jpinx

The US has security agreements with countries in the area. We were not in Chinese waters, at least not as recognized by the people we have security agreements with.

Unfortunately those agreements are not with all the countries in the area -- only some of them.

quote

I like this quote from the Italian PM """"I have to keep the ship afloat, I want there to be instruments for growth without wrecking public finances," Letta told reporters in Brussels where he was attending a summit of European Union leaders. "Nobody has a magic wand, we can't print money." """"" "" we can't print money"" Well exactly. Because you are in the EU. Unlike the UK and USA who are printing however they like haha - http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKBRE9BJ0KM20131220

Has to be said that for all the problems of the euro, it has stopped panicking governments just printing their way out of trouble. Shame USA and UK can't join and let the Germans teach them how to manage their finances !

Further off-topic posts will be deleted. Although rather interesting, this thread has veered far from the original topic.

Agreed - but there's no detail of what the 2 ships were doing. Were they side-by-side, parrallel course, or noe-to-tail? The usual hot air coming out as the 2 sides try to gain the P.R. advantage, but scant respect for the truth

I went back and reread the CNN report of the incident (http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/13/politics/us-china-confrontation/index.html?iref=allsearch) and while it is not totally clear, it appears that the Chinese ship was on course to cross the bow of the Cowpens and that the Cowpens had to do an All Stop (i.e. reverse engines to slow the ship) in order for the Chines ship to pass in front of it.

David

Thanks for the link 500 yards is well outside the distance at which the Cowpens could have altered course to pass behind the Chinese ship. Looks like they were playing chicken and Cowpens lost

Further off-topic posts will be deleted. Although rather interesting, this thread has veered far from the original topic.

Agreed - but there's no detail of what the 2 ships were doing. Were they side-by-side, parrallel course, or noe-to-tail? The usual hot air coming out as the 2 sides try to gain the P.R. advantage, but scant respect for the truth

It's common for adversaries to project their hopes of perceived weaknesses on to leaders of the other side. Kruschev did it with the young JFK during the cold war. Kruschev was wrong, and was forced to withdraw from Cuba with his tail between his legs. Obama is not weak, unless a person or politburo wants to project that image upon him. He's not weak, mentally or materially, as head of the most powerful armed services in world history. There's also the myth, among the US's adversaries, that Americans can talk tough, but are pansies if there's a chance of things getting bloody. That's also garbage, as proven by the recent wars where Americans have suffered casualties. And more often than not, so-called US allies have stood on the sidelines pontificating and wringing their hands. Additionally, though China doesn't get involved with any dirty business worldwide (except its occupation of Tibet), and feigns from helping any country humanitarily, it's often the first on the scene when the dust clears - gladhanding with smiles and contracts for resources. It's happening now in Sudan and Afghanistan and other places where China stood aside while the US and allies did the dirty work.

Most of the west coast of both North and South America was populated by chinese incomers who conquered the various coastal tribes. The chinese were very happy with all the gold and other natural resources but went home after some major tsunami demolished most of what they had established and in south america the Incas took over mostly. Now the chinese have re-conquered the wealthy parts of what they lost in a fiscal way.

Chinese did not conquer any parts of the western regions of north or south America. Perhaps you're alluding to approx 34,000 years ago when tribes started crossing the then-land-connected strait between what is now Siberia and Alaska. If you want to call those travelers 'Chinese' that's up to you. More correctly, they were Siberians more closely related to Innuit. I've heard talk of the Ainu from Hokkaido being part of those series of migrations, but the post above is the 1st I've heard of Chinese in that context.

"Conquered" is perhaps too strong a word, but "took over" is what they did. If you know anything about Peru you will understand this.

1,442 AD -- Mahuika tsunami wrecked Chinese empire and allowed Inca invasion of coastal plains

http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-612382-1-1.html

http://www.molossia.org/chinese.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahuika_crater

ref -- 11 Gavin Masters "1434" and "1421" published by Harper collins. (William Morrow)

I looked at the 3 links. The 1st is a Chinese blog within which a blogger sings praises of Menzie's claims of Chinese settling N. America's west coast many hundreds of years ago. It's understandable that the Chinese would love Menzie's book (1421) because it burnishes an image of China exploring, mapping (and establishing settlements) worldwide during the early 15th century. The 3rd link is odd. I can't figure the connection. The 2nd link is interesting. Though I'm from that part of California where the ancient Chinese are purported to have explored, I honestly haven't heard the claims prior, nor heard of the supposed proofs offered in the write-up. Perhaps I'm out of the loop, but I have studied the native tribes in that region (Maidu, Modoc, etc), and there was never any mention of intruders from afar. If the Chinese want to accept a revisionist history, it's easy to do. It won't be the first time. They do it successfully with Tibet.

It's a fascinating topic because so little is known about the americas before the european colonisation, but it's reasonably obvious from historical fragments and inferences, as well as continuing re-discoveries in places like Peru and California, that there was extensive trade with China. I know from first hand experience that there is noticeable chinese cultural influence in Peru which pre-dates the incas. China was, and still is, clever enough to now that armies only conquer for a short time - real conquests are done by trade. Western nations are still struggling with this concept.

The reference link to the NZ tsunami gives the tsunami source and approximate date. It was huge and pretty much wiped out many coastal communities in Peru. There is probably evidence of it's effects in other parts of the west coast of the americas, but no-one has been looking or reporting much yet. Interestingly there is a very real possibility of a prior mega-tsunami around the year 1,000 AD.

There is so much we do not know about the worlds history and how humanity fits in. Indeed most discoveries are poo-poo-ed by the establishment until evidence is irrefutable - few people like to take a leap of faith based on some clues

Meantime - China will continue to exercise US minds in their attempts to re-colonise the Philippines, etc, on the basis that they were there first :tongue-in-cheek:

Edit --

P.S. Watch what's happening here in Thailand with Chinese economic influence becoming more obvious culturally and commercially.

I can remember doing business before mobile phones and calculators (abacus notwithstanding) -- and doing mental arithmetic in £.s.d. Try totalling 9 items at 5/11½ in you head

Most of the west coast of both North and South America was populated by chinese incomers who conquered the various coastal tribes. The chinese were very happy with all the gold and other natural resources but went home after some major tsunami demolished most of what they had established and in south america the Incas took over mostly. Now the chinese have re-conquered the wealthy parts of what they lost in a fiscal way.

Playing with boats in their local pond is just a diversion

P:S: 500yards apart is a long way if they are running parallel courses. Refuelling at sea requires much closer proximity.

Heat is probably the greatest single reason for phone/tablet failures. Do everything you reasonably can to allow cooling and prevent overheating. Keep it out of the sun and not in a pocket against your body or grasped in a sweaty hand. Best to not use the trendy silcon covers too. Wifi makes them hotter than 3G -so if you don't actually use wifi - turn it off and disable it's automatic ON function. By turning off apps you're not using much you can reduce the processors workload too.

I'm surprised you feel that 3G would make your phone hotter than WiFi, for me it's the opposite.

And if you would look into it, a 3G radio actually uses much more power than WiFi. In addition most phones today utilize Power Save Mode to lower the energy usage even more for Wifi. So transferring data over WiFi will use less power than over 3G.

Good advice to turn off WiFi when not using it, as scanning for and connection to an Access Point is where WiFi will draw a lot of power.

Maybe you misread what I wrote BTW - Heat is not directly associated with power consumption, probably more related to CPU cycles.

FWIW -- If I am not expecting calls and don't need internet for a while I put the whole device offline -- that's off WIFI *and* off the mobile network. There's a lot of energy used in chasing a network signal when you are travelling. Not a huge problem as any missed calls will be notified when it goes back on the network.

You do not need an O/A visa to retire in Thailand. Is there a particular reason for making this choice ?

You could avoid all the O/A hoops !

Just ask here !

Thanks for the reply Sceptict11.

I've mulled over which route to take for over a year now and, for my own reasons have decided not to tie up 800,000 Baht in Thailand at this stage. With the O-A, I am able to leave it where it is for almost two years.

Also, whilst the costs of obtaining the O-A certainly add up!, the idea and convenience of an almost two year stay with only one exit and 90 day reports appeals.

I appreciate that you might have other considerations, but bear in mind that there is the income method to extend your retirement visa. That is what I use and I do not have any money in any Thai bank. There is no need to deposit, season, etc that 800k Baht. You can arrive on a tourist visa or even just a stamp-on-arrival and go through the whole process with the immigration office in Thailand.

There's another thread running in here which goes into the in's and out's of an Aussie getting the needed income letter from the Oz embassy in Thailand. With that letter each year the retirement extension is a breeze

I always carried a cold box / esky / dtung yen with me to keep the beers cold ,

Now I just put the ice the beer glass when it gets too warm !

Could not be fussed with the extra baggage .

Never did that In Australia , sure to get a lot of stares !

You're still young ...--... when you are old you don't give a damn about stares

Based on reported experiences, your option Number 2 is probably most likely to succeed. Bear in mind that you are currently in the country illegally and if you are stopped prior to getting to immigration at the airport, you might get locked up.

Take the fine and a good attitude for the immigration officer in the airport as your best chance. Check with them, but reports indicate that you can come back as soon as you get a new visa (probably toursit visa). You can then explore the options for converting that and extending it based on supporting your child.

Good luck

Girls ½ my weight and ⅓ my age are mother to a rabble of kids

800K @ 3% in Thai bank is 24k. 800K @ 5% in various other international banks is 40k.

Cost of Embassy letter 1,900. Cost of Thai bank letter 100 baht.

Do the maths.

I understand your reasoning and agree with you, except there would be no point having the money invested in a bank outside of Thailand getting 5% because immigration wouldn't accept that.

Immigration don't have to accept it - your embassy does.

Having the money invested in Australia at around 4.5% doesn't do me any good, as I lose 50 cents in every dollar off my pension. I'm better off having the 800K invested here at 3%.

We're wandering off the discussion about retirement extension requirement alternatives and into the realms of where/how to best invest.

As I said earlier - everyone has to do their own calculation according to their situation. There is no "one-size-fits-all" answer to the original post.

800K @ 3% in Thai bank is 24k. 800K @ 5% in various other international banks is 40k.

Cost of Embassy letter 1,900. Cost of Thai bank letter 100 baht.

Do the maths.

I understand your reasoning and agree with you, except there would be no point having the money invested in a bank outside of Thailand getting 5% because immigration wouldn't accept that.

Immigration don't have to accept it - your embassy does.

800K @ 3% in Thai bank is 24k. 800K @ 5% in various other international banks is 40k.

Cost of Embassy letter 1,900. Cost of Thai bank letter 100 baht.

Do the maths.

:boggles:

It tells a lot about the girl who will tolerate that for the sake of being "supported"

.. in that it shows the depth of her commitment, a measure of personal sacrifice, to support her parents, and possibly a child too. Until you have been in the position of millions of Thai women, for whom a better alternative is hopelessly remote, you should not pass judgement. Often the parents tell them to stay with the jerk for as long as the money is coming in.

Ouch ! Don't bite so hard! The sad face in my post reflects your sentiments entirely. Sorry if I was too ambiguous. Not just in Thailand, but in many other less-developed countries where there is a chance the girls will do what it takes to improve the lot of the family - often putting her children through better education so that they do not fall into the same poverty trap. Save your anger for the guys who abuse the situation and disrespect the girl.

Heat is probably the greatest single reason for phone/tablet failures. Do everything you reasonably can to allow cooling and prevent overheating. Keep it out of the sun and not in a pocket against your body or grasped in a sweaty hand. Best to not use the trendy silcon covers too. Wifi makes them hotter than 3G -so if you don't actually use wifi - turn it off and disable it's automatic ON function. By turning off apps you're not using much you can reduce the processors workload too.

Probably the most interesting thing about this guy is the range of reactions he provokes -- all without trying

It tells a lot about the girl who will tolerate that for the sake of being "supported"

ok - Let's not get stuck into the old topic about medical care and costs which is done to death in other threads in here. It would be obviously unreasonable to expect every tourist to have enough to cover anthing other than basic care in the nearest government hospital in a public ward.

The point I am trying to focus on is the disparity between what is expected of a tourist compared to what is expected of a retiree. A tourist can stretch a triple entry visa to almost a year, not far short of the retirement extension, but the financial requirements are a world apart. The only reason I went from tourist visa to retirement extensions was the costs of visa runs and the likelyhood of refusal because of successive tourist visas.

There doesn't appear to be much correlation between the requirement and reality. We all know it is quite easy to live on 25,000 Baht per month if you stay out of bars. Basic UK pension is £110.15 per week -- that's about £477.32 per month which these days is about 25,000 Baht, so a UK pensioner could roll along happily enough. Asking for 65,000 must be based on some other criteria - or is it just a figure plucked out of the air. ?

Tourists are potentially asked to show 20,000 baht when they have a 60-day visa, not 130,000 Baht. Apparently not much logic to how the rules are devised...

Maybe they take into consideration the possibility of ill health and a hospital stay. Would a pensioner living on the basic pension in Thailand be able to afford private health care? Would he/she be able to pay for some kind of emergency medical treatment?

Where did you get the info re tourists being asked to show 20,000 baht on a 60 day visa? In my many trips before settling here I was never asked to produce any evidence as to financial status.

a 40,000 surplus per month is a hell of a lot of medical care

TBH I can't remember where exactly I saw the 20K figure for tourists, but there is certainly a requirement for a tourist to be able to demonstrate their ability to pay their way during their stay. Tourists don't get asked many things on their way in - finances, insurances, etc.

There doesn't appear to be much correlation between the requirement and reality. We all know it is quite easy to live on 25,000 Baht per month if you stay out of bars. Basic UK pension is £110.15 per week -- that's about £477.32 per month which these days is about 25,000 Baht, so a UK pensioner could roll along happily enough. Asking for 65,000 must be based on some other criteria - or is it just a figure plucked out of the air. ?

Tourists are potentially asked to show 20,000 baht when they have a 60-day visa, not 130,000 Baht. Apparently not much logic to how the rules are devised...