Hanaguma

Nice try, won't fly. The problem is that Afghanis can't change the system themselves, and won't accept outside aid to change either. A real no win situation. Similar to when police arrive at a domestic violence call. A man is beating a woman so the police peel the guy off of her. Then, she starts hitting THE POLICE, screaming "let my man be!". You can't drag people into the 21st century from the 14th unless they are at least somewhat willing to be dragged. If you want to get through to the Taliban, perhaps cutting off international aid for a start? Or at least make receiving aid conditional on meeting certain human rights targets. Half the national economy is foreign aid. Farmers can't feed themselves. The only viable industry is 'poppies'. Nobody knows where aid goes- there is no accountability or clarity. Until there can be some progress on this, the place will remain a basket case.

Not Bangkok but Chiang Mai if it helps you (or someone). Bangkok Bank, Siam TV branch. No fuss no muss no bother. Nice staff and very professional. My wife and I were both on visa exempt status. What we did was contact an agency to help us get us Residency Certificates. We got TM30 forms from our landlord (we stayed in an AirBnb for a month) and sent them to the agency. Think it cost 3000 baht altogether. We did have to try 2 bank branches though. One wanted us to buy some bogus insurance for 5,900 baht each in order to open the accounts. But the Siam TV branch was smooth as silk. Just hinted that we needed the accounts for a future transfer of a large amount of cash for visas, condo purchase, etc. Dressed well, showered, had all the paperwork printed and neatly sorted.

I have to be honest, you may be right. It may not be for the name change. But then, what is it for? I have tried to find out, the trail has only been opened for 4 years so it obviously doesnt need renovation or improvement. So where is the money going? Devilishly hard to find out how or why Congress is spending so much. Just one rather egregious example of waste that was packed into this bill. It is a <deleted> process that both sides gleefully take part in. Fie on the Republican senators who voted for this- wonder how much in earmarks THEY each got?

You might want to ask Rep. Hank Johnson about it. He is the member who had the earmark added to the bill. Then again, he is also the guy who thought that the island of Guam would tip over if too many extra military personnel were stationed there.

The federal government managed to run a deficit of $250 billion in NOVEMBER alone. The national debt has now hit $31 trillion. With a "t". It is sad that the only time there is any bipartisan agreement in Washington is when they are trading financial handjobs.

I agree. Fair enough. Neither country is free. Better?

Not defending Russia at all, the place is a cesspit of corruption. Just saying that holding Ukraine up as a beacon of democracy and freedom is simply not accurate. A not free country invades a partly free country and....

Exactly. Like Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard...

Defence of freedom and democracy? Please. Ukraine is not exactly a haven of either one. Freedom House rates Ukraine as "partly free", below countries like Brazil and bulwarks of democracy like Tunisia. Ironically, also below Hungary, a nation that gets a lot of stick around here.

This is classic, trying to tie skepticism of spending on Ukraine to Trump somehow. Typical.

What else could it be for? The trail was built in 2016, so obviously it was not in need of repair or renovation. And you can find lots of pictures of happy people standing beside new signs proclaiming the new name. Just admit that it is ridiculous and move on.

Newsweek seems to think so... DeKalb County Commissioner Larry Johnson led the resolution to rename the trail after Obama, saying he was inspired by her "Let's Move" anti-childhood-obesity initiative and passion for physical fitness. The decision to rename the trail was unanimously approved by the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners in late 2016, according to a news release. https://www.newsweek.com/michelle-obama-trail-funding-omnibus-bill-republican-fury-1768635

I would have volunteered to paint the signs and groom the trail myself! How about not naming it at all? Or keeping the perfectly acceptable name "South River Trail"? She has no ties to Georgia that I can see, so it is pointless. But only four million bucks, who cares, right?

Ah, Congress. Release a 1.7 TRILLION dollar spending spree. At 130am on Tuesday. With all of 72 hours to read the 4,000 plus pages. j One last chance for the outgoing Democratic majority to take another deep slurp from the neverending trough of money that is Washington DC. But hey, Christmas is coming so just vote it in and go home. Ain't democracy grand? No doubt stuffed with more pork than a Jimmy Dean sausage. But all is good, now that Michelle Obama will have a trail named after her in Georgia, for the low price of $3.6 million.

On that point we can agree, Trudeau's gun policy is a sad joke. Not sure if I would call $80 billion a "rounding error" though. As I said before, in Canada it amounts to $800 per family.

Seven billion dollars of "stood up". That is 20% of the federal deficit this year. Sorry, I am not going to be happy for the next generation to be left footing the bill for this. I cannot see Canada's national interest in this.

Periods. They aren't just for breakfast. I see you are another member of the "whatever it takes" fanclub. Except you probably don't really mean it as anything other than a facile virtue signal. Does it mean go to war? Nuke Russia? Bankrupt your country to defend Ukraine? Try to be a bit more specific.

...and that would be a Good Thing? Worked great for Yugoslavia, didn't it...

No conspiracy, just realism. Domestic politics almost always impacts foreign policy, especially in the US. Now, do you have any thoughts on a realistic endgame scenario? Russia just says "oops" and goes home?

Perhaps because winning isn't the goal. The goal is to fuel the machine. There are also domestic political considerations for Biden. Ukraine is a good distraction from the real troubles that exist within the borders of the United States. Also anything to do with Putin instantly draws a crowd of shrill T D S patients to the party. Like I have said many times, let's imagine that Ukraine 'wins' the war and drives the Russians back to the original borders. Now what? Putin/Russia won't just stop fighting. They have sunk costs they need to recoup somehow.

Perhaps you missed this link i posted earlier, from CSIS: https://www.csis.org/analysis/aid-ukraine-explained-six-charts US military aid alone is $27 billion and climbing. Other countries $10 billion and climbing. More to come. Plus lots of humanitarian aid serves to free up other money that can be used for military purposes. In any case, perhaps you are right. Comparing aid to the entire Russian defence budget is foolish. After all, how much of Russia's defence budget is actually committed to the Ukraine war? Perhaps half? In that case, aid to Ukraine is equal to the Russian expenditure. I am still a bit amazed by the vitriol on the part of those who are such unquestioning supporters of Zelensky. It really irritates them if someone dares to disagree. The comparisons I saw to Churchill on the news today were gag inducing. Zelensky is just another leader of a pseudo democratic country with his hand out.

Chomp, those are good questions. I will try and answer your two messages here, if that is OK... First, regarding Putin's ambitions. They are limited by his military capacity. The Russian Army cannot carry out offensive operations anywhere too far from the Russian border. They do not have airlift or logistics capability to operate at a distance. So no I am not worried about him invading another country. Where do you think he will target next? I can't think of anywhere. Again, "let's arm Ukraine" sounds lovely but it is actually very simplistic. We need to decide what the endgame is, and what is acceptable as a compromise solution that does not set off a larger conflict. "Let the Russians take care of Putin" again sounds good. But... who comes next? I cannot see a Russian version of Barack Obama on the horizon. Chances are the next guy will be even worse, with fewer scruples and more aggression. Better to deal with the devil we know than the one we don't. And to answer my own question about NATO intervention, I would say no. No under any circumstances in Ukraine. IF Putin attacks a NATO member then all bets are off. How about you?

...and you would assume wrong. No surprise there. Great hyperbole there. The MIC must love you.

Yes because I don't think there IS risk of escalation, at least in the conventional military sense. The Russian military has proved largely incompetent. It is NOT the same as the spectre the Soviet Red Army posed inthe 60s and 70s. They do not have the capability to invade western Europe or threaten NATO. And let's speculate that, with the help of the west, Ukraine is able to beat the Russians back to the pre-war borders- again, including Crimea? Now what..... You cannot seriously think Putin will just put his tail between his legs and slink off. The biggest threat of escalation IMHO is in nuclear weapons. Russia has them, lots of them. The treat is a catastrophic defeat of the Russian Army could trigger a nuclear response. This is what I worry about the most.

I think this is where we differ. I do not think Russia can fight any other wars. They don't have the military capacity. I don't think Europe or Nato are under threat from the Russian military.