly made their job easier, but I think it was a display of an unprovoked brutality. The Napalm was used to drive people out of the jungles. The Napalm attaches to the skin, hair and clothes of the victims, and it feels like... burning glue, and that´s pretty much what it is. The attacks caused the "victims" to run, madly like rabid nerfs, out of the jungle giving the US infantry a good chance to take the burning soldiers out. Some of the worst things ever done was done with the best intentions. I think this is a pretty good example, even though the "best intentions" part could be discussed. Perhaps you could say that sometimes brutality HAS to be used to achieve a greater goal. However, how much brutality this greater goal is worth will always cause serious discussions and heavy arguing between certain countries in the world, due to the fact that we´re all the same, but at the same time different. (Ha ha, am I making any kind of sense at all?)

Actually that does make sense. The problem with Napalm is that it shouldn't have been needed, but that is because Korea should have ended with a decisive victory making Vietnam itself, unnecessary. Vietnam took a cue from the Koreans and fought a war of attrition.

North Vietnam should have been bombed more aggressively in the beginning. We then had to resort to using Napalm later. It is really sad to see documentaries of civilians that are still affected by the drops.

I think it´s good that we don´t always share the same opinions. Otherwise this world would be kind of boring.

No you must agree with me on everything or stop coming to tf.n. I am issuing everyone here that ultimatum

Seriously though folks...

Well... perhaps I should try to apply my little post to todays conflict. I think that Saddam is a danger to the world. Not only to the US and the other nationalities of this planet, but also to mother Earh herself. Probably, Saddam is sitting firmly on big, fat pile of WoMD. A pile large enough to exterminate all life on this planet. I don´t know about the rest of you, but I would be pretty sad if that happened... cause then I wouldn´t get to see Episode III


Yes, but either we attack him now, or he (or someone with his weapons) will attack us later. If we can force the issue on his land, that would be better t