Donga

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Shooting the messenger and belittling me simply demonstrates you are as dumb as a can of soup.

 

Bye bye.

You crack me up Lacessit 😅

You started this with "I understand thermodynamics. Clearly you don't" , so yep, I responded on your "little word".

Like a good new Leftie (in days of olde, Lefties cared mostly about workers and general equality not the crap of today) you say I'm shooting the messenger - where did that come from? Are you truly an oracle? More like a rabid sheep, amid tales of doom & gloom.

And then you assert I'm as "dumb as a can of soup". Incredible.

Btw - I believe we should do what makes sense to mitigate global warming but with some caveats:
1. Ramp up nuclear energy and recognise the limits of intermittent renewables
2. Stamp on the media, professors and teachers from their wild assertions, often far more alarmist than the IPCC
3. Foster more debate instead of the BS, "science is settled" oxymoron - lets start with temperature records and weather events

12 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I don't need to read any of those. I understand thermodynamics, clearly you don't.

Haha so proud of your little word are we?

14 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

There will be intensifying hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, heat cells, droughts and floods. Helene and Milton are just the opening stanzas.

 

Watch your property insurance premiums go through the roof. Watch Trump say his thoughts and prayers are with the victims of natural disasters. If they are lucky, he may even send them toilet rolls.

 

I am wondering how many thermodynamic ignoramuses will be on this thread.

Keep the reading The Guardian, BBC, The Economist, ABC, Sydney Morning Herald, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, The New York Times and all the other mainstream left media and you'll wallow in doom and gloom until to you shuffle off this mortal coil - likely believing Western civilisation brought this calamity along with slavery, and all the other miseries of the world.

And please don't assume any moral high ground or intellect - totally unwarranted hubris. Or others might say... useful idiots.

3 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  It needs to be done , just like Germany were defeated in 1945 .

They need to be eradicated 

Moderate Moslems must disassociate from the extremists, not just in Gaza but everywhere these cretins are allowed to wield jihadist power - Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq and in the West where extremist moslems are emboldened.

Moslem extremism, i.e. doesn't recognise any other religion and sometimes against either Sunni or Shia, must be eliminated.

People not seeing this are naive. If they're backing Hamas, or Hezbollah, or even some notion of From the river to the Sea, they are truly useful idiots for the extremists.

15 minutes ago, niccodemi said:

Invade?? Israel has been occupying Gaza for decades...

Pardon? Israel withdrew from Gaza nearly twenty years ago, as agreed. Hamas brutally beat Fatah in the 2006 elections, on the platform of eradicating Israel - so tunnels, weaponry, command centres in schools, hospitals, one command tunnel was just below UNRWA Gaza HO. The UN is appalling useless at best, complicit at worst.

Do you remember when Egypt occupied Gaza?

You ought to read up a little more.

5 hours ago, jippytum said:

Nothing new here. Rubert Murdoch for example  has influenced elections in different countries for decades via his media empire. 

Murdoch empire influence is exaggerated continually by the left. In Australia, Sky News on TV is subscription, same for their website news, and have no radio. The left/Green/Free Palestine/Woke ABC have free to air TV, free web access and radio throughout the country. Fortunately their regional radio is not as biased as the capital cities. Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in Melbourne are not as biased as the ABC, but certainly not given to conservative views. The Guardian in Australia is not far removed from Al Jazeera in their view of the world.

In US and UK there is a range of left wing media - BBC, The Guardian, Washington Post, CNN, New York Times. Murdoch knows his market and reaches out to them just as the others reach out to theirs.

So why do left wing folk blame Murdoch when they lose an election, but unwilling to credit the support of the many friendly media when they win?

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

Is that the best you have to offer?

 

Your interpretation against my interpretation?\\

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=invasion+meaning&sca_esv=cc7df08423f9a468&sxsrf=ADLYWILeCJfZDC28VJy1mSTOwRinPJ2d2w%3A1729752737416&source=hp&ei=oe4ZZ4TuFtWTseMP55rw2Q4&iflsig=AL9hbdgAAAAAZxn8sSiw5_mRkhaL2wyssbx5jcIHTFQS&oq=invasion&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IghpbnZhc2lvbioCCAIyCBAAGIAEGMsBMggQABiABBjLATIIEAAYgAQYywEyCBAAGIAEGMsBMggQABiABBjLATIIEAAYgAQYywEyCBAAGIAEGMsBMggQABiABBjLATIIEAAYgAQYywEyCBAAGIAEGMsBSJxaUMQOWOsxcAF4AJABAJgBgwGgAegFqgEDNy4xuAEByAEA-AEBmAIJoAKwBqgCCsICBxAjGCcY6gLCAgQQIxgnwgIMECMYgAQYExgnGIoFwgIHEAAYgAQYE5gDDJIHAzYuM6AHlTM&sclient=gws-wiz

 

An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.

So Ukraine has been invading Russia in the battle for their existence and Israel did the same after being attacked. Ditto Australia "invaded" Papua New Guinea in WWII.

Not sure you understand the nuances of invasion in terms of resisting attack, or simply choose to ignore the context.

On 10/23/2024 at 2:15 AM, billd766 said:

I also think that the Jews should live in Israel.

 

NOT in Gaza, or the West Bank of Jordan, or in Lebanon, or the Golan Heights in Syria, or any other country that Israel has invaded since 1948.

 

How about you?

"Invaded" is incorrect and unsure if you're smart enough to know it, and like many of the Left, don't have much respect for the truth when your cause is at stake, or whether you really have no clue.

Akin to wrong use of the word "genocide" - when one side is accused, after advising residents to get out of harms way - while the perpetrator deliberately places military command centres and weapons amongst civilians, schools, mosques, hospitals. Then fires guns and missiles from same civilian centres. Elements of mainstream media have no shame.

If not well read, read history of these "invasions" since 1948 and also consider what victors have done for eons - and especially relevant when Islamists continue to threaten and regularly terrorise - they create buffer zones.

Pity UN couldn't fulfill their role over 18 years with 10,000 soldiers to maintain the South Lebanese buffer zone.

Btw I'm certainly not Jewsih - more Buddhist than anything else ☺️

35 minutes ago, FriscoKid said:

Sexpat: The term sexpat is a portmanteau of “sex” and “expat” (short for expatriate) and refers to a person, typically a man, who relocates or frequently travels to foreign countries with the primary or significant purpose of engaging in sexual activities, often with local women. The term is often used pejoratively to describe individuals who exploit socio-economic disparities, especially in developing countries, to engage in sex tourism or exploitative relationships.

 

Sexpats may move to or visit regions where they believe sexual relationships are easier to obtain, cheaper, or involve fewer legal or social consequences. The term is commonly associated with certain parts of Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, though it can apply to any region.

 

The concept is criticized for perpetuating inequality, exploiting vulnerable populations, and sometimes contributing to human trafficking or the sex trade.

 

While sexpat and sex tourist are related terms, they describe different types of behavior, and the distinction between the two generally revolves around duration, intent, and the nature of the relationship to the host country.

 

1. Sex Tourist

 

• Definition: A sex tourist is typically someone who travels to a foreign country for a short period specifically to engage in sexual activities, often with locals who work in the sex trade.

• Characteristics:

• Short-term travel: A sex tourist might visit a country for a week or two, with a primary or secondary goal of participating in the local sex industry.

• No long-term commitment to the location: They don’t typically establish a permanent residence in the country they visit.

• Purely transactional: Interactions are typically brief and often focused on paid sexual encounters, with little to no intent of forming relationships.

• Focus on Exploitation: The term is often used negatively, associated with people who exploit economic disparities in developing nations to engage in cheap or easily accessible sex.

 

2. Sexpat

 

• Definition: A sexpat is an expatriate—someone who has moved or lives abroad—who has a lifestyle that revolves around engaging in sexual relationships with locals. This may involve both paid sexual encounters and longer-term relationships, often with significant power imbalances.

• Characteristics:

• Long-term residence: Sexpats often settle or live long-term in countries where they can engage in relationships, sometimes semi-permanent, with local partners. Many live there for years or even permanently.

• Relationships beyond one-time encounters: Unlike sex tourists, sexpats might seek out what they consider more “meaningful” relationships, though they may still be largely transactional. These could involve cohabitation, longer-term dating, or “girlfriend experience” arrangements.

• More embedded in the local community: Sexpats may integrate into the expat community in the country, developing social ties and making the country their home, though these ties may still be rooted in sexual relationships.

 

Key Differences:

 

• Duration of Stay:

• Sex Tourist: Short-term visits.

• Sexpat: Long-term or permanent relocation to another country.

• Nature of Interactions:

• Sex Tourist: Mostly focuses on brief, often anonymous encounters that are purely transactional (usually through the sex trade).

• Sexpat: May involve both transactional and semi-permanent relationships, including “girlfriend” or “wife” arrangements that still carry an economic component.

• Commitment to Location:

• Sex Tourist: Has no strong ties to the country beyond the visit.

• Sexpat: Chooses to live in the country and becomes part of the local expat community, though their interactions may remain exploitative.

• Motivation:

• Sex Tourist: Primarily visits a country for sexual activities, often as part of a broader vacation or travel itinerary.

• Sexpat: May have moved to the country specifically to enjoy the benefits of the local dating or sex culture on a long-term basis, often influenced by the power imbalance in their favor.

 

Overlap:

 

• Both sex tourists and sexpats exploit economic or social differences between themselves and local populations.

• Both terms are often used pejoratively to criticize behaviors that contribute to the exploitation of individuals in the sex trade or socially disadvantaged groups.

 

In summary, while a sex tourist tends to engage in short-term, often anonymous or transactional encounters during travel, a sexpat stays in the foreign country long-term, often building their life around more sustained and sometimes superficially more “stable” relationships, though they may still exploit the same economic and social imbalances.

Some more moralising and in my mind, naivety - "power imbalance", "exploitation", "socially disadvantaged" but especially loved "Sexpat: May involve both transactional and semi-permanent relationships, including “girlfriend” or “wife” arrangements that still carry an economic component."

People would understand Thai society and demographics more, if they travelled around, talked to the women, including the bar girls to understand the realities of "socially disadvantaged" (hardly a Thai concept, other than hi-so Thai), especially after a Thai woman divorces. From my observation and discussions, Thai women are generally content, what ever their circumstance, and above all very pragmatic and also loyal, trustworthy.

For those that sell their wares, Thai society is less judgemental than Western societies, and expect Buddhism plays a big part in this. Other ladies might look for a farang on a dating site - what is so "exploitive" about that?

I've witnessed many older farang, younger Thai relationships and the vast majority are successful in that they enjoy each others company, share common interests and above all, seem to have less angst than many Western unions - is this "power imbalance" or Thai tolerance mixed with farang gratitude? Bit of both I expect.

Had a wry smile with: "still carry an economic component" - most relationships carry an economic component whether in Thailand or the West. Could argue that in Thailand it is clearer what that component is 😅

We're fortunate to live in Thailand for many reasons - their culture, smiles, food, varied landscape, magnificent temples, ruins and right up there - freedom and tolerance. See very little exploitation and yet to see any underage stuff. I live near an entertainment area, but I'm not a bar guy, so maybe I'm naive in this case.

 

I recall that incident where the protest boat clearly caused the collision and Watson lied through his teeth as he instructed the protest vessel to be sunk to garner sympathy... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/oct/07/sea-shepherd-accused-protest-boat

Moreover the claims of whales becoming extinct are even less evident than the demise of the Great Barrier Reef. I also suspect the Japanese are not as irresponsible with their whaling quotas as the activists squawk.

2 hours ago, Kerryd said:

Burma is a puppet of China so the "West" has to steer clear.

Recall the weak justification the UN/NATO used to bomb Gadafi into non-existence - because oil companies in France and Italy had funded an "Arab Spring uprising" - led by Gadafi's former #2 man.

It is against the UN's own rules to instigate a "regime change" in any country so NATO was used under the pretext of "protecting civilians". And France was the leading voice calling for NATO to intervene.
And Gadafi met the same fate as Hussein.
And after Gadafi met his fate what was the first major news to come out of Libya ? That the two main gas companies (from France and Italy) had gotten the refineries and pumping stations running again.
Because that was what it was really about.

(Note that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other "Sunni" countries also brutally quashed the "Arab Spring" uprisings in their countries with NO condemnation from anyone.)

Same in Syria. A fundamentalist "Arab Spring" uprising started with a small group of hard-core, old school, fundamentalists hoping to overthrow Assad and establish a new "Caliphate".
The "West" jumped right in and started supplying those poor, outnumbered and outgunned "rebels" with weapons and ammo and warning Assad of severe "consequences" if he crossed any "lines in the sand".

But then the "West" found out that not only were those rebels Iranian/Afghan-type fundies, most of their fighters actually belonged to a half dozen recognized terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and Al-Nusrah among others.

And ! They quickly discovered that a lot of the arms, ammuntion and other materials sent to the "rebels" was showing up on the black markets in the region within weeks.

But they couldn't go in and bomb Assad into history like they'd done to Gadafi - because Russia had Assad's back.
And ! The rebels turned out to be worse than Assad ! 
They actually staged a number of "chemical weapons" attacks - in areas they controlled - in an attempt to drag America into the fight (after Obama had made his "line in the sand" statement that if Assad used chemical weapons against the rebels, that would be "crossing" that line and draw the US into the fight).

However, the West wasn't fooled. Especially as Assad had already (under UN supervision and assistance) disposed of any chemical weapons they had and the UN had inspected all the chemical plants under Assad's control.

But oddly enough - they NEVER inspected the FOUR chemical plants that were in "rebel held" territory !

Also consider Rwanda. Mugabe was just as bad as Hussein, Assad or Gadafi - yet the world just looked the other way and pretended they couldn't see or hear anything.

When I was in Afghanistan we had a guy from Rwanda working in our Finance section.

One day, not long after the war in Syria kicked off, we were talking about it at lunch. We pondered the real reasons for the conflict and why the same countries (US/European mainly) weren't doing anything about Mugabe.

The Rwandan guy shook his head and said "What do we export ? Potatoes. Not oil. No one cares what happens to us."

And that was hitting the nail on the head. Hussein ? Iraqi oil. Gadafi ? Libyan oil. Assad ? Syrian oil.

Mugabe ? Rwandan potatoes. No interest to the "West" so no intervention.

Hlaing (Myanmar) ? Oil and Natural gas - but under China's umbrella. Most of Myanmar's exported commodities go to China (no surprise), India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea and Germany. Most of Myanmar's imports come from China (no surprise), Thailand and other countries in the region.

Zero chance the UN or the "West" will do anything about what is happening in Myanmar other than maybe some weak sanctions (if China agrees) or travel restrictions on the senior leadership.

And as long as Thailand keeps dancing to China's tune, there's zero chance they'll do anything either.

And even if something "major" happened that required a response from Thailand, what are they going to do ? Go to war with a country that is heavily backed - and supplied - by China ? To whom Thailand is already heavily in debt to.
They could go to the ineffectual, corrupt UN about it - and get a tepid response and maybe, if they are lucky, a weak, unenforceable "resolution" condeming (whatever happened) but recommending "discussions" and "negotiations" because they already know China will veto any military response.

And let us not forget, Thailand is but a "coup" away from becoming exactly like Cambodia and Myanmar.

And if China has it's hooks in deep enough, the "West" will be forced to sit back and mouth meaningless statements about "restoring order and democracy" and then go back to watching whatever sports match is on the tele.

Because there's pretty much zero chance anyone will intervene to "save" Thailand even if they go "full Junta" and start mowing people down in the streets.

In fact, all that would do would be to play right into China's hands by giving them the justification to invade to "protect the innocent civilians".

And the UN and the West will make grand statements about respecting Thailand's independence and the rights of the people - and then ignore it as they know they are pretty much powerless to do anything about it anyways.

(I suspect we have less than 20 years before conjecture becomes reality.)
Unless "something" happens somewhere else in the world sooner. Like if the Middle East were to escalate into a full-fledged regional conflict, and the war in Ukraine escalated, and maybe even India and Pakistan started poking each other with more than sticks and stones. China could make moves on Taiwan and in the South China sea as well as Thailand (and maybe Myanmar and Laos) and the "West" would be screwed.

They'd be flipping coins to see which conflict to respond to and which to basically ignore and hope for the best. But they'd never come to an agreement about which should have a priority over the others and if they did, it would be Europe first, Middle East second, India/Pakistan third (because of the danger of it escalating into a nuclear conflict) and SE Asia would be a distant 4th.

I'd say - start planning now - but I'm a realist, not a fortune teller. And the reality is, we're probably screwed no matter what. 
Unless you move to a remote village in the middle of the Andes mountains. 

Agree with much of your analysis, however believe you're being a tad harsh in some areas, e.g. "And let us not forget, Thailand is but a "coup" away from becoming exactly like Cambodia and Myanmar." Thailand has had military coups but not conducted themselves in the same way as Cambodia or Myanmar, and now less likely to go down that road again in my view. Thailand is quite different compared to its neighbours.

I suspect you overestimate the power of Russia, China, Iran & North Korea (I don't see Pakistan going to war with India) vs US, Europe, Japan, India, South Korea, Taiwan, even Australia who would have a role to play depending on the theatres of conflict. The economies of the evil lot are also in disarray, compared to US, Europe and Asian democracies.

Frustrating that UN is so powerless where it is required, while posturing as ethical carers in Gaza.

While things can look harrowing, I'm not as worried as to consider contingency plans. Thailand and Australia work for me and just hope we're in the right place if the tensions blow up in Asia Pacific.
 

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

Thanks.

Your links confirm rising sea levels.

The islands are not sinking, as I said, and everything else is hypothetical warnings and money grabbing.

Adaptation is a wonderful thing.

23 hours ago, stevenl said:

Looking forward to your links to reputable sources for your claim.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/505365/coral-atolls-might-outgrow-rising-seas-study

https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2020/11/30/low-lying-pacific-island-has-more-land-above-sea-level-than-in-1.html

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-08/why-are-hundreds-of-pacific-islands-getting-bigger/13038430

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213305421000059

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html

So many other references if you search. Pity one eyed media incapable of deviating from the doomsday narrative. You can't blame people of being skeptical when the doomsday drums bang on and on ad nauseum, e.g. Great Barrier Reef and yet it continues to go through the bleaching and restoration cycles as it has for centuries.

By all means, deal with climate change, but be honest about it.