Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

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

Nov 15, 2003 11:51AM PST

"PHILADELPHIA - The U.S. death toll in Iraq has surpassed the number of American soldiers killed during the first three years of the Vietnam War, the brutal Cold War conflict that cast a shadow over U.S. affairs for more than a generation.

A Reuters analysis of Defense Department statistics showed on Thursday that the Vietnam War, which the Army says officially began on Dec. 11, 1961, produced a combined 392 fatal casualties from 1962 through 1964, when American troop levels in Indochina stood at just over 17,000.

By comparison, a roadside bomb attack that killed a soldier in Baghdad on Wednesday brought to 397 the tally of American dead in Iraq, where U.S. forces number about 130,000 troops -- the same number reached in Vietnam by October 1965.

The casualty count for Iraq apparently surpassed the Vietnam figure last Sunday, when a U.S. soldier killed in a rocket-propelled grenade attack south of Baghdad became the conflict's 393rd American casualty since Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 20.
"

US War Dead in Iraq Exceeds Early Vietnam Years

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
You know very little about me actually...
Nov 19, 2003 2:48AM PST

The reasons I am here are non of your business!

And once again you called my mother country, The Kingdom of Sweden (MONARCHY, right?), a Socialist country... *sigh* Patience HAS to be a virtue... LOL!

- Collapse -
You are getting hysterical ...
Nov 19, 2003 4:07AM PST

... over nit picking of facts.

Not too long ago in the old SE the query was put forth to name successful socialist countries. Sweden is often brought forth as the poster child answer to such queries.

Also now trying to bring the Swedish monarchy into this is a moot point. The monarchy has been mostly ceremonial since 1975 if memory serves.

You objected to something Ed said regarding the freedoms in this country. I dunno, when I read things like this, it sure seems an awful tradeoff for a "generous" welfare state!

- Collapse -
Once again...
Nov 19, 2003 4:52AM PST

the only thing I am offered is a link to an OPIONION!

Patience is a virtue. Pride is something that one should swallow once in a while. It's usually not poison...

- Collapse -
Re:"just" an opinion???the Swedish National Archives is "just" an opinion?? sheesh
Nov 19, 2003 5:37AM PST

Files recently released from the Swedish National Archives make clear that from the 1950s, after the Institute for Racial Biology was wound up, sterilisation continued based on an agenda to promote social conformity.

- Collapse -
Sorry Charlie ...
Nov 19, 2003 5:42AM PST

... but the details of a Swedish government agency are not an opinion, they are FACT.

Perhaps you want to offer us an opinion on a practice that could very well have deprived us of your participation on this forum? (and no, that is NOT intended in any way shape or form to be an attack or an insult ... just that by what I've read, some of the criteria for sterilization were pretty arbitrary and might well have ensnared your own mother if she ever engaged in such youthful folly as joining a motorcycle club)

- Collapse -
Re:Sorry Evie ...
Nov 19, 2003 8:41AM PST

I have never said that the Swedish government has been perfect in any way! I don't agree with A LOT of things that they do actually. The only thing I have argued about in this thread is the fact that we don't have a Socialist system, and that is what some of the fellow members think/claim, but without providing proof of it. I think the fact that Sweden has made mistakes and also horrifying mistakes like the sterilizaion is horrible! It's absolutely unacceptable! And I feel the same way about the Swedes, Germans, Irish etc. that came to "build up" America on behalf of the native Americans. It's usually a good idea to take a look at one's own history before throwing the stone.

And for those who like England and its islands in the region, I think they should be pretty careful when judging others. The British Empire wasn't precisely an example of fair treatment toward minorities...

- Collapse -
Socialistic programs, part 1
Nov 19, 2003 10:30AM PST

So this is a make sure it's understood everyone has done wrong post?

Shrug, I'm not an economist, political studies expert, or give a damn about which particular name you describe any particular society with.

Sweden is more socialist than America, at least so far, in it's government programs to regulate citizens life, albeit in well-intention. The amount spent to guareentee this service, minimum standard here, there, etc requires (if I recall correctly, I may easily be wrong) very high percentages of income to be paid in taxes.

"Sweden's taxes on income, wealth and property are among the world's highest. Meanwhile, the government provides free education and subsidized health care. It also offers some of the world's most generous welfare benefits, including unemployment compensation and up to 480 days of paid parental leave."

CHuckling, that quote is from a page about a prostitute demanding to pay her taxes on illegal income because -

"She said that she wanted to pay her taxes so she'd have the same access as other workers ? self-employed or not ? to a pension and state-paid sick leave."

http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/world_2003/ap-030415.html

And from another-

"local tax at a rate of 26-35 percent (depending on the municipality),
national income tax of 20 percent on annual taxable earnings of between SEK 252,000 and 390,400 and 25 percent for income above SEK 390,400 (year 2001)."

http://www.sweden.se/templates/FactSheet____3927.asp

Hmm, so just those taxes (and there are others), add up to 46-55% of the earned income.

- Collapse -
Re:Socialistic programs, part 2
Nov 19, 2003 10:31AM PST

I'll grant the government provides a lot of services the US doesn't. It's the choice of the citizens obviously, they trade some independance and freedom to plan with their income for guareentees from the government.

The biggest problem with this in my opinion is simply eventually there are too many people that decide it's easier to take everything they can rather than regard the services as they should considered, for emergency backup only.

So you end up with a smaller population paying and a larger populations leeching. It's already started in America too. Not all, perhaps not even a majority, of Americans getting government aid are doing it unfairly, but the segment that lives off the governement without contributing certainly exists. And I suspect the numbers are growing at a steady rate.

If people could be counted on to do their best, the pure idealogy of communism would work. But unfortunately, without reward and punishment, people don't do what is best. No different than training lab rats.

roger

- Collapse -
You may as well be right here Roger!
Nov 19, 2003 10:46AM PST

The problem I've had throughout this thread is the fact that a fellow member has claimed that Sweden is a Socialist country and that the Conservative Party of the country (Moderaterna) is a Socialist leaning party... That's what I still can't see.

You definitely show that you can see things from more than one side by your post Roger!

Thank you for your contribution.

- Collapse -
Re:Socialistic programs, part 1
Nov 19, 2003 10:41AM PST

In this post there is nothing that tells us that Sweden is a Socialist country! And no, nobody pays more than a 50% in taxes. And that is not from their income but from the wealth that they have PLUS the income. AFAIK that is the cap in the USA too...

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Socialistic programs, part 1
Nov 19, 2003 11:19AM PST
http://www.sweden.se/templates/SASTopic____2425.asp?launched=true


"It is often said that Sweden has the world's heaviest tax burden. This is true if we believe the statistics from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which recently quantified the taxes in Sweden at 52 percent of gross domestic product, compared to around 45 percent in France, 37 percent in Great Britain and 29 percent in the United States, for example."

Granted, the government pays for more too, so there is a debate about the cost of living including taxes.

"...Swedish tax table from those of many other countries is its comparatively steep progressiveness. High-income earners pay a larger percentage of their income, low-income earners a lower percentage. "

That's a huge area of debate among many right there, about the wrongness or rightness right there.

"This redistribution of income is an important element of Sweden's "third way" between socialism and unfettered capitalism"

So this would be a socialistic capitalism, or a capitalistic socialism, wouldn't it? Both terms seem to apply equally as well and neither fits exactly, IMO. The combination of the two terms appears to be a better description.

And more info on taxes and living expenses. As I said, it appears the citizens chose to exchange some of their personal control in their lives for government support. That is socialistic, if not a purely solialistic government.

So I'd say both sides of the socialism debate wrong and right.

roger
- Collapse -
Re:Socialistic programs, part 1
Nov 19, 2003 10:52AM PST
"Shrug, I'm not an economist, political studies expert, or give a damn about which particular name you describe any particular society with.

Sweden is more socialist than America, at least so far, in it's government programs to regulate citizens life, albeit in well-intention." - Roger


Aparently you don't need to be an expert to see the real life as it is and to do an analogy worth reading!
- Collapse -
Re: Socialistic programs, part 1
Nov 19, 2003 12:15PM PST

Hi, Roger.

I certainly won't argue whether Sweden is more socialist than the US or not -- it clearly is. OTOH -- according to UN stats, Sweden is ahead of the US in many areas, including life expectancy, infant mortality, and quality of the medical care system (along with 71 other countries, btw). Yes, the median disposable income there is lower than ours -- OTOH, our median "disposable" income has to cover a lot of things (chief among them medical costs and an affordable retirement) that are included as tax benefits there. So comparing our "disposable income" and theirs truly is comparing apples and oranges. Which is best? That's hard to say -- but definitely arguable. For the average citizen, it's probably better there (climate aside!) For the entrepreneurial superstar or a materialist who believes that "the one who dies with the most toys wins," it's doubtless better here.
-- 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!

- Collapse -
Better or worse
Nov 19, 2003 12:39PM PST

I'm not sure that such plans would work as well in US, even if wasn't opposed by a sizable portion of the population.

First, you'd have to basically do away with state government, just make it an administration level in the federal. All money would go up and back down. Can you imagine the inefficiency there?

And that's another thing, the bigger any organization is the more ineffieciency and corruption occur. It may not have to be that way, but it certainly normally is.

And unfortunately I think the other point I mentioned about (here in the US at least) that government guareentees lead to larger and larger number of people that live off the government. And often those numbers prevent some that need it from getting help.

Larger has it's problems as well as advantages.

And whether an individual likes it or not, much of US character is a bit more independant minded than European attitudes, IMO.

You can even argue the older societies/cultures/countries have aged. Some would say matured, but that's just a viewpoint/opinion. No one else in the world would take on much of what the US has, even before the controversy of Iraq.

Wonder if that is still partly the attitude of a younger culture, still growing, adventurous even, not yet settled into it's comfortable middle age and declining years?

Boy that'll probably get some rocks thrown at me.

roger

- Collapse -
nt) Here, have a rather handsome schist. hehehe
Nov 19, 2003 4:59PM PST

.

- Collapse -
(NT)Chuckling, I had to look "schist" up before I "got it"
Nov 19, 2003 9:44PM PST

.

- Collapse -
You gotta wonder ...
Nov 19, 2003 10:38PM PST

... if some of that didn't result from four decades of implementing their eugenics program.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Frankly Evie...
Nov 19, 2003 11:51PM PST

Is Sweden a Socialist country or not. Just answer Yes or No and if Yes, please show me the official fact sheet/book where that is stated.

And BTW, what part of my posts are hysterical?

- Collapse -
(NT) Would you prefer that we call it a welfare state?
Nov 20, 2003 1:02AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:(NT) Would you prefer that we call it a welfare state?
Nov 20, 2003 1:19AM PST

If you would have asked me twenty years ago I would have said "kind of". 30 years ago I would have said yes. Today, well, it could be, but it is devastated by the conservatives both in the governemntal party and in the other parties. It's unfortunate that we haven't kept the standards that we had 30 years ago and developed them instead of taking them away! We have privatized a lot of the basic industry for communication and we have made a lot of mistakes, not only historically, but even today. We have had a tendency the last years of copying the American system and thus the increased poverty in Sweden and the increased class differences. And the big smack in the face of the people was probably between 1991 and 1994 when the conservative party (called socialists by Edward) under Carl Bildt was in power. That really changed Sweden.

You can call it a welfare state because it is in comparison with the USA. But Edward has yet to show me an official document that tells that Sweden is a Socialist state and that will be impossible for him or Evie to do since it is not! Welfare isn't Socialism! Welfare is something that every reasonable person understands is necessary since there will always be people in a capitalist society that will not be able to pay the $500/month for their health insurance. And by welfare, I mean medical service, unemployment pay, welfare pay, dental pay, schools, ambulance, police etc.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:(NT) Would you prefer that we call it a welfare state?
Nov 20, 2003 1:44AM PST
It's unfortunate that we haven't kept the standards that we had 30 years ago

Like when the mentally ill and others were sterilised and lobotomized in the name of racial purity?

Welfare is something that every reasonable person understands is necessary

No Charlie, any reasonable person will look at the changes in our country since the government welfare industry has grown and note that the government nanny war on poverty has failed and it is time to send the troops home and out of our lives.

What I find a demonstration of hysteria is you taking a small comment by Edward and going off like this about some narrow interpretation of things. No, it is not the Socialist Republic of Sweden or anything like that. There, you happy? Keith's point was that compared to the US Sweden is indeed much more socialized. And you insist you didn't come to this country to be free. Maybe so, nobody insinuated that you fled tyrrany. But you do enjoy more freedoms here than in your country. Although with the advancing of social programs here this has become less so. High taxation and excessive regulation have the same effect as government owned industries and property. I mean with all the regulations, I own my little plot of land here, but am severely limited by all levels of government regulations in terms of what I can do with it. And adding insult to injury, I pay taxes on this property, and God forbid I am late in that payment I lose it.
- Collapse -
Fortune teller?
Nov 20, 2003 2:19AM PST
"But you do enjoy more freedoms here than in your country. - Evie."

Do I? I what sense? Do I have less political agents here thatn in Sweden that controls what I write and say? Are The Dixie Chicks (sp?) more free here that they would be in Sweden in terms of freedom of speech? Was the homeland security department created in order to increase the freedom of the people?

The main point though is that I wonder in what way I am more free here than I was in Sweden as you state. Please explain that to me Evie!
- Collapse -
Like when the mentally ill and others were sterilised and lobotomized in the name of racial purity?
Nov 20, 2003 2:40AM PST

On that issue I agree completely with you and the rest of those who oppose to it.

Let me just inform you a little bit about the history of that. The ONLY part of the Swedish society who brought this up in different ways (music, theater, literature etc.) was the former Communist party?s sympathizers and the party itself!

One of my favorite Swedish musicians, Mikael Wiehe, wrote various songs about this. And he IS a Socialist BTW. So the main opposition to the treatment that the Swedish government gave to those with handicaps or those who weren't "pure" (mainly gypsies, which doesn't make it less a crime!) came from the left. The conservatives and the Anti-Socialist groups were rather quiet about these issues and focused on tax reductions instead, as usual.

- Collapse -
Incorrect history charlie...
Nov 20, 2003 4:23AM PST
The ONLY part of the Swedish society who brought this up in different ways (music, theater, literature etc.) was the former Communist party?s sympathizers and the party itself!

It was the Social Democrats who instituted the sterilization of the mentally ill, beginning in 1934. Dagens Nyheter, the Swedish newspaper which ran a multi-part documentary of the sterilization program, contended that the ruling party at the time ? the Social Democrats ? "accepted the policy as an essential part of their overall philosophy." This claims is supported by the fact that, as noted above, the Social Democrats came to power in Sweden in 1932. In other words, they waited a mere two years before embarking on a program of eugenics. This would appear to make the eugenics program a high priority for the Social Democrats, as Dagens Nyheter contended.

What party is in power today Charlie? Easy answer Charlie because it is those same Social Democrats.

You shouldn't try to invent what is already archived.
- Collapse -
Nope!
Nov 20, 2003 4:58AM PST

My history is very accurate. The Social Democratic party was in power when it took place. But the ONLY ones who protested against it was the REAL left and very rightly too! I have already said that I think it was a horrible thing that the SD party did. But once again, the only parties who really brought these crimes up were the communists, marxists, leninists, you name it! THEY were the ones who brought it up! There was a magazine called *****

- Collapse -
Re: a welfare state
Nov 20, 2003 1:49AM PST

I consider Canada to be somewhat of a welfare state. Sweden more so. In both cases, reality strikes when the bills come due. Somebody has to pay them and the rich have the resources to leave if they are asked to pay too much. The 90s was when Canadian governements had to face the fact that they could not afford all those services forever. The boomers are getting up to retirement age and there won't be as many taxpaying/working citizens to support the programs.

- Collapse -
You have been shown Official documentation,..
Nov 20, 2003 4:13AM PST

you just appear to be unable to understand or accept it.

I won't spoon feed you as you have come to expect.

- Collapse -
For the last time Ed...
Nov 20, 2003 7:58AM PST

Please link and quote where it says that Sweden is a Socialist country!

This is my last post in this matter and now it is up to you to find the documentation.

- Collapse -
Even you are not that thick...
Nov 20, 2003 11:46PM PST

that you can't understand what is printed in plain english unless you really try.

Have you tried READING the links Charlie?

- Collapse -
Ant the answer is YES and the LINKS have already been posted...
Nov 20, 2003 4:04AM PST

although you obviously have trouble believing anything on the Official Swedish Government's web site.

You are wasting a lot of bandwidth Charlie but here are a few more links for you to deny.

http://www.cornellreview.org/viewart.cgi?num=187
The result puts the creators of Sweden?s ?cradle-to-grave? welfare state back in power for another four years despite the lowest voter turnout since World War II. The election was a huge disappointment to the four non-socialist coalition members. They were in a virtual tie with the Social Democrats in polls running up to the election and hoped to form a non-socialist government for the first time since 1994.

http://www.sweden.com/forums/showthread.php3?postid=92754#post92754
What is the future of Sweden's Welfare State. Will the Social-Democrats ever be beaten again. Can a non-socialist Government survive more than one term in Sweden?

http://www.sweden.se/templates/FactSheet____3152.asp
Swedish Social Democratic ideology was originally based more on a German Marxist model than a French-British utopian one. Over time, the party's links with Marxism were toned down and today it advocates a combination of public sector control and a market economy.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman33.html
Frequently referred to as a "benevolent" socialist or social democratic state, to distinguish it from the run-of-the-mill socialist butcher shop, such as Cuba, China, North Korea, the USSR, and most of Africa, Latin and Central America, and Asia, Sweden is the Promised Land of the Left. Where the USSR was a departure from the genius of Karl Marx, Sweden shows the potential.