SweeneyAgonistes

Well, because it's been deleted, it's only fair to say: you presented one fact which was that in the first 6 months of this year, the Taliban killed about 900 civilians and the 'good guys' killed about 300.

If there are 10 million people here now and then it drops by 1 million every decade, it is so slow that most people won't notice. A gradual drop in population isn't noticed by people that live in a city.

A change in population of a million people a decade would be incredible. You might not notice the difference day-to-day but it would have really significant economic effects. But, of course, you probably won't have a million people a decade leaving. You'll have almost nobody leaving and then a catastrophic event will prompt large numbers to leave at once. But at least as significant as Bangkok is the whole industrial belt around the area which is no higher than Bangkok itself and there's no way that the whole region can be defended. Sure, parts can be but it's just not feasible to defend the entire area. As for Venice - it's a fraction of the size of Bangkok and is subject to ongoing efforts to save it.

I think replacing emergency rule with the ISA would be a more honest description, wouldn't it?

It's pretty obvious that every city on the planet's future is somewhere between dire and non-existent. Have a look back at history. We live in a constantly changing dynamic world. Cities come and go. If/when Bangkok starts getting flooded then people will start moving elsewhere. Some of the great cities of ancient times no longer exist, but it makes no difference because others took their place. Look at Detroit - it's crumbling back to dust. I don't know why anyne cares. The world moves on. If Bangkok ceases to exist it won't happen over a week end, it will happen of 100+ years and no-one will notice. The change will be so slow that the people living there at the time won't know any different - unless they read their history books.

Yes some cities have come and gone but the process is//will be happening much faster and the number of people involved and the lose of wealth is dramatically higher than at any point in the past. And if Bangkok ceases to exist in a century, millions are going to notice. Do you think that the (ex) inhabitants of New Orleans didn't notice what happened to them? Of course they did. And the fact that people have always suffered doesn't lessen or eradicate the reality of suffering now or in the future.

What do you call suicide bomb attacks that kill and maim, what do you call IED that kill and maim, what do you call ragheads who plan and carry out these attacks in the name of god ? freinds ,

Well, until recently, the americans called them exactly that (well, not exactly that - I think it was 'freedom fighters'). And gave them lots of money and guns. In fact, the Karzai government is so corrupt that they're probably still doing it.

Uh huh. More lithium, I think.

Thai hospitals should be allowed to hold lotteries to earn income as in Canada, each hospital could have its own lottery and the needed funds will appear. Support the hospital of your choice buy purchasing their lotto tickets. The solution is simple.

That's an excellent idea. The amount people spend on lotteries would solve a lot of their problems and go to a good cause too. Have to be well run mind.

That's a terrible idea. Lotteries are played overwhelmingly by the poor. A decent progressive tax, inheritance tax, and/or land tax is what's needed. At the very minimum.

So, who's for the chop first? I guess all the skeptics should be rounded up and executed.

Well, now you mention it....

As fer the Real Climate site, it is the house organ of The Team; Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and all those other wonderful fantasists who brought us the ClimateGate scandal. its alarmist rhetoric is only matched by its lack of credible science.

Oh dear.

Parts of Bangkok are beneath sea-level but 9 metres does seem to be pushing it.

That's a forecast, not a historical record. If you go to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/ippc-sealevel-gate/ and scroll down you'll see links to a bunch of papers and press releases on this.

You would have, is a view that there are a number of steps involved in conducting those operations, and preventing civilian casualties is considered in that process.

And that's not reported? Don't be ridiculous. What do you think the army has a press office for? I don't need to join the army to get information on what the army claims it does to avoid civilian deaths.

you would be complaining about the Taliban and Al Qaeda attacks, last report I saw attributed about 76% to them.

Link? If there were members of the Taliban posting on Thaivisa I would argue with them too.

The sea-level rise has been estimated at around 1.5 millimeters, not 18mm per year. If you work with data that has been exaggerated by a factor of 10, you are bound to get absurd results.

2 metres by 2100 is probably at the upper bounds of predictions but a metre is quite possible. There's also a considerable degree of local variation in this - sea levels do rise equally.And on top of that, you have other factors. For example,if you have increased precipitation in more extreme weather events (which is very likely) then Bangkok will obviously at even greater risk of flooding.

It's pretty obvious that Bangkok's long-term future is somewhere between dire and non-existent but at the same time, it's not going to disappear beneath the waves by lunchtime next Thursday.

No I mean, that if many of you saw things first hand, you would understand what is going on. Some of you seem to be under the impression they are launching these drone attacks and shooting up the place at will, that's not the case.

No, I'd have a very partial view of what happened in a few instances but because I would be involved in it, I'd be in worse position to make a judgment, That's why, for example, the practice of embedding journalists is so terrible (and why governments are so keen on it). As for shooting up the place, thousands of innocents have been killed by drone attacks. That sounds like shooting up the place to me.

Serious question - Which countries were neutral immediately after 9/11? Switzerland?

I don't' know but the offer was instantly refused by Bush so the question never arose. The refusal was not based on a rejection of the neutrality of any particular country which had been proposed; it was based on america's 'right' to kick in any doors which it chose to kick in.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there are a great number of people that share my views.

On Thaivisa? Undoubtedly but having lots of Thaivisa posters share your opinions should be a cause for considerable concern, not self-congratulation.

If you got some of your knowledge from first hand experience instead of reading websites and newspapers you would probably think differently.

You mean, if someone were part of the american - or British or whoever - army and he or she were involved directly in the killing, they would think differently about tit. Yes, of course they would. They'd be in a worse position to reflect on the morality of their actions. That's one of the reasons why - in theory, at least - the army don't get to decide which countries to pick fights with.

The Taliban offered to hand Bin Landen over to a neutral country if the americans gave them proof of Bin Laden's guilt and stopped bombing their country. However unpleasant the Taliban are/were, those are not unreasonable demands and I would certainly hope that Britain would ask for proof before handing over a suspect to the americans (although they probably wouldn't because British governments are astonishingly spineless when it comes to dealing with the americans).

Well done Bolivia. Good to see Evo Morales doing the right thing, yet again.

How silly. Why don't they all just send their children to Eton?

Welcome to the Real World! In the Real World, the strongest and most powerful can actually go around kicking in doors looking for someone who has pissed them off. That's the way it always has been and always will be. The Redcoats used to pull that door kicking-in on the Americans and now they do it for the Americans. I'm sure some time in the future, some country (or alien race like the Zobamians?) will come to America and kick in doors. What goes around, comes around.

So there's no such thing as morality, only interests and the extent to which you can get away with pursuing them. In that case, I hope you never complain about people launching attacks on Americans - like, oh, I don't know, 9/11. After all, if you've pissed them off - and there's no point denying that - there's nothing wrong with their kicking in your door.

Look up the definition of murder, it is not murder. And I don't have to watch the news, I'm there for some of it first hand, not sitting on my ass behind a computer monitor talking or running my fingers on a keyboard as it were, about stuff I know nothing about.

How did you manage to type that then?

Go get 'em Rambo!

Actually, I'm taking a break for while, but have been there and will try to go back after the first of the year. What about you, want to come use your computer in Iraq or Afghanistan?

I think you'll find that the good Private Manning saved us all the bother.

I was going to answer greng jai as the worst value, but then I realised it was about value not values.

In rea;ity it is an autonomous area where the Pakistani government is absent. Pakistan does not control the border region, the Taliban does

It's a tribal zone where the government does not have legal authority; it's not that the Pakistani army can't be bothered to go there - they can't. And heroin has been there for years. I went there in the early 90s, long before the Taliban appeared, and back then it was all guns and smack, though the Americans were not especially worried about it then.

You don't have to intend death to commit murder; there being a significant risk of death is sufficient (as far as I know) so if you do something which will almost certainly result in someone's death, you can still be done for murder even though you might not have directly intended that person's death. In the case of the drone attacks, there is clearly significant risk of civilian death. But even from the standpoint of the American army, it's a spectacularly stupid policy which only serves the interests of their enemies.