US War Dead in Iraq Exceeds Early Vietnam Years...

Hi, Jonah.

You took the words right off my keyboard -- OTOH, unfortunately opposition to the war didn't grow until the casualties and costs did.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Edward, I found the source of those figures to be quite interesting. Commondreams.org, in their own words on their web site, "Common Dreams - a non-profit founded in 1996 to develop use of the internet as a progressive political organizing tool.". It seems to me that possibly it wasn't concern for the well being of U.S. military personnel that was the motivation, but the forging of a possible political campaigning "weapon".
The bio of the founder seems to show various possible political motivations. Link to that bio: http://www.commondreams.org/editor.htm

Yes it is J.

Common Dreams is ultra "progressive" which is simply newspeak for socialist.

Even most ardent Democrats such as Kennedy or Schumer or HRC would hesitate to give them legitimacy.

.

you asked: #did you support the war and as a consequence (according to your theory and mine) the death of our soldiers?#

surely it's time that you and blake (and i include him in this reply because of his habit of answering posts directed to you) realised that supporting an 'action' does not always support the reaction....

and to your question....
the only answer is "do you and 11 million others (according to the number quoted by you) support the suffering and oppression that was a part of the Iraqui peoples daily lives?"

the obvious, and in fact the ONLY answer is no!

get back to us on this when you mature enough to realise that between BLACK and WHITE, there a million shades of GREY!!

.
Not directed at anyone in particular.

Honesty, people, can't you cut each other a little bit of slack? This business of dissecting very little word and statement is taking away from the actual discussion.

Is it so hard to just overlook a missaid word or two once in a while.
.

to 'just overlook a missaid word or two once in a while' but those TYPOS are another story! ie 'Honesty, people,' and 'dissecting very little word ...'

.
Thanks, Ed. You made my day.
.
.

welcome and glad you took it as humor--I forgot that although html is disabled the forum provides emoticons

Even Bosnia if you really stretch the issue.

Coming from a Socialist country but enjoying the freedoms of this one you would understandably be unaware of this.

Are you trying to say that Sweden isn't a free contry?

Are you saying that I am NOW enjoying the freedoms of the USA and I couldn't enjoy them in Sweden? Because you say that "Coming from a Socialist country but enjoying the freedoms of this one..." - Edward O'Daniel (The underlining is mine.) That picture of Sweden is one that I don't recognize. I didn't come here to "be free"! I was a very free man in Sweden that came here for very different reasons.

Let me quote from the CIA's fact book which you can find here:

"Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole 20th century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. It has a modern distribution system, excellent internal and external communications, and a skilled labor force. Timber, hydropower, and iron ore constitute the resource base of an economy heavily oriented toward foreign trade. Privately owned firms account for about 90% of industrial output, of which the engineering sector accounts for 50% of output and exports." The underlining is mine!

Where in this text is Socialism mentioned? The fact that the government take care of certain things in the society doesn't mean socialism Edward and I think you know that very well.

... Timber as a major resource!

Sweden better watch out for Greenpeace. Why should they be able to use this resource and Brazil not theirs?

I am willing to discuss that with you in a separate thread, but in this particular case it was whether Sweden is a socialist country or not. What do you say about that based upon the facts from the CIA?

She responded with a response that initiates a new thread if you are so inclined--if not don't respond but don't assume that she must follow YOUR desires.

Yes, Sweden has a SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT composed of representatives from SOCIALIST PARTIES and even the Conservative party has a strong SOCIALIST bent.

Why depend on the CIA? Don't you trust the Swedish Government? Their own site provides all the information necessary to see the form of government Charlie. Here is a link in case you couldn't find it http://www.sweden.gov.se/

Do they have a Constitution? Sure do and so did the DDR and strangely enough the old DDR Constitution is quite similar.

Just denying it doesn't make it so Charlie any more than closing your eyes makes a garbage dump a rose garden.

It took a bit of boring down in that link that you provided, Edward, but it was interesting. According to that web site:
The Social Democratic Party (Socialdemokratiska arbetarepartiet) was founded in 1889, and the party?s first member of the Riksdag was Hjalmar Branting, who was elected to the Second Chamber in 1896. The party group was founded in 1906. With the exception of one brief period, the Social Democrats were in power for 44 consecutive years (1932?1976). Of these 44 years, 15 were spent in coalitions with one or several other parties. The party was in Government from 1982 to 1991 and has currently been in power since 1994. Its leader, G

it demonstrates rather well that Sweden doesn't hide the fact as well as how much Dave K misses by not going to links provided and actually following other links to information sources.

Edward we keep hearing to that reference to the CIA fact book, and a mention of something that it does not say. I get the impression that is supposed to imply something.
Since boring down in it shows the number of seats held as seats by party - Social Democrats 144, Moderates 55, Liberal Party 48, Christian Democrats 33, Left Party 30, Center Party 22, Greens 17, I think that looking into information about the Social Democrats would be worth the time, even though the CIA fact book does not go into that expansion of detail.

J,

You are saying "we keep hearing to that reference to the CIA fact book, and a mention of something that it does not say...

What is it that I say that the fact book does not say? I said that Sweden is not a Socialist country (you can count seats in the parliament as much as you want, because the name of a party is not even interesting to me or to anybody else. You even have a party in Bolivia called MIR, Movimiento Izquierdista Revolucionario, which has nothing with neither left nor revolutionary to do!).
I have quoted the part that says that Sweden has an economy base on 90% private industry which is the opposite to a socialist economy!

but so is a country that has refused to be a part of any alliances but demands it's fair share of any accrued benefits.

Are we talking about the same thing here Ed? Isn't Capitalism a form of economy just as Socialism? Aren't they both mainly economic philosophies? Let me ask you once more, is the CIA fact book wrong since they don't say that it is a Socialist country with a capitalist economy bla, bla, bla. Sweden is NOT a socialist country. No matter how you turn, the behind will always be behind you... Unless of course you manage to give me a link to a fact sheet/book from Sweden, Cuba, Soviet Union, USA, China, Denmark or wherever you want, that says that Sweden is today a Socialist country! I have given you an official fact sheet that tells you that 90% of the economy is owned by private people (something impossible in a Socialist country) and I take that, that my facts remain!

I woud also like to see what part of the DDR constitution is similar to the Swedish one as you claimed and of course, typically Socialist! Because a constitution saying that all power is in the hands of the people, that is a constitution that we even have here, and on Cuba!

even you would have no problem understanding.

Here is one link to get you started and all you have to do is read it and check up on anything you have doubts about or don't understand.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman33.html
With respect to claim that Swedish socialism shows the "success" of socialism, as O?Rourke notes, free trade reigned in Sweden from roughly 1846 until the Social Democrats were elected in 1932. After 1932, Sweden was helped by its neutrality in World War Two. Unlike Germany, Sweden?s major cities were not bombed flat. The Social Democrats, then, had a great deal of wealth produced by capitalism and undamaged by war to share as political spoils.

it would not serve his purposes to admit it.

Wonder if it shames him that he desires to live here in the US where he can keep and spend a greater portion of his own earnings than in his socialist mother country. He has often admitted his own Marxist infatuation so shame is the only reason I can think of for his attempts at denial.