Originally posted by der schwarze RitterLet's be realistic here shall we? 🙂
In the course of my research, I was surprised to discover how bellicose Sweden has been throughout its history. For example:
1434-1437, Engelbrektsson's Revolt, Sweden 1434-1437
1521-1523, Swedish War of Liberation
1534-1536, Conflict over Danish Throne
1554-1557 Swedish-Russian War
1563-1570, Swedish-Danish War . see also 1558-1582 Livoni ...[text shortened]... liberated Swedes can now occupy their time by learning to Salsa dance and cook a good Paella?
Sweden is still a monarchy, but the king has no real power anymore.
However, up until the early 20th century the king ruled Sweden. Will you
hold us responsible for what the vikings did back in the first millenia
too? Because they did some nasty things, you know? To hold us
responsible for the wars that kings fought in the past, would be like
holding the US of A responsible for wars the British empire fought before
the American revolutionary war.
So, I take it you're ok with removing every war up until 1921 when
Sweden finally became a socialist democracy. (Yes, the Swedish King
had lost a lot of political influence even before 1921, but Sweden really
only became a democracy in 1921 and that's what counts I'd say.)
Looking at your list, that leaves us with... hm, let's see...
Oh! Right! Not a single war that we've started or been involved in
directly. Fascinating how wrong you were here. 😏
1 edit
Originally posted by JigtieI think der schwarze Ritter only want to provoke. He's done it before. Should not be taken too seriously.
Let's be realistic here shall we? 🙂
Sweden is still a monarchy, but the king has no real power anymore.
However, up until the early 20th century the king ruled Sweden. Will you
hold us responsible for what the vikings did back in the first millenia
too? Because they did some nasty things, you know? To hold us
responsible for the wars that kings fo that we've started or been involved in
directly. Fascinating how wrong you were here. 😏
Originally posted by shavixmirWas the Nordic neutrality respected during the war?
How do you know?
The only reason Hitler didn't invade Sweden was because of cost.
It was far better to keep Sweden neutral so that he could launder
his illgotten gains.
The Swedes already had a heavy Germanic influence and nazis and
spys were in place all over Sweden.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,794972-5,00.html
We should also take into account that Hitler was a psycho, hellbent on
world domination.
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritteryou dare call Sweden violent when you as american have the history you have?
In the course of my research, I was surprised to discover how bellicose Sweden has been throughout its history. For example:
1434-1437, Engelbrektsson's Revolt, Sweden 1434-1437
1521-1523, Swedish War of Liberation
1534-1536, Conflict over Danish Throne
1554-1557 Swedish-Russian War
1563-1570, Swedish-Danish War . see also 1558-1582 Livoni ...[text shortened]... liberated Swedes can now occupy their time by learning to Salsa dance and cook a good Paella?
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasyeah and he still manages it. i think the reason so many people encourage him is because when a stupid, bigot, narrow-minded person makes such outrageous comments one is compelled to yell at him. which of course is exactly what the disgusting little man wants.
I think der schwarze Ritter only want to provoke. He's done it before. Should not be taken too seriously.
we should do exactly the opposite. we don't yell at special (retarded) people when they drool in public or break something. we just nod in pity and maybe that is what we should apply to the dsr case.
Originally posted by UllrInteresting point, does that mean that all the blood of the 9/11 victims is on the hands of the American Government, or on the hands of their respective governments as there were many nationalities among the victims??
Their blood is on the hands of the Japanese Imperial Government.
1 edit
Originally posted by Ullr
Hey look, I don't have a problem when you criticize America. As we all know there is plenty to criticize. I only speak up when that criticism is exagerrated and inaccurate. I have no doubt you're a decent guy.
Just to bring a little balance and fairness to my earlier comments, Sweden should also be recognized for its humanitartian efforts after WWII.
But I can't help but pick on Sweden a little bit since I'm of Norwegian descent.
You might like to remember that Norway didn't bat an eye when its Jews were shipped off to Germany. Sweden, at least, took in most of Denmark's Jewish population.
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI think you should move the Zionists there and then we will really have something!!
In the course of my research, I was surprised to discover how bellicose Sweden has been throughout its history. For example:
1434-1437, Engelbrektsson's Revolt, Sweden 1434-1437
1521-1523, Swedish War of Liberation
1534-1536, Conflict over Danish Throne
1554-1557 Swedish-Russian War
1563-1570, Swedish-Danish War . see also 1558-1582 Livoni liberated Swedes can now occupy their time by learning to Salsa dance and cook a good Paella?
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by GoatboysrevengeIt depends on how you see the 9/11 attack. My opinion is that it was an unprovoked, sneak attack/act of war by Al Qaeda. Therefore, Al Qaeda is responsible. Much different, in my opinion, than the war in the Pacific that was clearly started by the Japanese.
Interesting point, does that mean that all the blood of the 9/11 victims is on the hands of the American Government, or on the hands of their respective governments as there were many nationalities among the victims??