user68677878

1 minute ago, Crossy said:

Also, I note that Makro (at least our local one in BKK) has pictorial illustrations of the various cuts available. Whilst I'm sure they are mostly decorative they do at least show roughly where on the beast each cut originates.

 

My experience over the years with Makro is they are not butchers but butcherers.

Well it certainly is not Buddhism- or the local version.

Saving face is important to most Thais. Instead of showing an emotion like anger or anxiety, for example, some locals will simply slap on a yim and act as if all is well. 

2 minutes ago, Anythingleft? said:

Something wrong with this whole set up, stinks of being too easy

Really, who would be that stupid........

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk
 

Plenty out there are!!!!!

20 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

Where did they see action?

There has not been a U.S President that has seen combat in a war since end WW2. The POTUS that have seen combat were-

George Washington: Revolutionary War (Continental Army)

James Monroe: Revolutionary War (Continental Army)

Andrew Jackson: War of 1812 (Army - Battle of New Orleans)

William Henry Harrison: Indian campaigns (Army)

John Tyler: War of 1812 (Army)

Zachary Taylor: War of 1812, Black Hawk War, Second Seminole War, Mexican-American War (Army)

Franklin Pierce: Mexican War (Army)

Abraham Lincoln: Black Hawk War (Indian Wars) (Army)*

Andrew Johnson: Civil War (Army)*

Ulysses S. Grant: Mexican War and Civil War (Army)

Rutherford B. Hayes: Civil War (Army)

James A. Garfield: Civil War (Army)

Chester A. Arthur: Civil War (Army)

Benjamin Harrison: Civil War (Army)

William McKinley: Civil War (Army)

Theodore Roosevelt: Spanish American War (Army)

Harry Truman: World War I (Army)

Dwight Eisenhower: World War II (Army)

John F. Kennedy: World War II (Navy)

Lyndon B. Johnson: World War II (Navy)

Richard Nixon: World War II (Navy)

Gerald Ford: World War II (Navy)

Jimmy Carter: Cold War era (Navy)

Ronald Reagan: World War II (Army Air Forces)

George H.W. Bush: World War II (Navy)

George W. Bush: Vietnam War era (non combat duties CONUS Texas Air National Guard)

4 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

How many other presidents served in Vietnam.

24 presidents have seen combat - not only VN. Trumps entire family from his grandfather forward have run hard from serving their country

Likely outcome for Thai governance:

a failed government;

coup;

prolonged military regime;

people’s uprising; 

and the most unlikely- a happy ending. 

Gen Prawit Wongsuwan said last month that the military will have to maintain power over the civilian government for the next five years because it is “necessary” for the “transitional period”. Isn't that a coup?????

And just where is the surprise in that!!!!!! Its a certainty

34 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

Yesterday was Canada Day. No tanks!

 

Do they own any??????

Ahhh so that is what he and Rocketman were talking about- Trump wanted to know just how to do it.

If keeping US troops in Afghanistan could guarantee that the US would not be targeted by further terrorist attacks, I would favour making the longest war longer still. But the terrorist threat has evolved since 9/11 and keeping US forces in Afghanistan does not "make America safe". The opposite is true. Occupying countries in the Islamic world exacerbates the threat rather than reduces it.

Trump is also on record as stating that US presence makes Afghanistan governable. Well how is that working out for you- https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2019-07-01/explosion-heard-in-diplomatic-district-of-kabul-reuters-witnesses

Or perhaps it really is just about securing the supply of opium for the ravenous American market

1 hour ago, ezzra said:

As long as leaders such Trump and Netanyahu and others who knows what Iran's intentions are are in power, Iran WILL NOT have weaponized nukes, period...

As long as we have leaders like you favour the threat of destabilisation will always exist

10 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

There is no need for Japan to lean as much on the USA. World war 2 is over they do not have any need to have constitutional constraints on what type of army they can have. Their probationary period is long over and they can and should take a more active role and defend themselves.

 

Either way NK is the same threat no more no less. They do anything they are obliterated. We don't need the troop presence in Japan or SK that was necessary in past years. Aircraft carriers and submarines hold the ultimate deterrent. 

The unthought out argument you put forward  would risk ceding security of the Western Pacific to China and potentially spurring a fresh nuclear arms race. Shelter from the so-called U.S. nuclear umbrella has allowed Japan to avoid developing its own arsenal -- a move that would raise tensions in China and the Korean Peninsula, where memories of past Japanese aggression run deep. To get around the constitutional ban, Japan has gradually built up a military it refers to as the Self-Defense Forces and has introduced modern weaponry, much of it purchased from the U.S., with an annual of 5 trillion yen. The loss of U.S. protection, combined with the proximity of nuclear-armed Russia/North Korea and a rapidly growing Chinese military, might be enough to push Japan down the nuclear route. It would also call into question the U.S.’s military commitments to Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan and a host of other allies around the world.

And its cheaper for the U.S. to keep its troops in Japan than to bring them home.